4 ms·

Censorship precedes demise. Surprisingly, it seems like people never learn. Censorship never is a solution, yet it eventually gets used by even those with the

Censorship precedes demise. Surprisingly, it seems like people never learn. Censorship never is a solution, yet it eventually gets used by even those with the best intentions toward free speech. I wonder what will need to happen for people to realize that censorship is a band-aid, not a cure. Whenever we try to censor/hide something, we should instead find ways for the world to still function properly once that knowledge is made public. In any case, I respect what the "leakers" did (transparency is good), and I respect Reddit's choice to do whatever they want with their property even though I don't agree with their decision. Like others have mentionned, time to find a platform that is not so sensible to censorship.

madeofpalk 12y ago
> I respect what the "leakers" did (transparency is good) What? You're not being serious are you? Are you actually saying that no one should have any sort of privacy?
- wcummings 12y ago
  Yeah... radical transparency isn't leaking nudes. That's just breaking the law.
  - miguelrochefort 12y ago
    What is good doesn't necessarily correlates with what is legal. I'm totally aware that it's illegal, but that doesn't mean I can't support it.
    - wcummings 12y ago
      In what was is this good for anyone?
      - miguelrochefort 12y ago
        Were there not any demand for these? Demand alone demonstrates it's good for at least a few people. Generally speaking, transparency makes the world better and more efficient. You might not be able to see what good it does, but the positive effect is certain. Privacy and secrecy is just ignoring the problems. We must see them in order to fix them, and that's why transparency and communication is so important.
        madeofpalk 12y ago
        I hate to go for the obvious one[1] here but... 'At least a few people' have demand for child porn and enjoy it. Are you saying pedophilia is good? [1] Please tell me which logical fallacy I'm using here
        miguelrochefort 12y ago
        I was asked if X is "good for anyone". I did not make any statement about the objective value (good or bad) of pedophilia, but I do think it's subjectively (to some people) good. Given an objective question instead of a subjective one, I would have answered differently.
        bane 12y ago
        Which part of which celebrity's body did you think needed "fixing"?
        miguelrochefort 12y ago
        What needs "fixing" is the thing for which all the drama is a symptom. Someone can tweet that [some celebrity] was at [some location] at [some time], and little or no drama will occur. We just accept that this knowledge can't remain secret, and that's alright. We should react the same way for all knowledge/data/information, including these pictures. I understand that people react this way because it's "new", but we quickly will get used to it, as these leaks will become the new normal. Transparency just accelerates this shift, which is unavoidable in the long run.
- miguelrochefort 12y ago
  Yes.
  - nknighthb 12y ago
    Post all your accounts and passwords right here, right now, or you are a hypocrite.
    - miguelrochefort 12y ago
      As long as we rely on secret keys to validate identity, making this information public would be a mistake. The objective of transparency is access to knowledge and truth. By making my private keys public, I give the world the power to claim to be me, which is fraud. This leads to the spreading of false information, which is against what is good. I wish I could share this information with you, but society currently makes it impractical by relying on the expectation that private key identification is reliable. I wouldn't be surprised if it were illegal for me to share such private keys.
      - nknighthb 12y ago
        So you're a hypocrite and a coward. If you won't practice what you preach, don't expect anyone else to.
        miguelrochefort 12y ago
        I believe that cocaine should be legal. Does that mean I should snort a line in front of a policeman?
        nknighthb 12y ago
        "Cocaine should be legal" is distinctly different from "everyone should do cocaine". If you said the latter, then the answer would be yes. You seek to deny everyone privacy. That does mean you should deny yourself privacy. But you won't.
wcummings 12y ago
Now that this subreddit is banned, no one will ever be able to see those pictures ever again, right? ...Right?
- miguelrochefort 12y ago
  We both know these pictures are now public knowledge for good. Reddit, in this case, just makes communication more difficult, which is a bad thing in my book. But I can't directly blame them without knowing their motivations or if they were coerced (which I think they were).
ayrx 12y ago
How the hell is taking down private photos obtained through illegal means censorship?
- wcummings 12y ago
  They weren't hosted by reddit, only indexed. Same legal argument made by The Pirate Bay. (Not a lawyer but) I think they would have been within their legal rights to say "not our problem", so it became an ethical consideration. Then they're in the game of saying "we won't takedown any content, except when we do." Here's a good example: there are a few assisted suicide subreddits, do you feel those should be removed? Do you think the reddit admins are the people who should be making that judgement?
  - pyre 12y ago
    Sounds like one of the concerns was logistical. There were so many DMCA takedown requests, reposts, etc, that it was taking up too much of their time/effort. If this actually was the case, do you say that they are obligated to just 'tough it out' or can they make a judgement call that it's not worth the extra effort?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - _delirium 12y ago
    Afaik reddit has the same policy about pirated stuff (unlike The Pirate Bay). You can't have a subreddit that's dedicated to mainly posting links to unauthorized copies of software/music/etc. Or rather you can if it's low-key, but if it attracts any outside attention or legal complaints, Reddit will shut it down.
- miguelrochefort 12y ago
  "Private photos" shouldn't be a thing in the first place. I'm not arguing whether or not what they did is legal. I'm simply communicating an ideal.
  - 12y ago

madeofpalk 12y ago

> I respect what the "leakers" did (transparency is good) What? You're not being serious are you? Are you actually saying that no one should have any sort of privacy?

