About the Code of Conduct... Discuss!

I was going to update an old thread I started titled..funny stuff my autistic son has said. Time moves on and now I have two autistic children and I was going to share some of the frustratingly comic interactions. Seems like there’s a timer lock to prevent necroing old threads.

I haven’t read the terms and conditions as I figure it’d be..don’t be a toxic asshole.

I felt like sharing but I think for the best the moment has passed.

"

Hardlicker wrote:

I haven’t read the terms and conditions as I figure it’d be..don’t be a toxic asshole.

Carefull sir, i got put on probation for a week for writing the exact same sentence you just wrote.

Well i used to frontal part rather then the backend of the human feature, but the sentence was pretty much a copy of yours beyond that.

Hope your enjoying the awkward moments to alleviate the tense ones with your children sir o7

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

o7

what is this
(edit: is that a salute?)

I thought hardlicker deserved a salute, so he got one.

Peace,

-Boem-

Freedom is not risk free is pretty much what I have to say about all totalitarian rules. That said private property is even more important to me their site their rules and we should try to abide by them or go somewhere else. It may seem paradoxical but it's really not. Public space say anything you want. Private can be exclusionary. If they only wanted us to post unicorn pictures or ban they can do so.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Freedom is not risk free is pretty much what I have to say about all totalitarian rules. That said private property is even more important to me their site their rules and we should try to abide by them or go somewhere else. It may seem paradoxical but it's really not. Public space say anything you want. Private can be exclusionary. If they only wanted us to post unicorn pictures or ban they can do so.

Not again...Using the "it's their space" argument is exactly what allows, for example, large social media companies to silence, skew and manipulate opinion as befits them. Censorship is still censorship, and it's harmful no matter who does it. Fact of the matter is that almost the ENTIRE internet is a private space, which means that if this argument is allowed to stand unquestioned, it could potentially apply to almost all online spaces. There would be no space to discuss banned ideas (and that doesn't have to mean just extreme or dangerous ones, could be even ordinary political discussions - after all, govts. have a vested interest in suppressing that, and/or corporate CEO's have their ideological preferences). You'd only ever be able to talk about such things at home, and that's assuming technology doesn't creep ever further into managing that space as well. Besides, even then a lot of these things don't even have any power if they can't get out into the public.

So there aren't exactly plenty of alternatives, because the exact same argument you made can apply to the entire internet. It's just a matter of whether each of those spaces' owners decides to exercise their "right" to censor or not.

If there was some sort of world commons, then maybe this could be okay. But there isn't. Private spaces dominate our lives, and are also increasingly highly concentrated, and if they get a free pass to be as restrictive as they want, then we're going to be left with little in the way of open conversations at all. And, insidiously, that state of affairs is conducive to them, and govt., gaining even greater control over us as well.

In addition, private fora are arguably even worse places to give this sort of deference to. At least (democratic) govts. are answerable to their people, but private companies have to care about no one's opinion on their policies apart from their board and (major) shareholders.

Not sure there is an argument there but you are free to start an open discussion forum. I sure there are some. Also I'd be fine with a public domain forum started by .gov if voters wanted it. What I'm not fine with is government telling private companies speech they must or must not allow. Slippery slope and very dangerous depending which political persuasion runs the FCC.

But I'm very different I think rights of individual trump the collective or mob rule. That's what American is based on individual and property rights. Onwner of these large corps like Google have been deemed persons by SC too so it extends to them.

Apparently in your worldview there is only ".gov" and private exclusivity. Telling, that. Fortunately, in mainstream discourse there exist societal elements outside of that impoverished binary. We even have words for them - 'civil society', 'community', etc. You find the phenomenon at work both in ".gov" and ".com" and ".org" and indeed any other silly internet domain you choose to use to denote a type of institution. Just because you want to see the world in binary doesn't mean it is.

Also, I don't allow my worldviews to be hamstrung by some notion of what it means to be a true American or indeed any other nationality. And indeed this isn't even an American company, and a lot of us on here aren't American citizens either, so I'm not even sure why anyone should care what your courts or the FCC happen to think of anything. Indeed you're the only one here who's even bringing up such specific governing bodies, the rest of us are merely arguing over what's actually right, not retreating into legal precedence as and when it suits us (contrasting with your position on the similarly 'legal' lockdown, showing you aren't simply a hidebound rule-follower).

"

Exile009 wrote:

Censorship is still censorship, and it's harmful no matter who does it.