Poll about internet censorship

What do you think of censoring certain views online?

  • I consider myself right wing and I agree with censorship

    Votes: 1 4.0%
  • I consider myself centrist and I agree with censorship

    Votes: 2 8.0%
  • I consider myself left wing and I agree with censorship

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I consider myself politically neutral/not on the conventional spectrum and I agree with censorship

    Votes: 1 4.0%
  • I consider myself right wing and I disagree with censorship

    Votes: 10 40.0%
  • I consider myself centrist and I disagree with censorship

    Votes: 3 12.0%
  • I consider myself left wing and I disagree with censorship

    Votes: 3 12.0%
  • I consider myself politically neutral/not on the conventional spectrum and disagree with censorship

    Votes: 4 16.0%
  • I do not know about the censorship but might agree with it

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I do not know about the censorship but would disagree with it

    Votes: 1 4.0%

  • Total voters
    25
Mar 2016
725
Australia
#91
I strongly oppose censorship, and anyone that supports it is a truly despicable person, in my opinion. The fact that some people unironically do indeed support it is extremely disheartening. These are the type of people that let tyrants and dictators come to power, and I hope they know that.
 
Nov 2016
508
Germany
#93
I strongly oppose censorship, and anyone that supports it is a truly despicable person, in my opinion. The fact that some people unironically do indeed support it is extremely disheartening. These are the type of people that let tyrants and dictators come to power, and I hope they know that.
I see a logical problem. Suppose someone is spreading antidemocratic and/or racist ideas in this forum or anywhere else, including the demand for censorship of democratic and anti-racist ideas. Would you then still maintain your scepticism towards censorship of such propaganda? So isn't the discussion about censorship more about ideological premises that are protected or threatened by censorship?
 
Aug 2010
15,445
Welsh Marches
#96
I see a logical problem. Suppose someone is spreading antidemocratic and/or racist ideas in this forum or anywhere else, including the demand for censorship of democratic and anti-racist ideas. Would you then still maintain your scepticism towards censorship of such propaganda? So isn't the discussion about censorship more about ideological premises that are protected or threatened by censorship?
It is not really a logical problem at all, in so far as one opposes censorship, one also opposes censorship of ideas that one detests. One may add that arguments for censorship of democratic or anti-racist ideas are fairly harmless at the moment, since there is no possibility whatever of their being put into effect, whereas people who can be presented or interpreted as propagating hate are quite often censored in one way or another. The threat to free speech comes from different directions at different times, it once came more often from the right, noe more from certain areas of the left. (I should add that I am concerned about the censorship of the expression of ideas, not about whether people stupid or unhinged people should be able to spew hate; but the problem is that someone has to inetrpret what is hate-speech and what is not, and that that person, if given such a power, will all too often use it in a politically biased manner to try to silence opponents, ignoring blatant expressions of hatred if they are directed against approved targets.)
 
Likes: Far Flight
Aug 2010
15,445
Welsh Marches
#97
We’ve had a thread about this already. As far as I’m aware Article 13 relates to copyright and not censorship. If someone wants to tell me why it is about censorship then fine.
The problems associated with this are not directly connected with the sort of censorship that is being discussed elsewhere in this thread, some of them are well-expressed here:

  • France’s and Germany’s compromise on Article 13 still calls for nearly everything we post or share online to require prior permission by “censorship machines”, algorithms that are fundamentally unable to distinguish between copyright infringement and legal works such as parody and critique.
  • It would change the web from a place where we can express ourselves (with some moderation applied after-the-fact on platforms) into one where big corporate rightholders are the gatekeepers of what can and can’t be published in the first place. It would allow these rightholders to bully any commercial site or app that includes a posting function.
  • European innovation on the web would be discouraged by the new costs and legal risks for startups – even if they only apply when platforms turn 3 years old, or achieve some success. Foreign sites and apps who can’t afford armies of lawyers would be incentivised to just geoblock all EU-based users to be on the safe side.
(from: Article 13 is back on – and it got worse, not better )

(That laws can be passed in such a way in the EU is one of the things that makes me heartily glad that the UK is leaving it; such a law would get much better scrutiny in any national parliament, and is unimaginable in the USA.)
 
Likes: Far Flight

GogLais

Ad Honorem
Sep 2013
4,927
Wirral
#98
The problems associated with this are not directly connected with the sort of censorship that is being discussed elsewhere in this thread, some of them are well-expressed here:

  • France’s and Germany’s compromise on Article 13 still calls for nearly everything we post or share online to require prior permission by “censorship machines”, algorithms that are fundamentally unable to distinguish between copyright infringement and legal works such as parody and critique.
  • It would change the web from a place where we can express ourselves (with some moderation applied after-the-fact on platforms) into one where big corporate rightholders are the gatekeepers of what can and can’t be published in the first place. It would allow these rightholders to bully any commercial site or app that includes a posting function.
  • European innovation on the web would be discouraged by the new costs and legal risks for startups – even if they only apply when platforms turn 3 years old, or achieve some success. Foreign sites and apps who can’t afford armies of lawyers would be incentivised to just geoblock all EU-based users to be on the safe side.
(from: Article 13 is back on – and it got worse, not better )

(That laws can be passed in such a way in the EU is one of the things that makes me heartily glad that the UK is leaving it; such a law would get much better scrutiny in any national parliament, and is unimaginable in the USA.)
Thank you. I’m certainly not qualified to judge whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing. I use the web for this forum, one or two others, information on cars, holidays, whatever and that’s just about it. I stay well clear of Facebook, Twitter, etc.
 
Aug 2010
15,445
Welsh Marches
#99
I keep well clear too of facebook, twitter and the like, I think the culture that they promote of instant reaction is overwhelmingly harmful; but very good discussions, lectures etc. can be found on youtube etc., much more extensive and more varied than could be found on the BBC in the good old days (I've given up on television).
 
Jan 2019
130
USA
Your position is noted. Many people in our world agree with having capital punishment, but many disagree.

Well we both agree that the NZ shooter committed a terrible crime, the question is what should be the punishment for such a crime? And should the world be allowed to watch the trail of the shooter? And if the world is allowed to watch the trail, and the trail does end with a death penalty, should the capital punishment then be allowed to be shown to the world or should it be censored in that sense?

What about the line of view that sitting in a small cage is actually a worse punishment compared to the death sentence. Not to mention isnt it possible that the NZ Mosque shooter could gain "martyr" status if he is executed?
I don't know. I think the choice should be removed from the equation. Individuals like this have a choice right now. They can either end their own life during their spree or face the courts and rot in jail forever.

The punishment for indiscriminately killing should be death, in my opinion. I respect your opinion though.

I agree with censoring the shooter in this context. The primary reason being it dehumanizes him. The world will know the result regardless. I don't see any point in making it some form of entertainment like they did the OJ trial. I'm all for erasing this person.
 

Similar History Discussions