FA+
Shop
The hunt never ends
4 years ago
General
These days I see a bunch of censorship, not even specifically on this or any website. I see it everywhere. People fighting against something, trying to get it banned. I notice how a peculiar argument floats around these sites quite often:
"They're banning [thing that technically should be okay], but they still leave behind [thing that was meant to be banned]!"
This sort of point gets used to make light that while things that are less undesirable (satire, parody for example) get banned, some more problematic stuff gets a pass.
I take issue with this statement. Of course it is possible that this is indeed incompetence, that the people throwing down the ban-hammer are idiots, and don't know what they're doing... However I do wish disregard that possibility and focus on the idea itself:
Just because you forbid something, doesn't mean it'll go away completely. It doesn't mean everyone stops trying to post this stuff. People will keep trying, and some will slip by. I'm not trying to deny that people can be idiots with this, but I also wouldn't say that missing the real felons, while already going after people who are not really all that guilty is on its own a proof of failing. It is impossible to win this to where it'd be all completely gone, while all innocent don't suffer. Even if you were to use automated filters, something will slip by, and YES, you will start tagging people who are less guilty.
I do have to note that that whole original argument that I brought up can be meant to dismissing the censorship process as a whole, but I've also seen it be used to endorse it further! The people say:
"They're banning [thing that should be okay], but they still leave behind [thing that was meant to be banned]! As long as some of those bad things slip by, we cannot speak of censorship going too far. We must continue until all of it is removed."
My problem with that, is that it goes for a mindset of "It's better to have 100 innocent people suffer unjust punishment, than to have 1 single guilty one escape", and all of this for a goal that's impossible to achieve. I am in complete opposition to this.
I do wish to make it clear that what I write is not done in support of any controversial work. I'm merely trying to speak my mind about the problem of not "getting 'em all", cause it's impossible, and the harder you try to do so, the more likely innocent people get caught in the cross-fire.
"They're banning [thing that technically should be okay], but they still leave behind [thing that was meant to be banned]!"
This sort of point gets used to make light that while things that are less undesirable (satire, parody for example) get banned, some more problematic stuff gets a pass.
I take issue with this statement. Of course it is possible that this is indeed incompetence, that the people throwing down the ban-hammer are idiots, and don't know what they're doing... However I do wish disregard that possibility and focus on the idea itself:
Just because you forbid something, doesn't mean it'll go away completely. It doesn't mean everyone stops trying to post this stuff. People will keep trying, and some will slip by. I'm not trying to deny that people can be idiots with this, but I also wouldn't say that missing the real felons, while already going after people who are not really all that guilty is on its own a proof of failing. It is impossible to win this to where it'd be all completely gone, while all innocent don't suffer. Even if you were to use automated filters, something will slip by, and YES, you will start tagging people who are less guilty.
I do have to note that that whole original argument that I brought up can be meant to dismissing the censorship process as a whole, but I've also seen it be used to endorse it further! The people say:
"They're banning [thing that should be okay], but they still leave behind [thing that was meant to be banned]! As long as some of those bad things slip by, we cannot speak of censorship going too far. We must continue until all of it is removed."
My problem with that, is that it goes for a mindset of "It's better to have 100 innocent people suffer unjust punishment, than to have 1 single guilty one escape", and all of this for a goal that's impossible to achieve. I am in complete opposition to this.
I do wish to make it clear that what I write is not done in support of any controversial work. I'm merely trying to speak my mind about the problem of not "getting 'em all", cause it's impossible, and the harder you try to do so, the more likely innocent people get caught in the cross-fire.
Had it years ago, the Norfolk Four case, with its own level of insanity, if surpassed would break reality. That broke 4 years ago.
Still hasn't let up by the way.
Each corner of the Earth, earthquakes, wars, famine, disease,......all occurring fast no? Biblical as I would see it.
I wouldn't be surprised that power outages are happening along with Internet. Happened already in Iran, Germany, and coming to the rest of the EU. But really, the pattern says worldwide.