Comments 1 - 40 of 69 Next » Last » Search these comments
I'm quite disturbed that a few corporations can collude to silence ideas that they don't like
Everyone should have the right to their own political opinions, but that doesn't mean that everyone has the right to abuse their employer's resources to express them.
The question thus is must YOU tolerate all info - no matter how despicable and repugnant you may find it - or may you exercise discretion and pick and choose what info you allow on your site?
Now if I had a near monopoly over forums, or was an organized group of megacorporations synchronizing their blocking of DNS records (godaddy), search (google), and hosting (cloudflare) then it would be de-facto censorship if I were to pick and choose who gets heard, based on politics.
Google is a near-monopoly, and the others are not too far behind.
To have powerful corporations colluding to suppress content is also wrong.
@patrick I again ask you to answer the question. At what point are you permitted to say "thanks but no thanks" to someone whose ideas you find repugnant?
To have powerful corporations colluding to suppress content is also wrong.
At the same time, they cannot force you to host & help them disseminate info which causes you so much pain and embarrassment.
Kind of like how Christianity has a monopoly on Religion in this country.
Using their politicians to destroy this country while harming its citizens.
Google is a near-monopoly, and the others are not too far behind.
When in actual fact they become monopolies and are telling you what you may not read, will you be concerned? Or not, because after all, they can choose to lose you as a customer ... to nobody?
Anyway - to carry your answer to the logical extreme of my sterilization hypothetical, is it fair to state your position as:
When an entity is at or near monopoly power it MUST accommodate all ideas, even if those ideas/info are potentially destructive to civilization itself. Is this correct?
Ok - so per the all ideas deserve equal time rule - the Paul Erlich contemporaries who openly advocate for someone to spike our water supply with "temporary sterilants" to deprive anyone from having children deserve as much a voice as anyone else. Correct?
anonymous saysOk - so per the all ideas deserve equal time rule - the Paul Erlich contemporaries who openly advocate for someone to spike our water supply with "temporary sterilants" to deprive anyone from having children deserve as much a voice as anyone else. Correct?
All nonviolent ideas deserve at least a hearing, so sure, even Paul Erlich should be heard.
Anyway, my principle is that nonviolent ideas do not deserve censorship.
What do you mean? Trump has not tried to censor anything.
NFL players?
Trump is strongly advocating for a monopoly to siilence non-violent free speech.
Enough with this bs comparison. You can't go work for Monsanto and run a blog against Round-Up
Do you really think people have total "free speech" when on the company timeclock. Can you go around at work spewing any type of political or personal beliefs, even if they go against the company wishes, and not get some sort of backlash?
Comparing this to website providers (who are not employers of their clients) censoring paying clients to prevent the dissemination of their opinion/information is asinine. Of course you could make the argument that those big providers have the right to refuse service to anyone, BUT then you have to be consequent and that reasoning then would also mean people running restaurants (or any other business) should be able to choose their clients by race, opinions, gender, sex.
joeyjojojunior says
NFL players?
Trump is strongly advocating for a monopoly to siilence non-violent free speech.
Enough with this bs comparison. You can't go work for Monsanto and run a blog against Round-Up. They have all the free speech they want on the internet as all providers would host their protest opinion. This is about freedom of information, not about freedom to shit on your employer. Comparing this to website providers (who are not employers of their clients) censoring paying clients to prevent the dissemination of their opinion/information is asinine. Of course you could make the argument that those big providers have the right to refuse service to anyone, BUT then you have to be consequent and that reasoning then would also mean people running restaurants (or any other business) should be able to choose their clients by race, opinions, gender, sex. In any case I thin...
Comments 1 - 40 of 69 Next » Last » Search these comments
I've taken a copy of the censored dailystormer.com page "A Normie's Guide to the Alt-Right" from the Internet Archive and hosted it on my own site, here:
http://patrick.net/content/stormer.html
Style sheets don't quite work, but you can read the text. And that's the important thing. They tried to prevent you from having the ability to read it, but I'm saying that is wrong. You should have the ability to read it even if our corporate overlords say no. Especially if they say no. I encourage all other websites to also host parts or all of dailystormer.com as a protest.
I'm not a Nazi. Technically Jewish (long story). Just a believer that corporations should not be in actual fact dictating what we can and cannot read online.
#censorship