Because they are idealists, its why they volunteer. They do not see us as the enemy, we are who they are trying to protect, our rights are their motivation for them to risk their lives.
They don't have to see us as an enemy, and neither does the government. They just have to believe that what they're doing is "the right thing." Even those with the best of intentions can be mistaken. I'd much prefer it if they just had no powers to spy on us to begin with, and no powers to retain the data.
What if someone put out an advertisement about ice cream, and some insane person decided to kill themselves because of it!? Therefore, all advertisements should be banned because a minuscule portion of the population might decide to do something harmful because of them!
Of course. Ban something because someone might get offended by it/take it seriously. I honestly don't want to ban/censor something just because it might make a minuscule portion of the population want to do something harmful.
Is that so? The government spews such things left and right. "Oh, we'll only use this on the bad guys. Oh, don't worry, we're not going to spy on you!" I don't trust them one single bit. Why should I trust the military?
Time and time again, the courts have ruled that if it's visible from a public (air)space, then you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, including from the air.
Yeah, just like the government can set up cameras everywhere in public places. I don't care what courts rule; it's nonsense.
But it is hardly a waste to arrest the guys who run criminal empires that make millions of dollars off of illegally distributed works and extradite them to the U.S. to answer for their willing participation in an organized criminal business.
Except that it is a waste. People who want to download will move elsewhere, and they're the people who you just said weren't worth arresting. The fact that he's making money means nothing. It's mostly on ads and premium accounts. And all this is from the people who use the website (the ones you said weren't worth arresting). It's a complete waste of time. We gain absolutely nothing from wasting taxpayer dollars trying to stop this.
Okay. You'll have to define that for me, because I have no idea what that means. It could be "common sense" that the world is flat, but in the end, declaring something to be "common sense" means absolutely nothing.
But the fact that people would protest over a certain kind of censorship only means that it's less likely to be censored, not that it's a reason that it shouldn't be censored. If you meant the former, though, then I agree with you.
Every reason is real enough. Unless you're saying that people's feelings don't exist, of course.
And what if these "real reasons" didn't exist? Would you be in favor of this legislation despite the fact that they likely have no evidence to support their claims?
I also had a leg broken as a kid in a car accident. Given I can still walk and even run, I guess it was unfair of us to swue the guy that hit me, after all there was no lasting damage.
How is accidentally breaking your leg the same thing as accidentally coming across pornography (something that can do no physical harm whatsoever and does, by no means, hurt most people)? In all cases of someone breaking their leg, that person is hurt. This is not so with pornography. I don't know why you found this to be an apt analogy.
You care a lot about the masturbator's lost minutes, though.
I care a lot about getting rid of nonsensical, pointless legislation.
The "time wasted" or "burden of opting in" is plainly absurd.
I disagree. Different people have different priorities. As I said, a lesser evil is still an evil. I'm completely against collective punishment, no matter how small the punishment. "Some kid could look at porn. Ban it/create an opt-out filter!" As I said, a lesser evil is still an evil. Especially when that lesser evil is being forced on everyone due to what could happen to some people.
So unless you want to offer some actual evidence that looking at pictures will harm the average kid beyond grossing them out, I doubt you'll get me to believe that.
And since this is proposed legislation, I'd say the burden of proof is on its supporters. Why propose something with no evidence?
Not that I would support harming everyone (by forcing them to opt-in) "for the children," anyway.
I used to think the same until I bumped as a young teen into fecophilia porn via a rickrolling "joke". I didn’t want to get near a computer for a month.
Yes, now you're in a mental institution. I never seem to have had the problem that you say you did. Nor anyone that I know.
Yes... because the slight inconvenience of a porn surfer is more important than worrying about the possibility of kids being exposed to videos and photos of same sex orgies, fecophilia or bestiality, among all other types of sick porn that is all over the web. How dare anyone dare delay some porn hunter his solo playtime by a minute or two!!!! The horror!
Sorry, but I'm not a fan of "for the children" nonsense. I don't really care if children accidentally (in the unlikely event that it happens by accident) run into pornography. Most, if not all of them, will be fine. Just like most of them will likely be fine playing violent video games. So unless you want to offer some actual evidence that looking at pictures will harm the average kid beyond grossing them out, I doubt you'll get me to believe that.
