5 ms·

That actually doesn't seem unreasonable to prohibit...

by cpks 12y ago

arpa 12y ago
why? Would it be reasonable to burn/censor books dealing with such matter, maybe describing some methods of suicide? Homicide? Different political views?
- vidarh 12y ago
  Suicide is a thorny issue, because while on hand there are free speech issues with it, and some people do think it through and have rational reasons for wanting to commit suicide (e.g. facing a protracted degenerative disease that causes lots of pain might be one), most people who are suicidal are most at risk as a result of temporary emotional states that they have little or no control over. Accordingly, adding very small roadblocks for people who are contemplating suicide can have substantial effects in reducing suicide (an example is the restriction on amount of paracetamol/acetaminophen that can be sold per transaction in the UK), and people who attempt suicide and fail often express relief afterwards. I'm not sure where the line ought to go, but that in any case puts it in a very different category from e.g. homicide or different political views. Censoring suicide instructions is probably by far the least objectionable part of Russian censorship.
  - pra 12y ago
    Do you really suppose that state-wide censorship machine is a justifiable and "a very small roadblock" for people contemplating suicide? Are you serious? Let's put the fact aside that these "instructions" are a joke; consider a wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods. Should this page be censored? Since when removing the definition of a word in a dictionary makes a thing disappear? Sure, suicide is an issue, sure, it's better not to have it, but to censor anything mentioning it sounds like a bad adaptation of Orwells' 1984. What's the problem with suicide prevention, suicide hotlines, destigmatisation of mental health problems? I'll tell you what's the problem - it doesn't help you instill an intellectual control system, censorship and, quite frankly, a form mind control (via media filters). A censorship by any other reason is still a tool of oppression. It is not a tool for solving problems. Also, could you please provide a reference to a single study published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal of psychology, which supports your claim that small roadblocks, and especially restriction on amount of paracetamol/acetaminophen sold per transaction helps prevent suicide. Coincidentally, paracetamol poisoning a retarded way to go - it is probably more painless to kill oneself by drinking a lot of water (6l per 3hrs is enough to kill you). Why aren't drinking water sales not limited then? In fact, why aren't we all absolved of our personal responsibilities and taken care by the state, like some kind of a nanny?
  - tomjen3 12y ago
    As long as you can get into your car, remove the seat belt and run 200 miles an hour into a bridge support the idea of censoring suicide is stupid. Of course the people who fail express relief - if they don't we might lock them up. The same goes for your blanket arguments about temporary emotional states, _when you threaten a man with prison (whatever the hell you want to call it) he is way likely to say whatever he thinks you want to get out_.
binarymax 12y ago
The problem with this position is that censorship is a very slippery slope. What happens when the boundaries keep getting pushed. Where do you stop? Who decides what is Ok and what is not? What may be amoral to one may not be amoral to another.
icebraining 12y ago
Even if it's legitimate to prohibit, it's even more futile than trying to stop file sharing. At least a copy of The Hunger Games doesn't fit in a 4chan comment.
ge0rg 12y ago
I am not so sure about it. Blocking/prohibiting information will only lead to increased interest, and it will never be possible to block all instances of that information. A far superior approach would be better social care for people who might commit suicide, but that would cost money and effort, as opposed to a symbolic act of prohibition. Besides, Internet filters always start with the really evil things, like suicide instructions or child pornography, and once established they are slowly expanded to cover terrorism, homosexual pornography, regular pornography, copyright infringement and finally political opposition. You really do not want to go down that slippery slope. One example of this is the UK porn filter which is now also used to block jihad propaganda: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/14/uk-isps-to-introduce-jihadi-and-terror-content-reporting-button http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/14/uk-isps-to...
- vidarh 12y ago
  > One example of this is the UK porn filter which is now also used to block jihad propaganda The article does not support your claim. EDIT: To clarify, as per the reply I gave further down: There is no country wide "UK porn filter". There are voluntary filters put in place by each of the largest providers that are wildly inconsistent in what they block, and wildly ineffective. Most of the filtering is also opt-in or opt-out for most of these providers, mostly apart from blocks targeting child porn. Outside of the top 5-6 providers, many smaller providers don't filter at all.
  - dsp1234 12y ago
    They have also agreed to ensure that terrorist and extremist material is captured by their filters to prevent children and young people coming across radicalising material.
    - vidarh 12y ago
      The point being there is no single government mandated "UK porn filter". Each of the biggest ISPs have individual filters. Many of the smaller ISPs don't have filters. EDIT: Maybe whoever downvoted might care to explain why? The comment is factual. There is no legally mandated filtering across the board in the UK. The only legally mandated filtering is a small set of specific court orders targeting a group of the largest ISPs, requiring them to filter specific sites (Pirate Bay being the main target).
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

