Anita Sarkeesian's New Internet Censorship Proposal

[Nomel]

Is the first slide not redundant when you acknowledge that America isn't the only country on the internet?

Are civil rights laws in the US really going to help you if you've got Brits, or Aussies or the French or Germans, or Japanese or Argentinians 'harrassing' you?
Is the US really going to call for extradition of foreign nationals just to accuse them of upsetting Americans online?

brb moving to australia

[Ad Bot]

[Ipquarx]

ok
Say she does get in an argument.
"Well you don't have room to talk since you only have x amount of subscribers!"
*blocks*

Technically not ad hominem, but still stupid as all hell and everyone knows it

[SeventhSandwich]

Most of what's on those slides seems pretty reasonable except #3 from slide one and #5 and #6 from slide two.

For slide 1, I think #3 is unreasonable because of my general gripe with hate crime laws. Why else do people do crimes besides hate? Why is the punishment different because the target of a crime is a different color?

For slide 2, although #5 and #6 can prevent harassment to some degree, it also allows people to silence criticism. Like, if you give people the power to just auto-block people using certain words, it whitewashes their social media page of any degree of criticism. Let's say Richard Nixon doesn't want his facebook feed flooded with criticism: He just auto-blocks for 'watergate' and now all his messages are well-wishers and supporters!

[Kochieboy]

In other words she's silencing her critics.

[MrKitKat]

stop using my fav font omg

[Katadeus]

feminists in action

they wont accomplish anything anywhere besides sweden

Dismissing them is unwise even if we can all agree that they're stupid and nobody should listen to them.

[TeeOS]

Technically not ad hominem, but still stupid as all hell and everyone knows it

Well now I feel kinda stupid.
Sorry.

[Kimon²]

In other words she's silencing her critics.

yeah like how she blocks critics on twitter, closes her comments section, and disables ratings

[Oasis]

Most of what's on those slides seems pretty reasonable except #3 from slide one and #5 and #6 from slide two.

For slide 1, I think #3 is unreasonable because of my general gripe with hate crime laws. Why else do people do crimes besides hate? Why is the punishment different because the target of a crime is a different color?

For slide 2, although #5 and #6 can prevent harassment to some degree, it also allows people to silence criticism. Like, if you give people the power to just auto-block people using certain words, it whitewashes their social media page of any degree of criticism. Let's say Richard Nixon doesn't want his facebook feed flooded with criticism: He just auto-blocks for 'watergate' and now all his messages are well-wishers and supporters!

I like it. I was going to go over the slides, but this works perfectly.

[ultimamax]

Most of what's on those slides seems pretty reasonable except #3 from slide one and #5 and #6 from slide two.

For slide 1, I think #3 is unreasonable because of my general gripe with hate crime laws. Why else do people do crimes besides hate? Why is the punishment different because the target of a crime is a different color?

For slide 2, although #5 and #6 can prevent harassment to some degree, it also allows people to silence criticism. Like, if you give people the power to just auto-block people using certain words, it whitewashes their social media page of any degree of criticism. Let's say Richard Nixon doesn't want his facebook feed flooded with criticism: He just auto-blocks for 'watergate' and now all his messages are well-wishers and supporters!
I see no harm in letting people autoblock posts with certain words, but she has to understand that one's opinions, especially as an activist, cannot be taken seriously if they're not up to be criticized.

[SeventhSandwich]

In other words she's silencing her critics.

Essentially. There's lots of documented instances of people making valid, calm criticisms against her on twitter and getting blocked by whoever runs her account. So it doesn't take much to guess how she'd use a system that lets her auto-block people for using certain words in their messages  

[Kochieboy]

Essentially. There's lots of documented instances of people making valid, calm criticisms against her on twitter and getting blocked by whoever runs her account. So it doesn't take much to guess how she'd use a system that lets her auto-block people for using certain words in their messages  

If this even becomes a thing, there will be so many cases up Anita's ass about restriction of speech and expession.

[Oasis]

If this even becomes a thing, there will be so many cases up Anita's ass about restriction of speech and expession.

Jesus christ, speech is not a god given right you moron. The first amendment protects you from the government censoring or taking legal action against you for what you say. Private companies and individuals can still react to what you say in whatever legal path they want.

[Kochieboy]

Jesus christ, speech is not a god given right you moron. The first amendment protects you from the government censoring or taking legal action against you for what you say. Private companies and individuals can still react to what you say in whatever legal path they want.

But the internet is a free and open web of networks. There can be no control over the internet because is this heterogeneous entity. Quit acting like people can force this bullstuff and expect it not to be refuted and debated.

[F3d323]

the font is sweet as forget tho