http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081221-ptc-goes-after-youtube-use
r-comments.html

 

While I applaud the idea of parents supervising their children, I hate
the idea of censorship in any way, shape or form.  For one thing, the
whole idea of censorship is unworkable.  Who is to say whose morals
should be used in passing judgment?  And why should it be a crime to
offend certain people?

 

After all, we remember Socrates precisely because he offended the
majority of his contemporaries (even calling himself society's gadfly,
annoying them with his criticisms until they changed).  Outspoken
"offenders" of history have always been an integral part of societal
change, from the Women's Suffrage movement, to the equal rights
campaigns in the 60s, to the fall of Communism in the 80s, and still
continue today.  And those are only in the last hundred years. going
back further, every major change in thinking has been preceded by
outspoken individuals who offended those around them.

 

Myself, I don't even want to avoid being offended.  I had a Professor a
few years ago who gave us some great advice: If something provokes a
strong emotional reaction in you, then you have a great opportunity to
learn about yourself.

 

Even religious zealots should agree.  Joseph Smith was once asked by a
woman what to do about her neighbor, who had been spreading slander
about her.  He responded that it would be best to examine the slander to
see if even the smallest portion of it were true; if so, then the woman
should thank her neighbor for pointing it out to her, try to overcome
that fault, and move on with her life.

 

Of course, we don't have to go out of our way to expose ourselves to
things we find offensive.  There's nothing wrong with avoiding something
you know will offend you, or teaching your family to do the same.  In
fact, learning to reconcile your own morals with those of society is an
important part of emotional maturity.  But it is childish and, funnily
enough, offensive to try to force your own standards of living on those
around you.

 

...Ben Chambers

www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:F40ED582413D4A528A205962FF1CC6F9@HomePC...

> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081221-ptc-goes-after-youtube-use
> r-comments.html
>
> While I applaud the idea of parents supervising their children, I hate
> the idea of censorship in any way, shape or form.

Taking the sensibilities of your users' into account is not censorship, it's
business sense. YouTube, and many internet and traditional media companies,
already engage in self-regulation, have certain standards, principles of
decorum. If people want less vulgar language, and if they are a large enough
group, they will likely get it. On the other hand, if there's a large enough
group that lobbies for more vulgarities, YouTube will likely bow to their
wishes, according to what's more or less a democratic process. It's a free
market, and companies need to take consumers' opinions into consideration to
survive. And one cannot blame the customers for voicing their opinions
either.

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> After all, we remember Socrates precisely because he offended the
> majority of his contemporaries (even calling himself society's gadfly,
> annoying them with his criticisms until they changed).  Outspoken
> "offenders" of history have always been an integral part of societal
> change, from the Women's Suffrage movement, to the equal rights
> campaigns in the 60s, to the fall of Communism in the 80s, and still
> continue today.  And those are only in the last hundred years. going
> back further, every major change in thinking has been preceded by
> outspoken individuals who offended those around them.

	That's not a good argument. Or at least, it's an incomplete argument.

	If you want to invoke this, you have to provide a sense of all those
people who did likewise and had a negative effect on society, which I
suspect occurred much more frequently than the people you speak of.

	It may well be that the better scenario is to have some level of
censorship. You'll need offenders to obtain "progress", but history has
shown that you'll get those kinds of "good" offenders regardless of
censorship.<G> The plus is that most of the negatives are avoided.

	(I'm not arguing either way - just pointing out that your paragraph was
not convincing).

-- 
Fax me no questions, I'll Fax you no lies!


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> While I applaud the idea of parents supervising their children, I hate
> the idea of censorship in any way, shape or form. 

One part of the problem is that PTC has something like 40 people actually 
behind it. Some 98%+ of all the complaints to the FTC were from the same few 
dozen people in 2007.

The other part of the problem is that once YouTube starts censoring content, 
then they become responsible for doing so consistently. That's what the 
whole "common carrier" bit is about. If you don't want any porn sites linked 
from Hanna Montana, if YouTube bows to your wishes, they're going to have to 
hire some people to watch for that happening.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:494fccf3$1@news.povray.org...

