331–340 of 457 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's perfectly reasonable for Google to not wish to host drawings of naked children, nor sex stories about underage children. That isn't censorship.
Just because it's not mandated by the government does not mean that it is not censorship. > Censorship: the system or practice of censoring books, movies, letters, etc. > Censoring: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A mentality Google fosters constantly with virtually > all of their products. This statement has no relevance to the conversation -- it doesn't magically produce any obligation for Google to act differently than it does. > The first words you see when you visit > https://www.google.com/drive/ is "A safe place for > all your files". And clearly in the terms of service (the only thing that actually matters,) it says:…
*This statement has no relevance to the conversation -- it doesn't magically produce any obligation for Google to act differently than it does." Actually it kind of does -- saying one thing and doing another is a deceptive business practice, and deceiving consumers is generally frowned upon.
> Actually it kind of does -- saying one thing and doing
> another is a deceptive business practice, and deceiving
> consumers is generally frowned upon
Google specifically states they make no guarantees, so they're not "saying one thing and doing another." They're saying one thing and doing that thing. The parent mentioned that Google encouraged technological entitlement -- that may or may not be true, that would be a tough thing to have a reasonable conversation about -- not that Google is making blatantly false claims about its services.
From Reddit: "I've read a few of Cooper's books and the short answer is yes, pedophilia is a common theme in his writing (as is incest and necrophilia)." [1] I'm calling it now. It was child porn. Google doesn't like to go around deleting people's stuff. When this has happened in the past it's been child porn, which Google is obligated by governments everywhere to delete with extreme prejudice. And of course they're…
Whelp. I hope you're wrong. A former in-law was detained and deported by the USA, leaving family behind. I hate this man and all he's done. So while my liberal pinko commie sensibilities opposes everything done to him, and how it was done, it couldn't have happened to a nicer person. Being conflicted like that is a terrible feeling. It shows the need for rules. If the rules are applied unevenly, especially against th…
I'm... confused.
Do you mean it wouldn't have happened to a nicer person?
"couldn't have happened to a nicer person" suggests this individual is the nicest person you've ever met.
Edit: completely missed the ironic usage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meme? That's what freedom of speech is. It specifically has to do with the government. Censorship is a broader term, but don't invoke "free speech" if you don't want it to apply to the government case.
What use is the legal right to speech if your neighbors will bash your head in for it? Freedom of speech is not just the right, but also the idea of a society that tolerates it. This is what bothers me: Every time an internet corporation deletes someone's account for wrongthink, a herd of crypto-facists pops up to remind everyone that the First only pertains to government censorship (or even erroneously claim that on…
However, this does not mean that a private company is obligated to give you a free platform to disseminate your speech. You can go make yourself a sign and stand on a street corner if you want, but no one has an obligation to listen to you, or to help you spread your speech.
This is why the distinction about government censorship is so important. People like you seem to think that private entities have an obligation to host other peoples' speech. If some neo-Nazis knocked on your door and asked to post a bunch of their signs on your lawn, would you agree to it? It's only a problem when the government censors because there's only one government, and they have enforcers who can use deadly force. If a private party censors you by refusing to help air your views, you can go somewhere else, like a street corner, and you don't have to worry about going to jail or being shot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Association" doesn't appear in the Constitution at all. "Speech" appears twice, but is only capitalized when referring to legislators' speeches: "and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place" "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
Unfortunately, it's no longer possible to simply read the constitution to fully understand the rights afforded to an individual. The US Supreme Court has long upheld that a person has more fundamental rights than are explicitly enumerated in The Constitution. Technically speaking, persons always had a freedom of association, but the court made it explicit during N.A.A.C.P. v. ALABAMA [1]. [1] http://caselaw.findlaw.c…
(In 1958, the State of Alabama banned the NAACP and tried to damage its finances and power by demanding its membership list. The Supreme Court saw through their "fig leaves" and overturned that.)
From Reddit: "I've read a few of Cooper's books and the short answer is yes, pedophilia is a common theme in his writing (as is incest and necrophilia)." [1] I'm calling it now. It was child porn. Google doesn't like to go around deleting people's stuff. When this has happened in the past it's been child porn, which Google is obligated by governments everywhere to delete with extreme prejudice. And of course they're…
It's still problematic, even if the work was distasteful or even illegal. There was no process involved, no chance for appeal, no explanation of the charges that precipitated it. If it truly is illegal materials that violate laws, then deleting it is deleting evidence and helping cover up crimes. If it was art that borders on distasteful to some then google is deciding taste and public values with private algorithms.…
But I know. Either Google hosts a platform for other people to share their life, in which case Google should not have done anything without a warrant. Or Google owns the entire platform and all content, in which case they should be held liable for every bit of disputed content on their servers (including Youtube).
There is no middle ground. Either you are a (de-facto) common carrier, or you're not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US law that did that that was struck down as unconstitutional more than 14 years ago, so the "is classified" claim is false. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/16/national/16CND-PORN.html
Wrong Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Handley That law currently stands.
From Reddit: "I've read a few of Cooper's books and the short answer is yes, pedophilia is a common theme in his writing (as is incest and necrophilia)." [1] I'm calling it now. It was child porn. Google doesn't like to go around deleting people's stuff. When this has happened in the past it's been child porn, which Google is obligated by governments everywhere to delete with extreme prejudice. And of course they're…
If there is nothing criminal here- Google is absolutely within its rights to delete his blog. However given the power that Google has a gatekeeper to information, I think the public should be highly interested in how Google allows or disallows information to be published using its services. Especially if they are censoring materials they find offensive or in poor taste.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering how few people actually take backups, I'm willing to assume laziness. You wouldn't believe how many people I know who say things like, "Yeah I'd lose my entire PhD project if this laptop died, because I haven't taken a backup in X years" (and proceed to continue not backing up their work)
This seems a step before that sense of the word "backup". The guy's PC did not die. He apparently created "GIF novels", which presumably involved using some application to work on a file on his local hard drive. What did he do after uploading the finished GIF to his blog? Manually delete it from his hard drive? Why?
Maybe he wasn't even creating his own images, instead building the story through a meme generator, or something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the fact that so many people are upset is indicative of the growing technological entitlement mentality A mentality Google fosters constantly with virtually all of their products. > You can get a 3 Terabyte backup drive today on Amazon The first words you see when you visit https://www.google.com/drive/ is "A safe place for all your files". > there are alternatives to using a hosting company Like what? Deeply techn…
> A mentality Google fosters constantly with virtually > all of their products. This statement has no relevance to the conversation -- it doesn't magically produce any obligation for Google to act differently than it does. > The first words you see when you visit > https://www.google.com/drive/ is "A safe place for > all your files". And clearly in the terms of service (the only thing that actually matters,) it says:…
It's true that no obligation is created under our current legal structure, but I think the statement still has relevance. Your stance reminds of me people that said, in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis, "well those loans were legal and the people who defaulted were free not to take them." Yes, that is true, and we definitely would all be better off if people took the accountability and personal responsibility to avoid getting into these situations.
But really, what does that argument achieve? It absolves the centralized powerful entity of any responsibility, shifting it to a decentralized collection of individuals that lack cohesive power to effect change. In terms of pure efficacy, I don't think that style of reasoning is going to move the needle on actually getting the desired result out of the system. In other words, would it be easier to educate all of those people on proper usage of online services, or to maybe change some legal language somewhere so that these services have some responsibility to their users?
I think we can try to encourage personal responsibility in people, and simultaneously acknowledge that it would also be good if the services that hold power and influence were more accountable to their users, because that's just going to be better for everyone collectively.