Censoring White Supremacy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-08-2017, 05:37 AM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(25-08-2017 05:18 AM)PaulPablo Wrote:  ...
Personally I think censorship should only be applied on child pornography or when people are using the internet in some way to organise crime.
...

Yet aren't these the very things that would be easier to combat if they are not driven underground?

Consider

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
25-08-2017, 06:54 AM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(25-08-2017 05:37 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(25-08-2017 05:18 AM)PaulPablo Wrote:  ...
Personally I think censorship should only be applied on child pornography or when people are using the internet in some way to organise crime.
...

Yet aren't these the very things that would be easier to combat if they are not driven underground?

Consider

That's true.

I think with child pornography it's a case of trying to remove the material after the law has done all it can to combat the criminals who made and distributed it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2017, 07:08 AM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(25-08-2017 06:54 AM)PaulPablo Wrote:  
(25-08-2017 05:37 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Yet aren't these the very things that would be easier to combat if they are not driven underground?

Consider

That's true.

I think with child pornography it's a case of trying to remove the material after the law has done all it can to combat the criminals who made and distributed it.

Criminal exploitation would be in the making of it. Distributing it would be simply exploiting a market, would it not?

Why would that be a criminal activity rather than free trade or even freedom of expression?

Signed
Advocate of The Devil.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
25-08-2017, 07:55 AM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(25-08-2017 07:08 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(25-08-2017 06:54 AM)PaulPablo Wrote:  That's true.

I think with child pornography it's a case of trying to remove the material after the law has done all it can to combat the criminals who made and distributed it.

Criminal exploitation would be in the making of it. Distributing it would be simply exploiting a market, would it not?

Why would that be a criminal activity rather than free trade or even freedom of expression?

Signed
Advocate of The Devil.

I like your style of playing Devils advocate on these questions you're not supposed to ask.

questions like this make me think about what my own principles are.

In relation to trade I think there should be age regulations.

I don't think children should be allowed to be in porn, that would make the distribution of that porn also illegal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes PaulPablo's post
25-08-2017, 09:27 AM (This post was last modified: 25-08-2017 09:32 AM by Lord Dark Helmet.)
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
To me it's the same thing as the argument over gay weddings and florists/cake bakers.

One side likes to argue that the florist/baker should be forced to provide it's service to everyone because they're open to the public. They make use of the public owned roads paid for by taxpayers that lead to their stores.

The same standard should be set for all businesses. No refusal of service just because you disagree with someones politics or beliefs or morality.

If your business makes use of public traffic, you shouldn't be able to deny a constitutional right. Not sure how much of the internet is made available by the government, but if it is government run (or taxpayer funded, transported through government owned towers, satellites, cables, wires etc) then no, speech should not be restricted.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2017, 11:02 AM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(25-08-2017 09:27 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  To me it's the same thing as the argument over gay weddings and florists/cake bakers.

One side likes to argue that the florist/baker should be forced to provide it's service to everyone because they're open to the public. They make use of the public owned roads paid for by taxpayers that lead to their stores.

The same standard should be set for all businesses. No refusal of service just because you disagree with someones politics or beliefs or morality.

If your business makes use of public traffic, you shouldn't be able to deny a constitutional right. Not sure how much of the internet is made available by the government, but if it is government run (or taxpayer funded, transported through government owned towers, satellites, cables, wires etc) then no, speech should not be restricted.


I don't think that it is a good analogy. Companies like Google are essentially content companies--the product they offer is the display of content. In my view, this makes the issues surrounding companies like Google a free speech issue for Google. By your logic, the New York Times or any publisher would not be able to exercise editorial control of what is in their papers--someone could buy ad space and use it to run conservative news stories criticizing the NY times, and the NY Times could do nothing to prevent that.

The message that a wedding cake communicates is incidental to the making of the cake, and I do not see cake baking as involving the same sort of free speech issues as a publisher or online content company.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BryanS's post
25-08-2017, 11:10 AM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(25-08-2017 11:02 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(25-08-2017 09:27 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  To me it's the same thing as the argument over gay weddings and florists/cake bakers.

One side likes to argue that the florist/baker should be forced to provide it's service to everyone because they're open to the public. They make use of the public owned roads paid for by taxpayers that lead to their stores.

