Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Let's put all the internet censorship discussion into this thread (Although I still think TPP should keep it's own thread). First off, this:

Essentially, Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn have gone and gotten a seat in front of the UN to try and convince them that people on the internet are mean, feelings are being hurt, and therefore it should be heavily monitored and censored.

Instead of giving speeches I want them holding their own in debates.

That will not happen, unless they can pick who they debate (which would probably be someone as stupid as they are).

The idea of the United Nations trying to "censor" the Internet is pretty lulzworthy, however. I mean, have they ever managed to successfully do anything?

"Oh, me? I'm just a neutral party, sir or madam, here to help the best I can." – every UN soldier ever.

Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn

Can we start with those two? I've had enough cringe from them already. xD

Biggest case of first world problems, telling representatives of countries who have gone through, or are still going through, discrimination, ethnic and religious violence, and serious problems combating violent misogynist factions in their countries, that "people telling you that you suck" on the internet is equivalent to real world violence.

I've seen plenty of calls from GGers for "feminists" to be censored for doing pretty much the same things Sarkeesian and Quinn are citing (harassment, empty death threats, etc.). Can you say for absolute certain that GGers wouldn't do the exact same thing these two are doing if they had the opportunity?

The thing is, censorship is a bad thing in general, but like a lot of concepts, things get trickier the closer you look.
For example: in the United States, things not covered by the freedom of speech (and thus are arguably censored) include:
*Defamation
*Obscenity
*Fighting words
*Causing panic
*Incitement to crime, and
*Sedition

I could be wrong, but I think most of us agree that at least a majority of these kinds of censorship, when applied correctly, do more good than harm.
Now, if the type of information that is going to be censored is limited only to verbal abuse, then as long as they're very careful about it and get something that is considered reasonable to both sides, then I don't have a problem.

Don't get me wrong, I don't encourage making it harder for ideas that aren't clearly destructive and malicious to spread, but, the thing is, it's not exactly a black-and-white-issue.

As much as I despise both Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian, I think it's kind of silly to suggest that simply refusing to show any tact in their debate is really "censorship". Creationists like Kent Hovind have done shit like this for decades with little to no effect on the actual censorship of evolutionary theory. At the same token, pretty much everyone in a free speech country has the right to stand up and call out both of these individuals, and anyone else for that matter, so their behaviour is dubious, and if anything, suggests to neutral parties that they are not good sources of information. Most people who support them will support them regardless of what they do. I think their threat is somewhat inflated.

What I'm more concerned about is possible censorship through government regulation. While it's intentions may be good to fight piracy, the fact is that lawmakers do not understand many fundemental things about how communications on the internet work, and they are poor choices for people to dictate how it should be run – especially with lobbying companies lurking around. This here is actual censorship and does threaten the ability to post whatever content we desire. Youtube's copyright policy has been shown to be easily manipulated by copyright owners to attempt to censor certain opinions, especially negative ones:

I'm going to go with yes, they probably wouldn't champion for censorship of opiniond based on the basis thst it said they sucked. Odd as it may sound, gamergate's "censorship" is pretty much only called censorship when gg does it, it seems. Boycotting websites, contacting advertisers, pressuring for some writers to issue apologizes or to not get future employment, are all well established tactics of digital protests and activism.

Look back at some of the earlier indtsnces of this sort of thing occurring. The firing of shock radio host Don Imus for using the term "nappy headed hoes" on his program. People did the same thing gg did, contacting adverts and pressuring the company employing him, spreading the information publicly to dhame them, etc. Everyone cheered and called the people decrying this stupid, or worse, racism supporters.

Why is it that with this precedent set, when the same tactics are applied to websites or individuals who supported them years ago, now its suddenly censorship? There's a clear line between getting mad at something someone said, and preventing them from saying it via the law. Between activism to get ones results and trying to change the law to get ones way.

Even if that wasn't the case, and Gamergate would be fully on board with the "Cyber violence" rhetoric, I'd still call them out for essentially trying to make it illegal to say "I don't agree with you" in a way they don't like. Unitil that happens though, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt on this issue.

People seem to be treating this like it actually might do something. The UN has literally no authority over anyone and is probably the most inefficiently bureaucratic bodies on the planet. Absolutely nothing is going to come of this.

I've noticed that some websites (be it imageboards or "illegal" websites like Youtube MP3) are harder to access these past few days. Most of them do not appear to appear when searched for, forcing me to use exact URL's or bookmarks. I consider that a form of censorship, and it's wrong.

errrrrrr… Obama’s Bungled Internet Surrender: the group the White House favors for online oversight is turning into an abusive monopolist

{ The Commerce Department recently asked several stakeholder groups how far past the original September date it would take to propose and implement alternatives to U.S. protection. The Obama administration still acts as if it can give up the contract overseeing Icann, but it can’t. Congress banned any steps by Commerce to give up the contract before the date in September, when the agreement must be renewed for two more years. This means Mr. Obama’s successor will decide. }

Ya'll better hope an open-borders Democrat doesn't get elected.

They went to the UN because of butthurt?
You have got to be shitting me.
It's not like the UN has better things to do or anything!

Bipartisan Senate effort passes CISA bill

Link is to the roll call.

Here's a link to the Guardian's coverage.