wcummings 12y ago
Yeah... radical transparency isn't leaking nudes. That's just breaking the law.
- miguelrochefort 12y ago
  What is good doesn't necessarily correlates with what is legal. I'm totally aware that it's illegal, but that doesn't mean I can't support it.
  - wcummings 12y ago
    In what was is this good for anyone?
    - miguelrochefort 12y ago
      Were there not any demand for these? Demand alone demonstrates it's good for at least a few people. Generally speaking, transparency makes the world better and more efficient. You might not be able to see what good it does, but the positive effect is certain. Privacy and secrecy is just ignoring the problems. We must see them in order to fix them, and that's why transparency and communication is so important.
      - madeofpalk 12y ago
        I hate to go for the obvious one[1] here but... 'At least a few people' have demand for child porn and enjoy it. Are you saying pedophilia is good? [1] Please tell me which logical fallacy I'm using here
        miguelrochefort 12y ago
        I was asked if X is "good for anyone". I did not make any statement about the objective value (good or bad) of pedophilia, but I do think it's subjectively (to some people) good. Given an objective question instead of a subjective one, I would have answered differently.
      - bane 12y ago
        Which part of which celebrity's body did you think needed "fixing"?
        miguelrochefort 12y ago
        What needs "fixing" is the thing for which all the drama is a symptom. Someone can tweet that [some celebrity] was at [some location] at [some time], and little or no drama will occur. We just accept that this knowledge can't remain secret, and that's alright. We should react the same way for all knowledge/data/information, including these pictures. I understand that people react this way because it's "new", but we quickly will get used to it, as these leaks will become the new normal. Transparency just accelerates this shift, which is unavoidable in the long run.
miguelrochefort 12y ago
Yes.
- nknighthb 12y ago
  Post all your accounts and passwords right here, right now, or you are a hypocrite.
  - miguelrochefort 12y ago
    As long as we rely on secret keys to validate identity, making this information public would be a mistake. The objective of transparency is access to knowledge and truth. By making my private keys public, I give the world the power to claim to be me, which is fraud. This leads to the spreading of false information, which is against what is good. I wish I could share this information with you, but society currently makes it impractical by relying on the expectation that private key identification is reliable. I wouldn't be surprised if it were illegal for me to share such private keys.
    - nknighthb 12y ago
      So you're a hypocrite and a coward. If you won't practice what you preach, don't expect anyone else to.
      - miguelrochefort 12y ago
        I believe that cocaine should be legal. Does that mean I should snort a line in front of a policeman?
        nknighthb 12y ago
        "Cocaine should be legal" is distinctly different from "everyone should do cocaine". If you said the latter, then the answer would be yes. You seek to deny everyone privacy. That does mean you should deny yourself privacy. But you won't.

wcummings 12y ago

Now that this subreddit is banned, no one will ever be able to see those pictures ever again, right? ...Right?

miguelrochefort 12y ago
We both know these pictures are now public knowledge for good. Reddit, in this case, just makes communication more difficult, which is a bad thing in my book. But I can't directly blame them without knowing their motivations or if they were coerced (which I think they were).

ayrx 12y ago

How the hell is taking down private photos obtained through illegal means censorship?

wcummings 12y ago
They weren't hosted by reddit, only indexed. Same legal argument made by The Pirate Bay. (Not a lawyer but) I think they would have been within their legal rights to say "not our problem", so it became an ethical consideration. Then they're in the game of saying "we won't takedown any content, except when we do." Here's a good example: there are a few assisted suicide subreddits, do you feel those should be removed? Do you think the reddit admins are the people who should be making that judgement?
- pyre 12y ago
  Sounds like one of the concerns was logistical. There were so many DMCA takedown requests, reposts, etc, that it was taking up too much of their time/effort. If this actually was the case, do you say that they are obligated to just 'tough it out' or can they make a judgement call that it's not worth the extra effort?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- _delirium 12y ago
  Afaik reddit has the same policy about pirated stuff (unlike The Pirate Bay). You can't have a subreddit that's dedicated to mainly posting links to unauthorized copies of software/music/etc. Or rather you can if it's low-key, but if it attracts any outside attention or legal complaints, Reddit will shut it down.
miguelrochefort 12y ago
"Private photos" shouldn't be a thing in the first place. I'm not arguing whether or not what they did is legal. I'm simply communicating an ideal.
- 12y ago