5 ms·
> Is it censorship when your email provider removes spam? No, but only in situations where it is user controlled. In other words, tools that empower a user to
by Trumpi 4y ago
> Is it censorship when your email provider removes spam?
No, but only in situations where it is user controlled. In other words, tools that empower a user to control what they read is not censorship. In the case of spam, false positives and false negatives can be addressed by the user by adding/removing email from a spam folder. If the user does not have this kind of control, then it can be argued that this is censorship because, after all, who decides what is spam?
If the publisher is prevented from publishing despite having an audience that wants to read them, that is censorship.
- josephcsible 4y agoExactly. If Alice wants to talk but Bob doesn't want to listen, it's not censorship to keep him from having to. But if he does want to listen, it is censorship to keep him from being able to.
- tmottabr 4y agoyeah.. the problem is that you are forgetting about charlie... Alice want to talk and bob want to listen, but they need charlie to grab tapes recorded by alice with what she said recorded on them and transport them all the way to bob so he can listen to whatever alice said in those recordings.. The problem is that charlie find alice to be assholes and do not want anything to do with her, and thus is refusing to transport the tapes she record.. Now, Alice can still record the tapes and she can even go and deliver the tapes herself and bob can listen to those tapes when he get those, but neither of then can force charlies to transport the tapes for them..
- vintermann 4y agoThe question is if Charlie is some poor guy drafted to carry people's tapes... or if he's like a billionaire owning the street and forbidding Bob from stepping out to walk down to the other end of the street where Alice lives.
- tmottabr 4y agoCharlie can be a billionaire and own his own private street, but neither alice or bob can walk into charlie private street, they need to deliver their tapes to charlie and charlie will have to physically transport those packages to the other end of the street to be delivered from alice to bob.. and that is what charlie is refusing to do because he find alice an asshole.. Now alice and bob are not being prevented from meeting in person somewhere else.. hell alice can even build her own street all the way to bob house if she can afford it..
- josephcsible 4y agoTo make the analogy work, consider that Alice and Bob are 2 miles apart, but Charlie owns so much of the land around them that the shortest path between them that doesn't cross his property is 200 miles long.
- tmottabr 4y agono, the distance is irrelevant.. the point is they want to use someone else existing structure to communicate while not following the rules from that third-party.. either you follow the rules or you built your own infra..
- simplotek 4y ago> No, but only in situations where it is user controlled. In other words, tools that empower a user to control what they read is not censorship. That makes no sense. A paper supplier is not censoring anyone if they can't or won't provide printing paper. You're somehow conflating not actively supporting a cause with censoring someone. It's ok if you feel yo have something to say to the world, but that does not give you the right to coerce everyone around you to support your personal project.
- Trumpi 4y ago> You're somehow conflating not actively supporting a cause with censoring someone. No, I'm merely making the argument that spam control tools are not censorship because the user decides. I'm not sure how the paper supplier fits in to this argument. Perhaps it is a good analogy for the original topic.
- simplotek 4y ago> No, I'm merely making the argument that spam control tools are not censorship because the user decides. You stated no point. You're trying to ignore the fact that businesse relationships require all parts to participate voluntarily. If one part tries to abuse the terms of those services then service providers are free to not continue with the business arrangement. Not continuing a business arrangement is not censorship. Are we supposed to feign ignorance and claim terms of service don't exist anymore?
- sinity 4y ago> Are we supposed to feign ignorance and claim terms of service don't exist anymore? Terms of service usually are vague bullshit which boils down to "we can drop you whenever we feel like it". And if it's an oligopoly? Well, too bad I guess. It's hilarious leftists support oligopolies now.
- Trumpi 4y agoAgain, I'm merely saying that spam control is not censorship. Your argument about participating in business relationships might have merit, but it is a different argument.
- insanitybit 4y agoI've updated my post to address this. While some of that is in the user's control lots of this happens behind the scenes ie: AWS banning users of SES who send out spam emails, GMail banning the spam accounts, hosting providers removing domains or infra that host malware/C2 infra, etc. This is all happening constantly behind the scenes to stop what is very literally "speech", what might even be legally protected speech (certainly you can put the source code for malware online, you can even write and deploy malware - people do it all the time for pentesting).
- LordOfMeese 4y ago"What if this entirely different situation that is in no way comparable, huh? Bet you didn't think about that, huh?"
- insanitybit 4y agoI've justified why it's comparable.
- LordOfMeese 4y agoYou've attempted to and failed because it isn't comparable, yes.
- insanitybit 4y agoYou can say that I've failed but it doesn't make it so.
- e844dbe8fb 4y ago[dead]