Oh, and just because you don't find it to be a problem doesn't mean someone else doesn't. A lesser evil (opt-in) is still an evil. And pointless, at that. They might look at a picture of naked bodies! The horror! Little kids likely won't understand and won't find it interesting, older kids will probably look for it themselves. Useless filtering.
Not a lot of people have problem with restricting access to pornography
I don't understand. What are you trying to say? "Many people like this content. Therefore, it's good and should not be censored!" You could say that about anything.
But really, how do you know that "not a lot of people" have a problem with restricting access to harmless pornography?
BTW, Google already has a "safe search" feature that is turned on by default.
Google's search engine isn't an ISP.
No matter how attentive we wish parents were, there are too many "safe" sites that get trolled with very very nasty links, and a child's mind should not be scared by accidents or by stupid parents that don't know how to turn on parental features.
Don't worry. Even if a child sees such things, I don't think they'll turn into scared little rapists. In fact, they'll probably be 100% fine unless something was wrong with them before. I honestly don't see the problem, and I don't see the need for opt-out filters. If this paranoid garbage should exist at all, I think it should be opt-in.
In the end, it'll likely just end up annoying people who want to view pornography (they'll have to waste their time opting-in) and children will remain the same as they were previously.
I don't know, perhaps it's easier to rationalize stealing
1) What "stealing"? I never know if people think it's actually "stealing" in the usual sense of the word or if they're talking about copying when they use that word. That's why I think it's a problem. 2) Why would you assume that's what he was trying to do? He belittled them, yes, but how exactly does that mean he was trying to "rationalize stealing"?
Slashdot Mirror
So it's OK when on site makes cheap shots, but not the other.
I don't see where he said that. Must someone bash every side in existence before they're allowed to comment on one side?
Because they are idealists, its why they volunteer. They do not see us as the enemy, we are who they are trying to protect, our rights are their motivation for them to risk their lives.
They don't have to see us as an enemy, and neither does the government. They just have to believe that what they're doing is "the right thing." Even those with the best of intentions can be mistaken. I'd much prefer it if they just had no powers to spy on us to begin with, and no powers to retain the data.
Anorexia is more than a minuscule portion of the population.
Okay. I don't really care if that's true, honestly. The point is that they're trying to punish people for the foolish actions of other people.
That way, the company is free to advertise how it see's fit and the disclaimer is only pointing out that what is being displayed is not healthy.
I wonder if people would really care about that?
What if someone put out an advertisement about ice cream, and some insane person decided to kill themselves because of it!? Therefore, all advertisements should be banned because a minuscule portion of the population might decide to do something harmful because of them!
Of course. Ban something because someone might get offended by it/take it seriously. I honestly don't want to ban/censor something just because it might make a minuscule portion of the population want to do something harmful.
Is that so? The government spews such things left and right. "Oh, we'll only use this on the bad guys. Oh, don't worry, we're not going to spy on you!" I don't trust them one single bit. Why should I trust the military?
Time and time again, the courts have ruled that if it's visible from a public (air)space, then you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, including from the air.
Yeah, just like the government can set up cameras everywhere in public places. I don't care what courts rule; it's nonsense.
That doesn't sound any different.
But it is hardly a waste to arrest the guys who run criminal empires that make millions of dollars off of illegally distributed works and extradite them to the U.S. to answer for their willing participation in an organized criminal business.
Except that it is a waste. People who want to download will move elsewhere, and they're the people who you just said weren't worth arresting. The fact that he's making money means nothing. It's mostly on ads and premium accounts. And all this is from the people who use the website (the ones you said weren't worth arresting). It's a complete waste of time. We gain absolutely nothing from wasting taxpayer dollars trying to stop this.
+commonsensically wrong
Okay. You'll have to define that for me, because I have no idea what that means. It could be "common sense" that the world is flat, but in the end, declaring something to be "common sense" means absolutely nothing.
I simply meant to imply that saying, "It's objectively wrong to censor X because a lot of people wouldn't like that." is just an appeal to popularity.
But the fact that people would protest over a certain kind of censorship only means that it's less likely to be censored, not that it's a reason that it shouldn't be censored. If you meant the former, though, then I agree with you.
but for real reasons
Every reason is real enough. Unless you're saying that people's feelings don't exist, of course.
And what if these "real reasons" didn't exist? Would you be in favor of this legislation despite the fact that they likely have no evidence to support their claims?