The same standard should be set for all businesses. No refusal of service just because you disagree with someones politics or beliefs or morality.

If your business makes use of public traffic, you shouldn't be able to deny a constitutional right. Not sure how much of the internet is made available by the government, but if it is government run (or taxpayer funded, transported through government owned towers, satellites, cables, wires etc) then no, speech should not be restricted.


I don't think that it is a good analogy. Companies like Google are essentially content companies--the product they offer is the display of content. In my view, this makes the issues surrounding companies like Google a free speech issue for Google. By your logic, the New York Times or any publisher would not be able to exercise editorial control of what is in their papers--someone could buy ad space and use it to run conservative news stories criticizing the NY times, and the NY Times could do nothing to prevent that.

The message that a wedding cake communicates is incidental to the making of the cake, and I do not see cake baking as involving the same sort of free speech issues as a publisher or online content company.
I find it a very apt analogy.

If Google can discriminate, so too should be able to discriminate the corner bakery.

It's easy to find exceptions when a cause you agree with is the target.

That's the problem.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2017, 11:15 AM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(25-08-2017 11:10 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(25-08-2017 11:02 AM)BryanS Wrote:  I don't think that it is a good analogy. Companies like Google are essentially content companies--the product they offer is the display of content. In my view, this makes the issues surrounding companies like Google a free speech issue for Google. By your logic, the New York Times or any publisher would not be able to exercise editorial control of what is in their papers--someone could buy ad space and use it to run conservative news stories criticizing the NY times, and the NY Times could do nothing to prevent that.

The message that a wedding cake communicates is incidental to the making of the cake, and I do not see cake baking as involving the same sort of free speech issues as a publisher or online content company.
I find it a very apt analogy.

If Google can discriminate, so too should be able to discriminate the corner bakery.

It's easy to find exceptions when a cause you agree with is the target.

That's the problem.

It's google's purpose to discriminate. Google looks at every word on each site and all the visits and what visitors do and how long they stay and, and, and... like 100 factors. Then it tries to serve the most relevant result for each inquiry.

Discrimination is google's job.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
25-08-2017, 11:21 AM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(25-08-2017 11:15 AM)Dom Wrote:  It's google's purpose to discriminate. Google looks at every word on each site and all the visits and what visitors do and how long they stay and, and, and... like 100 factors. Then it tries to serve the most relevant result for each inquiry.

Discrimination is google's job.

Sure, but in the context of providing accurate information. What they're doing is intentionally skewing results based on their ideology. I believe they have every right to do that, but I wouldn't try to claim it's their job and just leave it at that.

It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2017, 11:54 AM (This post was last modified: 25-08-2017 12:49 PM by Rockblossom.)
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(25-08-2017 11:10 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  I find it a very apt analogy.

If Google can discriminate, so too should be able to discriminate the corner bakery.

No. It's about the product, not the consumer.

If the corner bakery is asked to bake a cake with a set of handcuff keys inside and deliver it to one of the residents of the local jail, they can refuse. It's a liability issue. If the corner bakery is asked to bake a gluten-free wedding cake, and they do not have the facilities on-site to separate a gluten-free cake from cross-contamination, they can refuse, because they could be held accountable if someone gets sick. If they are asked to bake a cake for a children's party with decorations that are child-inappropriate, they can refuse, as it would hurt their business and might violate local laws. Those are all legitimate reasons to refuse an order. Refusing an order because the person ordering it is black, Jewish, Muslim, gay, wearing an atheist t-shirt, in a wheelchair, has an eye color they don't like, speaks with an accent, or wears unstylish shoes, is discrimination against a customer for being part of some group the owners don't like. Not okay and not legal (in the USA).

As a company, Google also has the right to control its content. They can refuse to be the platform for objectionable content that could leave them open to liability. Google does not have the right to discriminate against individual people because of membership in some group. You can be the Grand Dragon of your KKK chapter and still use Google to do internet searches, Chrome to visit websites, and even place Google ads that have no objectionable content. But Google has the right to reject certain types of content just like the bakery can reject an order for a cake with something objectionable/possible illegal/aiding someone to do something illegal inside it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Rockblossom's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: