Any and all censorship is wrong and a destruction to the free market of ideas that is needed to progress past the stupid.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Any and all censorship is wrong and a destruction to the free market of ideas that is needed to progress past the stupid.
If you come to my living room and call me an a-hole, I have the right to censor you by throwing you out of my property.
Throwing me out of your property is not censoring me, I can still continue to call you an asshole. -smh-
If my property is a newspaper I am printing, and the way you are calling me an asshole is via text on my paper, then I can certainly throw you out.
You are free to publish your own paper calling me an asshole, just like you are free to call me an asshole from the confines of your own property.
@skeptic If you followed your own principles, then I would create offensive articles and demand you publish them in your paper. When you fail to publish them (because your audience doesn't want to read it), then I will accuse you of censorship (your definition).
In my mind neither paper is censoring anyone. Your definition of censorship includes filtering of spam, phishing attempts, and fraudulent or inaccurate information.
Exactly. Just like if I'm the owner of a social media platform like Facebook or Twitter, I get to say what gets published on said platform. It would, in this case, be a service provided by me, and regulated by me.
This sort of "censorship" is not against the free market, at all. In fact, the opposite is true, and the right to do this is at the very core of freedom.
Yes and yes.
If your news paper is your property and you decide to try to censor someone it is your right to do so, your still trying to censor someone and that is morally wrong imo. In return because your newspaper is a business, as word spreads that you censor out of opinion people will realize your newspaper is bias and you would lose people buying it that believe censorship is wrong or just want to have differing opinions so they can make their own opinion on the subject.
I would publish my own paper in this situation and it would strive as the readers of yours that believe censorship is wrong stop buying yours and flock to mine where they can print articles calling you an asshole.
So, you could do it but the moral decision to try to censor someone would be on you and it is wrong. You can say its your right to be morally wrong and I accept that, it still does not make it right.
@dantheman I have to reply to myself because you jumped into a conversation 5th reply in and there for I cant reply to you.
you say:
If you followed your own principles, then I would create offensive articles and demand you publish them in your paper. When you fail to publish them (because your audience doesn't want to read it), then I will accuse you of censorship (your definition).no one is demanding anything. if you want to publish something in an actual newspaper unless you work for that newspaper you have to pay. If you are willing to pay the cost that anyone else pays to publish content and the news paper said no because they don't agree with you opinion then it is censorship.
When you fail to publish them (because your audience doesn't want to read it), then I will accuse you of censorship (your definition).so a strawman? do you even logic bro?
In my mind neither paper is censoring anyone. Your definition of censorship includes filtering of spam, phishing attempts, and fraudulent or inaccurate information.who made you the all ending and all that matters opinion on what is "spam, phishing attempts, and fraudulent or inaccurate information"?
-fucking swear-
Not that Dan and Ned have not already answered this question...
Should we not consider Steemit(the website) the property of specific people?
If people want to communicate direct through the Steem blockchain, nothing is stopping them.
so is it "the property of specific people" or is it the property of anyone that makes an account and uses it? I think a lot of people on steemit if were told by the people that own it that the users do not own it that there might be a problem.
hope that makes sence
"If people want to communicate direct through the Steem blockchain, nothing is stopping them."
If someone owns SteemPower than they own some percentage of the blockchain, not the website Steemit.com.
But, maybe that is just too complicated for the average person to understand.
If people want to communicate direct through the Steem blockchain, nothing is stopping them.no one said anything about communicating on steemit, it was about ownership.
If someone owns SteemPower than they own some percentage of the blockchain, not the website Steemit.comare they not part of the same thing? can the site survive without the blockchain or vice versa?
But, maybe that is just too complicated for the average person to understandor maybe your just being a pretentious prick making comments like that. you must be so much more intelligent then the average person. lol
"no one said anything about communicating on steemit, it was about ownership."
Yep, I got the : "Throwing me out of your property"
But what about the : "I can still continue to call you an asshole"
Can the site survive without the blockchain?
Yes, Steemit.com could present something to the users other than the information from the Steem Blockchain(and Ledger).
Can the blockchain survive without Steemit?
Yes, if Steem still exists other sites like https://my-steemit.com/ can provide the ledger information secured by the Steem blockchain, despite the lack of the existance of Steemit.com.
looks to me like you are the one who gets it.
I just posted this
https://steemit.com/censorship/@skeptic/a-response-to-nonviolent-censorship-is-how-nonviolent-societies-create-nonviolent-government-by-dantheman
I hope I get an answer back.