5 ms·

> Neither of these situations are ideal, nor are they catastrophic No, no, this is actually quite catastrophic. Someone else is deciding what is and isn't acce

> Neither of these situations are ideal, nor are they catastrophic No, no, this is actually quite catastrophic. Someone else is deciding what is and isn't acceptable for you to consume by default. Establishing the precedent that someone else knows better than you, what content is acceptable for you to view. That's absurd. Christopher Hitchens had a very poignant[1] part about why the path to hell is paved with censorship, and I think it's worth a watch. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIyBZNGH0TY&feature=youtu.be&t=20m15s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIyBZNGH0TY&feature=youtu.be...

zimpenfish 12y ago
> Establishing the precedent that someone else knows better than you, what content is acceptable for you to view. That precedent was set many years ago with the BBFC. Also with governmental meddling in the BBC, C4, etc.
Tombone5 12y ago
From those categorical statements I guess you are one of those that objects to sites defaulting to a language guessed from your ip location, or google trying to <strike>auto complete your search</strike> putting words in your mouth.
- akersten 12y ago
  > From those categorical statements I guess you are one of those that objects to sites defaulting to a language guessed from your ip location, or google trying to [auto complete your search] I think it's a stretch to compare using geolocation to make a good assumption about linguistics or using natural language processing to make a good assumption about a search completion, to using political rhetoric to make an objectively regressive default. I suppose if you considered the filter being on by default a "suggestion" (in the way that a language is suggested or a search term is suggested) then I could see the comparison, but that's a policy decision, and you as well as every other adult on the planet should be capable of self-policing.

zimpenfish 12y ago

> Establishing the precedent that someone else knows better than you, what content is acceptable for you to view. That precedent was set many years ago with the BBFC. Also with governmental meddling in the BBC, C4, etc.

Tombone5 12y ago

From those categorical statements I guess you are one of those that objects to sites defaulting to a language guessed from your ip location, or google trying to <strike>auto complete your search</strike> putting words in your mouth.

akersten 12y ago
> From those categorical statements I guess you are one of those that objects to sites defaulting to a language guessed from your ip location, or google trying to [auto complete your search] I think it's a stretch to compare using geolocation to make a good assumption about linguistics or using natural language processing to make a good assumption about a search completion, to using political rhetoric to make an objectively regressive default. I suppose if you considered the filter being on by default a "suggestion" (in the way that a language is suggested or a search term is suggested) then I could see the comparison, but that's a policy decision, and you as well as every other adult on the planet should be capable of self-policing.