I honestly can’t tell if you’re being intentionally obtuse or if you just really haven’t thought about this. But for the record the line between porn and snuff films is murder, murder is wrong and society has agreed on that. You are the one who is saying it should be based on “common sense“.
I’m saying there is a whole list of things between, but I suppose that might not be obvious if you’re looking for someone to be mad at.
Someone is going to want things that society has agreed are unacceptable, if not then we wouldn’t need to bother making rules to prohibit them. To those people you, or the law, or the platform owner are the censor. Is it still bad then or is there some place where a watcher is valid then?
I see, you certainly seem to be being intentionally obtuse. For the record I was just letting you know why you’re being downvoted. But that’s some pretty big projection there with the “looking for somebody to be mad at”. You’ve clearly got something stuck in your craw about this and I have no idea what it is.
At the end of the day even the Supreme Court couldn’t come up with this one with the chief justice at the time saying “I don’t know how to define porn but I know what it is when I see it”. Those things that we can agree on are law, and we’re still arguing about the ones we can’t hence this article.
But your original question was why doesn’t somebody just decide what’s bad for society? And the answer is because censorship is bad, whether you like that answer or not. To paraphrase a famous quote, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.
But your original question was why doesn’t somebody just decide what’s bad for society?
My original post wasn’t a question at all, it was a statement that somebody does need to have the capacity to enforce acceptable behavior, but defining it and deciding who that falls to is difficult.
Curiosity since this seems to have irritated some people. Would you suggest that a platform not be regulated in some way if it where enabling the creation of exploitive and hateful content?
Even putting aside that you literally had a question in the comment, posting your opinion in a public forum and then expecting that your opinion is the end of the discussion is asinine at best. I’m not interested in discussing the semantics of rhetorical devices, I was just trying to help you understand why you were being downvoted. A mistake I don’t plan on making again.
I had no question in the original post, making no mention of the edit after.
I didn’t expect it to simply be the end all statement, but a number of down votes without explanation prompted me to inquire on why.
What seems to sum up the argument though is that censorship is always bad, unless it’s the sort that you and the majority of society agree with. My suggestion originally was that indeed some is required, to maintain civil society, but who decides it is hard to say.
Then when somebody answered your inquiry you started arguing with them about whether or not you had even asked anything and then continued to not read their response.
Your summary tells me that at this point you’re being intentionally closed minded. I have no intention of continuing this conversation.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
I honestly can’t tell if you’re being intentionally obtuse or if you just really haven’t thought about this. But for the record the line between porn and snuff films is murder, murder is wrong and society has agreed on that. You are the one who is saying it should be based on “common sense“.
I’m saying there is a whole list of things between, but I suppose that might not be obvious if you’re looking for someone to be mad at.
Someone is going to want things that society has agreed are unacceptable, if not then we wouldn’t need to bother making rules to prohibit them. To those people you, or the law, or the platform owner are the censor. Is it still bad then or is there some place where a watcher is valid then?
I see, you certainly seem to be being intentionally obtuse. For the record I was just letting you know why you’re being downvoted. But that’s some pretty big projection there with the “looking for somebody to be mad at”. You’ve clearly got something stuck in your craw about this and I have no idea what it is.
At the end of the day even the Supreme Court couldn’t come up with this one with the chief justice at the time saying “I don’t know how to define porn but I know what it is when I see it”. Those things that we can agree on are law, and we’re still arguing about the ones we can’t hence this article.
But your original question was why doesn’t somebody just decide what’s bad for society? And the answer is because censorship is bad, whether you like that answer or not. To paraphrase a famous quote, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.
My original post wasn’t a question at all, it was a statement that somebody does need to have the capacity to enforce acceptable behavior, but defining it and deciding who that falls to is difficult.
Even putting aside that you literally had a question in the comment, posting your opinion in a public forum and then expecting that your opinion is the end of the discussion is asinine at best. I’m not interested in discussing the semantics of rhetorical devices, I was just trying to help you understand why you were being downvoted. A mistake I don’t plan on making again.
I had no question in the original post, making no mention of the edit after.
I didn’t expect it to simply be the end all statement, but a number of down votes without explanation prompted me to inquire on why.
What seems to sum up the argument though is that censorship is always bad, unless it’s the sort that you and the majority of society agree with. My suggestion originally was that indeed some is required, to maintain civil society, but who decides it is hard to say.
I literally quoted your question to you.
Then when somebody answered your inquiry you started arguing with them about whether or not you had even asked anything and then continued to not read their response.
Your summary tells me that at this point you’re being intentionally closed minded. I have no intention of continuing this conversation.
Yes, the part preceded by the word EDIT: was a question. Whatever, have fun