Author Topic: Anita Sarkeesian's New Internet Censorship Proposal  (Read 2735 times)

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.
People already enforce restrictions of speech on the internet. Hm... I wonder if we can think of some communications venue where you could be banned for posting things that the owner doesn't allow. This is a tough one...

If this even becomes a thing, there will be so many cases up Anita's ass about restriction of speech and expession.
Not really, and it's kind of the internet's fault. You see, when you make enough fake but real-looking death threats against an internet personality, it gives them kind of a victim-immunity. Like, no one would ever scoff at giving Anita that kind of protection when so many people seemingly want her dead. Because Anita Sarkeesian has become this kind of victim personality of the 'evil internet', it's completely obscured how stupid her actual position is.

Anita's kind of the opposite of Malala Yousafzai. She was propelled to international fame because she took a bullet to the head for her activism, but her cause is actually worthwhile given how awful the status of women is in the Middle East. But most people don't even care about what she believes or even know exactly what she stands for, the thing they care about is 'oh she took a bullet to the head, and that's so noble'.

It's been said before, but the entire reason why anyone gives a stuff about what Anita Sarkeesian has to say is because you idiots made death threats against her.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2014, 01:29:57 PM by SeventhSandwich »

People already enforce restrictions of speech on the internet. Hm... I wonder if we can think of some communications venue where you could be banned for posting things that the owner doesn't allow. This is a tough one...
uhh is it the amazon homepage

People already enforce restrictions of speech on the internet. Hm... I wonder if we can think of some communications venue where you could be banned for posting things that the owner doesn't allow. This is a tough one...

And that is wrong, people protest the censorship and find ways around it. We as a people cannot be silenced on such a free and open entity.

And that is wrong, people protest the censorship and find ways around it. We as a people cannot be silenced on such a free and open entity.
Uhm, yes we can and should. If every website was like 4chan (although even they have more rules now) I would hate the internet. The internet is a place for freedom, but obviously certain websites should have rules. That being said, I think it's important to have websites like 8chan where the speech is truly unrestricted (beyond barring what is illegal)
« Last Edit: November 09, 2014, 01:41:18 PM by ultimamax »

It's been said before, but the entire reason why anyone gives a stuff about what Anita Sarkeesian has to say is because you idiots made death threats against her.
Ding ding ding. We have a winner. :)

uhh is it the amazon homepage
Holy stuff, that's uncanny...

And that is wrong, people protest the censorship and find ways around it. We as a people cannot be silenced on such a free and open entity.
You're right. If you're really that true to your cause, a ban or a block or a restraining order shouldn't stop ya. Power to the people, brother!

Uhm, yes we can and should. If every website was like 4chan (although even they have more rules now) I would hate the internet. The internet is a place for freedom, but obviously certain websites should have rules. That being said, I think it's important to have websites like 8chan where the speech is truly unrestricted (beyond what is illegal)
Uh, examples where you believe illegal "speech" is important?

(font=sarcasm)You're right. If you're really that true to your cause, a ban or a block or a restraining order shouldn't stop ya. Power to the people, brother!(/font)

"Durr hurr durr, people shouldn't have valid points. All people with valid points are dumb, they should totally be censored."

You really are a facist aren't you?

Uh, examples where you believe illegal "speech" is important?
Sorry, I forgot how to english. I meant "barring illegal speech"

"Durr hurr durr, people shouldn't have valid points. All people with valid points are dumb, they should totally be censored."

You really are a facist aren't you?
He's not arguing for total censorship you dolt. He's arguing that censoring on individual platforms is not evil.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2014, 01:43:32 PM by ultimamax »

He's not arguing for total censorship you dolt. He's arguing that censoring on individual platforms is not evil.
Censoring on your own website is pretty much fine, but allowing people to automatically censor criticism from social media is a bad thing. A lot of people form their opinions based on social media, and such a system would mislead tons of people.

Censoring on your own website is pretty much fine, but allowing people to automatically censor criticism from social media is a bad thing. A lot of people form their opinions based on social media, and such a system would mislead tons of people.
I don't see anything suggesting that she can censor what other people see. Only what she herself sees can be censored.

The real question is if you are really that concerned about people saying mean things, why not move to you own website? It is pretty easy to disable all unapproved comments. You could post all the videos and blogs you wanted.

Furthermore, I'm pretty sure you can disable all unapproved comments on YouTube and similar sites already.

EDIT: So the reality of the situation is that all of these bocking and censorship methods can already exist if you were skilled enough to create them, or had a method to get someone else to create them.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2014, 01:57:16 PM by Doomonkey »

"Durr hurr durr, people shouldn't have valid points. All people with valid points are dumb, they should totally be censored."

You really are a facist aren't you?
No, I'm really not a fascist, trust me.


noo the internet certainly does not need to be regulated and censored