Page 1 of 16 1234511 ... Last
  1. #1
    Bneterasedmynam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    illinois
    Posts
    5,858
    7

    To censor, or not to censor: that is the thread title

    There's now a petition to ban NRA Tv from Amazon. Because why argue with an opposing idea when you can censor it. I have always been of the opinion that blaming inanimate objects for the actions of people ends with ultimate goal of thought policing.

  2. #2
    Nutcracker, sweet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    KAUS
    Posts
    8,023
    Style
    BJJ/Judo/MT
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Bneterasedmynam View Post
    There's now a petition to ban NRA Tv from Amazon. Because why argue with an opposing idea when you can censor it. I have always been of the opinion that blaming inanimate objects for the actions of people ends with ultimate goal of thought policing.
    Probably deserving of a whole other thread. I've always supported a company's right to make its own political decisions. But, with these mega information places like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, etc... I think it's something we need to talk about critically, at the very least. They can have a huge impact on the world's political stages, and they know it, and have used that power in the past. In short, you want to talk about Net Neutrality, it's the information sites that should probably be regulated, not the bandwidth providers. Interesting that the information sites were primarily against the dereg of NN, while the bandwidth providers were generally for the dereg.

    What would you call the "baby Bell" equivalent of splitting up Google, anyway? A Regional Search Engine, maybe?

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,011
    Style
    what style?
    Quote Originally Posted by submessenger View Post
    Probably deserving of a whole other thread. I've always supported a company's right to make its own political decisions. But, with these mega information places like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, etc... I think it's something we need to talk about critically, at the very least. They can have a huge impact on the world's political stages, and they know it, and have used that power in the past. In short, you want to talk about Net Neutrality, it's the information sites that should probably be regulated, not the bandwidth providers. Interesting that the information sites were primarily against the dereg of NN, while the bandwidth providers were generally for the dereg.

    What would you call the "baby Bell" equivalent of splitting up Google, anyway? A Regional Search Engine, maybe?
    You're country did away with the fairness doctrine a long time ago. Would you want to bring it back?

  4. #4
    Nutcracker, sweet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    KAUS
    Posts
    8,023
    Style
    BJJ/Judo/MT
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by lant3rn View Post
    You're country did away with the fairness doctrine a long time ago. Would you want to bring it back?
    Nope.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,011
    Style
    what style?
    Quote Originally Posted by submessenger View Post
    Nope.
    What kind of regulation did you have in mind then?

  6. #6
    Nutcracker, sweet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    KAUS
    Posts
    8,023
    Style
    BJJ/Judo/MT
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by lant3rn View Post
    What kind of regulation did you have in mind then?
    I don't have a regulation in mind. I very clearly stated "I think it's something we need to talk about critically" and "it's the information sites that should probably be regulated."

    What do you have in mind?

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,011
    Style
    what style?
    Quote Originally Posted by submessenger View Post
    I don't have a regulation in mind. I very clearly stated "I think it's something we need to talk about critically" and "it's the information sites that should probably be regulated."

    What do you have in mind?
    The fairness doctrine extended to the web.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

  8. #8
    Nutcracker, sweet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    KAUS
    Posts
    8,023
    Style
    BJJ/Judo/MT
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by lant3rn View Post
    The fairness doctrine extended to the web.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
    If I was to consider anything, it would be more along the lines of Common Carrier. But, not the Net Neutrality That Was, it was flawed and in my opinion burdened the wrong folks.

    Think of it like this. A city has a graffiti park, where anyone can do whatever graffiti they want. But, the city decides to arbitrarily paint over some graffiti that the city finds offensive or immoral or whatever, leaving only graffiti that the city finds acceptable or not worth their time. Apply that to Facebook, and whoever else - if they are providing a public platform, they must provide it for everyone, regardless of how distasteful.

    It's a slippery slope, and not a comfortable discussion for me.

  9. #9
    Bneterasedmynam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    illinois
    Posts
    5,858
    The NRA is being boycotted now by several businesses who are cutting ties. Not really censorship since private companies can affiliate with whoever they want, but it still shows that mentality of silencing your rival rather than actually trying to debate their point.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    230
    Style
    Judo
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Bneterasedmynam View Post
    The NRA is being boycotted now by several businesses who are cutting ties. Not really censorship since private companies can affiliate with whoever they want, but it still shows that mentality of silencing your rival rather than actually trying to debate their point.
    You are suggesting debating with the NRA. Well, fair enough, but isn't that exactly what has been tried for decades and met nothing but complete ignorance? I'm surely biased, but the only "arguments" I can remember from the NRA are "the 4th Amendment does not allow for restrictions" and "only more guns help preventing gun violence", both of which have been shown to be complete nonsense time and again.

Page 1 of 16 1234511 ... Last

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in