I also had a leg broken as a kid in a car accident. Given I can still walk and even run, I guess it was unfair of us to swue the guy that hit me, after all there was no lasting damage.
How is accidentally breaking your leg the same thing as accidentally coming across pornography (something that can do no physical harm whatsoever and does, by no means, hurt most people)? In all cases of someone breaking their leg, that person is hurt. This is not so with pornography. I don't know why you found this to be an apt analogy.
You care a lot about the masturbator's lost minutes, though.
I care a lot about getting rid of nonsensical, pointless legislation.
The "time wasted" or "burden of opting in" is plainly absurd.
I disagree. Different people have different priorities. As I said, a lesser evil is still an evil. I'm completely against collective punishment, no matter how small the punishment. "Some kid could look at porn. Ban it/create an opt-out filter!" As I said, a lesser evil is still an evil. Especially when that lesser evil is being forced on everyone due to what could happen to some people.
So unless you want to offer some actual evidence that looking at pictures will harm the average kid beyond grossing them out, I doubt you'll get me to believe that.
And since this is proposed legislation, I'd say the burden of proof is on its supporters. Why propose something with no evidence?
Not that I would support harming everyone (by forcing them to opt-in) "for the children," anyway.
I used to think the same until I bumped as a young teen into fecophilia porn via a rickrolling "joke". I didn’t want to get near a computer for a month.
Yes, now you're in a mental institution. I never seem to have had the problem that you say you did. Nor anyone that I know.
Yes... because the slight inconvenience of a porn surfer is more important than worrying about the possibility of kids being exposed to videos and photos of same sex orgies, fecophilia or bestiality, among all other types of sick porn that is all over the web. How dare anyone dare delay some porn hunter his solo playtime by a minute or two!!!! The horror!
Sorry, but I'm not a fan of "for the children" nonsense. I don't really care if children accidentally (in the unlikely event that it happens by accident) run into pornography. Most, if not all of them, will be fine. Just like most of them will likely be fine playing violent video games. So unless you want to offer some actual evidence that looking at pictures will harm the average kid beyond grossing them out, I doubt you'll get me to believe that.
Oh, and just because you don't find it to be a problem doesn't mean someone else doesn't. A lesser evil (opt-in) is still an evil. And pointless, at that. They might look at a picture of naked bodies! The horror! Little kids likely won't understand and won't find it interesting, older kids will probably look for it themselves. Useless filtering.
Not a lot of people have problem with restricting access to pornography
I don't understand. What are you trying to say? "Many people like this content. Therefore, it's good and should not be censored!" You could say that about anything.
But really, how do you know that "not a lot of people" have a problem with restricting access to harmless pornography?
the vast majority of kids know a lot more about computers than their parents
While that's likely true, their greatest accomplishment is probably accessing Facebook.
BTW, Google already has a "safe search" feature that is turned on by default.
Google's search engine isn't an ISP.
No matter how attentive we wish parents were, there are too many "safe" sites that get trolled with very very nasty links, and a child's mind should not be scared by accidents or by stupid parents that don't know how to turn on parental features.
Don't worry. Even if a child sees such things, I don't think they'll turn into scared little rapists. In fact, they'll probably be 100% fine unless something was wrong with them before. I honestly don't see the problem, and I don't see the need for opt-out filters. If this paranoid garbage should exist at all, I think it should be opt-in.
In the end, it'll likely just end up annoying people who want to view pornography (they'll have to waste their time opting-in) and children will remain the same as they were previously.
amoral libertarians
Amoral about what?
If it's all consensual, then I couldn't care less. It's like a story or a video game: it's not real.
I don't know, perhaps it's easier to rationalize stealing
1) What "stealing"? I never know if people think it's actually "stealing" in the usual sense of the word or if they're talking about copying when they use that word. That's why I think it's a problem.
2) Why would you assume that's what he was trying to do? He belittled them, yes, but how exactly does that mean he was trying to "rationalize stealing"?
It has had a huge effect.
Oh? He said it had "exactly zero effect," and then you say it had a "huge effect"? Now, how could you possibly know that?
And if it affected anything, it was only potential profit.
I wouldn't say you deserve the negative attention. I have no problem with public nudity. Just don't be surprised if someone looks.
I don't see anything wrong with nudity, honestly.
I'm not surprised at all about that. But there is literally no way to know just how many people were put off by it.