It is very unfortunate that this article has a "baseline assumption" that the Armenian Genocide claim is true. Building on this assumption the author is suggesting that any attempt to pose an opposing opinion is bad and must be blocked. Where is the scientific method in this mind set? How could one find the truth, if that is the objective, with such a single-minded stance?
We hear awfully a lot what the Armenian side has to say. Shouldn't we also listen the other side of the issue? What is wrong with the Turks trying to reach out with paid ads? Don't you think it is relevant to know that Armenian citizens of the Ottoman Empire had started an insurgence with the support from Russia and killed thousands of Turkish people right in the middle of WWI? During WWII "without any tangible reason" US government had brought Japanees descendant American citizens into camps. Now, consider what the US would have done if those same citizens had sided with the Japan and started an insurgency in the US homeland while the US Navy is fighting a war teeth and nail in the Pacific? How is that any different from the story back in 1915? Shouldn't we talk about why no scholar from Armenia or any Western country for that matter has looked into the Ottoman archives that were made available years ago by the Turkish government to help clarify the topic? Shouldn't we talk about the lack of any physical evidence of "systematic extermination" of Armenians in the Ottoman era? Shouldn't we talk about the Armenian terrorist organization ASALA and numerous Turkish diplomats they murdered in 70s thru early 90s. The article paints Turks as the bad guys and offers Cyprus conflict as yet another example. However, I see no mention of the EOKA and the atrocities committed by the Greek Cypriots. How was that not a genocide?
The Internet, as in other dimensions of life, is full of good and bad information. As an information age citizen it is everybody's responsibility to use this powerful tool, that is the Internet, to discover the truth for theirselves.
Several commenters here hit the fundamentally broken argument in this article---it is outright stupid to trust and ask any organization (Google, US government, EU congress, etc.) to make decisions about what is right and what is wrong on our behalf. It is stupid to ask Google to block ads and it is stupid to have senates pass laws to label some event 100 years ago as something. If we start letting that what is to stop this filtering and labeling at this rather peripheral topic i.e. Armenian genocide claim. May be next time "the deciders" will focus on something that has more immediate impact on our daily lives and choose to block climate change supporting pages or deem any discussion of police brutality to be harmful for the society or suppress any page that argues that distribution of wealth in the world is skewed. If you think about it all these arguments offend some group in the world. So, how would you feel about that?
Slashdot Mirror
It is very unfortunate that this article has a "baseline assumption" that the Armenian Genocide claim is true. Building on this assumption the author is suggesting that any attempt to pose an opposing opinion is bad and must be blocked. Where is the scientific method in this mind set? How could one find the truth, if that is the objective, with such a single-minded stance? We hear awfully a lot what the Armenian side has to say. Shouldn't we also listen the other side of the issue? What is wrong with the Turks trying to reach out with paid ads? Don't you think it is relevant to know that Armenian citizens of the Ottoman Empire had started an insurgence with the support from Russia and killed thousands of Turkish people right in the middle of WWI? During WWII "without any tangible reason" US government had brought Japanees descendant American citizens into camps. Now, consider what the US would have done if those same citizens had sided with the Japan and started an insurgency in the US homeland while the US Navy is fighting a war teeth and nail in the Pacific? How is that any different from the story back in 1915? Shouldn't we talk about why no scholar from Armenia or any Western country for that matter has looked into the Ottoman archives that were made available years ago by the Turkish government to help clarify the topic? Shouldn't we talk about the lack of any physical evidence of "systematic extermination" of Armenians in the Ottoman era? Shouldn't we talk about the Armenian terrorist organization ASALA and numerous Turkish diplomats they murdered in 70s thru early 90s. The article paints Turks as the bad guys and offers Cyprus conflict as yet another example. However, I see no mention of the EOKA and the atrocities committed by the Greek Cypriots. How was that not a genocide? The Internet, as in other dimensions of life, is full of good and bad information. As an information age citizen it is everybody's responsibility to use this powerful tool, that is the Internet, to discover the truth for theirselves. Several commenters here hit the fundamentally broken argument in this article---it is outright stupid to trust and ask any organization (Google, US government, EU congress, etc.) to make decisions about what is right and what is wrong on our behalf. It is stupid to ask Google to block ads and it is stupid to have senates pass laws to label some event 100 years ago as something. If we start letting that what is to stop this filtering and labeling at this rather peripheral topic i.e. Armenian genocide claim. May be next time "the deciders" will focus on something that has more immediate impact on our daily lives and choose to block climate change supporting pages or deem any discussion of police brutality to be harmful for the society or suppress any page that argues that distribution of wealth in the world is skewed. If you think about it all these arguments offend some group in the world. So, how would you feel about that?