> Chambers wrote:
> > After all, we remember Socrates precisely because he offended the
> > majority of his contemporaries (even calling himself society's gadfly,
> > annoying them with his criticisms until they changed).  Outspoken
> > "offenders" of history have always been an integral part of societal
> > change, from the Women's Suffrage movement, to the equal rights
> > campaigns in the 60s, to the fall of Communism in the 80s, and still
> > continue today.  And those are only in the last hundred years. going
> > back further, every major change in thinking has been preceded by
> > outspoken individuals who offended those around them.
>
> That's not a good argument. Or at least, it's an incomplete argument.
>
> If you want to invoke this, you have to provide a sense of all those
> people who did likewise and had a negative effect on society, which I
> suspect occurred much more frequently than the people you speak of.

Well said. I often use a quote from Sagan to those who presume that the more
outlandish, the more against-the-grain and the current thinking an idea is,
the more it has to have merit:

"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who
are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at
Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo
the Clown."
Carl Sagan

Yes, freedom of expression is a good thing, but let's say it as it is, 99.9%
of all expression is worthless, even if it's (maybe especially if it's)
laced with vulgarities. I'd think one has to provide extraordinary evidence
to prove that YouTube moderating user comments would have a deletrious
effect on global culture and progress of humanity.

The other issue is that of a sense of entitlement. For whatever reason, we
believe we are able to say or do anything on the internet. But it's often a
priviledge, not a right. I don't pay for this newsgroup, neither do I pay to
maintain YouTube. It's their business. And if they chose to moderate their
user comments due to majority demand, which they need for business revenues,
crying freedom of speech isn't the best way to go about it.

Finally, freedom of expression has been much abused. It's about
decriminalizing expression (*), it's not about allowing all expression in
all circumstances or removing all consequences. It doesn't grant you to
disseminate trade secrets, or prevent a business from firing you if you
utter vulgarities to your customers. I don't think we often fully appreciate
what it is and what it is not.

(*) And even then it doesn't always protect all expression from criminal
considerations. Typical examples are shouting "fire" in a public place when
there is none, or promoting violence and hate. The only absolute rule is
that there are no absolutes.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:33:05 -0800, "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:

>r-comments.html

So what is "free speech" and who actually ahs it. In the UK we say we have it
but you can be sued for slander. "Oh! What we mean is that you have "free
speech" if you are a member of parliament and speak in the house you cannot be
sued" the reply often is. But call another MP a liar and you will find yourself
censored. So who can say anything that they want and not be taken to task for it
and why is it considered so important?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mueen Nawaz [mailto:m.n### [at] ieeeorg]
> 	If you want to invoke this, you have to provide a sense of all
> those
> people who did likewise and had a negative effect on society, which I
> suspect occurred much more frequently than the people you speak of.

I'd be interested in knowing, who do you think had a significant
negative effect on society by not being censored?


...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: somebody [mailto:x### [at] ycom]
> Well said. I often use a quote from Sagan to those who presume that
the
> more
> outlandish, the more against-the-grain and the current thinking an
idea
> is,
> the more it has to have merit:

I didn't say anything of the sort.  I just think you shouldn't
automatically dismiss them just because they offend you.

> Yes, freedom of expression is a good thing, but let's say it as it is,
> 99.9%
> of all expression is worthless, even if it's (maybe especially if
it's)
> laced with vulgarities.

Yes, the "90% of everything is crap" rule.  Does it matter, though?  If
90% of YouTube comments contain certain words, those words can't really
be said to be offensive to the majority of society, can they?
(Obviously, sample sets come into play here... that is, the set of
people who post YouTube comments is not necessarily representative of
Society as a whole, but that's another issue).

It seems like an extremely vocal minority is complaining about the
behavior of the majority.  How, and why, should the minority be given
the power to censor?

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> I'd be interested in knowing, who do you think had a significant
> negative effect on society by not being censored?

Hitler?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> I'd be interested in knowing, who do you think had a significant
>> negative effect on society by not being censored?
> 
> Hitler?

Godwin's law, here we go?

Post a reply to this message