That actually doesn't seem unreasonable to prohibit...

by cpks 12y ago

That actually doesn't seem unreasonable to prohibit...

arpa 12y ago

why? Would it be reasonable to burn/censor books dealing with such matter, maybe describing some methods of suicide? Homicide? Different political views?

vidarh 12y ago
Suicide is a thorny issue, because while on hand there are free speech issues with it, and some people do think it through and have rational reasons for wanting to commit suicide (e.g. facing a protracted degenerative disease that causes lots of pain might be one), most people who are suicidal are most at risk as a result of temporary emotional states that they have little or no control over. Accordingly, adding very small roadblocks for people who are contemplating suicide can have substantial effects in reducing suicide (an example is the restriction on amount of paracetamol/acetaminophen that can be sold per transaction in the UK), and people who attempt suicide and fail often express relief afterwards. I'm not sure where the line ought to go, but that in any case puts it in a very different category from e.g. homicide or different political views. Censoring suicide instructions is probably by far the least objectionable part of Russian censorship.
- pra 12y ago
  Do you really suppose that state-wide censorship machine is a justifiable and "a very small roadblock" for people contemplating suicide? Are you serious? Let's put the fact aside that these "instructions" are a joke; consider a wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods. Should this page be censored? Since when removing the definition of a word in a dictionary makes a thing disappear? Sure, suicide is an issue, sure, it's better not to have it, but to censor anything mentioning it sounds like a bad adaptation of Orwells' 1984. What's the problem with suicide prevention, suicide hotlines, destigmatisation of mental health problems? I'll tell you what's the problem - it doesn't help you instill an intellectual control system, censorship and, quite frankly, a form mind control (via media filters). A censorship by any other reason is still a tool of oppression. It is not a tool for solving problems. Also, could you please provide a reference to a single study published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal of psychology, which supports your claim that small roadblocks, and especially restriction on amount of paracetamol/acetaminophen sold per transaction helps prevent suicide. Coincidentally, paracetamol poisoning a retarded way to go - it is probably more painless to kill oneself by drinking a lot of water (6l per 3hrs is enough to kill you). Why aren't drinking water sales not limited then? In fact, why aren't we all absolved of our personal responsibilities and taken care by the state, like some kind of a nanny?
- tomjen3 12y ago
  As long as you can get into your car, remove the seat belt and run 200 miles an hour into a bridge support the idea of censoring suicide is stupid. Of course the people who fail express relief - if they don't we might lock them up. The same goes for your blanket arguments about temporary emotional states, _when you threaten a man with prison (whatever the hell you want to call it) he is way likely to say whatever he thinks you want to get out_.

binarymax 12y ago

The problem with this position is that censorship is a very slippery slope. What happens when the boundaries keep getting pushed. Where do you stop? Who decides what is Ok and what is not? What may be amoral to one may not be amoral to another.

icebraining 12y ago

Even if it's legitimate to prohibit, it's even more futile than trying to stop file sharing. At least a copy of The Hunger Games doesn't fit in a 4chan comment.

ge0rg 12y ago

I am not so sure about it. Blocking/prohibiting information will only lead to increased interest, and it will never be possible to block all instances of that information. A far superior approach would be better social care for people who might commit suicide, but that would cost money and effort, as opposed to a symbolic act of prohibition. Besides, Internet filters always start with the really evil things, like suicide instructions or child pornography, and once established they are slowly expanded to cover terrorism, homosexual pornography, regular pornography, copyright infringement and finally political opposition. You really do not want to go down that slippery slope. One example of this is the UK porn filter which is now also used to block jihad propaganda: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/14/uk-isps-to-introduce-jihadi-and-terror-content-reporting-button http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/14/uk-isps-to...

vidarh 12y ago
> One example of this is the UK porn filter which is now also used to block jihad propaganda The article does not support your claim. EDIT: To clarify, as per the reply I gave further down: There is no country wide "UK porn filter". There are voluntary filters put in place by each of the largest providers that are wildly inconsistent in what they block, and wildly ineffective. Most of the filtering is also opt-in or opt-out for most of these providers, mostly apart from blocks targeting child porn. Outside of the top 5-6 providers, many smaller providers don't filter at all.
- dsp1234 12y ago
  They have also agreed to ensure that terrorist and extremist material is captured by their filters to prevent children and young people coming across radicalising material.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    The point being there is no single government mandated "UK porn filter". Each of the biggest ISPs have individual filters. Many of the smaller ISPs don't have filters. EDIT: Maybe whoever downvoted might care to explain why? The comment is factual. There is no legally mandated filtering across the board in the UK. The only legally mandated filtering is a small set of specific court orders targeting a group of the largest ISPs, requiring them to filter specific sites (Pirate Bay being the main target).

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]