On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 03:34, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
While I don't find that line of argument to be a fully fledged straw-horse argument, it does appear to me to be a cherry-picked argument to *attempt* to refute. There are much stronger arguments, both practical and philosophical, at any attempt to elide controversial content. Even as such, I am not convinced by the argumentation, but would not prefer to rebut an argument that does not address the strongest reasons for opposing elision of controversial content, by choice or otherwise.
My point was not to provide an argument for or against any particular implementation. It was a response to one particularly god-awful argument.
"So, if you wanna make censorware, it’s gotta be pretty damn strict. And you’ve also got to keep the false negatives down for PR purposes because otherwise snarky people will relentlessly mock you. Oh, and you’ve got to keep your lists secret because this is capitalism and competition requires secrecy. And if you leak the list, people will start poking around on those websites."
Happily enough, if you want to use faulty rhetoric, people will also make fun of you.
You just successfully jumped over the shark like a half a dozen times.
It isn' one incidence, it isn't a class of incidences. Take it on board that the community is against the *principle* of censorship. Please.