Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Days of Broken Arrows" data-source="post: 1182952" data-attributes="member: 4258">^^^I would argue the shuttering of Web sites did, in fact, send us on the slippery slope. It's created a mentality where a lot of groups think the government should step in and shut down Web sites or ban citizens from social media) when they say or do something these groups don't like.Case in point: A recent VICE article titled &quot;Social Media Bans Aren't Enough to Stop the Far Right&quot; (here is the <a href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3BM--2vDQboJ:https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9kgqe7/do-social-media-bans-really-hurt-the-alt-right+&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us&amp;client=firefox-b-1" target="_blank">cache </a>of the article).The headline alone takes for granted that &quot;bans&quot; are necessary -- and expected -- to stop people the writer deems &quot;bad.&quot; In this case it's &quot;the far right.&quot; (By the way, if the &quot;far right&quot; is reaching the mainstream, which is is, then it's mainstream, not &quot;far right.&quot; But I digress.)I'd argue that this started with Craigslist closing down the &quot;erotic&quot; sections of the site ten years ago. That shows there is a sort of morality behind these decisions -- and morality itself is very relative. Anyone can claim a moral high ground, esp. when you start bringing &quot;the children&quot; into the discussions.Illegality is one thing, but what's immoral? Is the &quot;far right&quot; immoral? Is a disabled war veteran seeking female &quot;companionship&quot; immoral? And who is anyone to say, anyway?I'm with you all on closing down sites that break the law per se. But I am not behind the nebulous claims of &quot;morality&quot; that underpin all of this.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Days of Broken Arrows, post: 1182952, member: 4258"] ^^^ I would argue the shuttering of Web sites did, in fact, send us on the slippery slope. It's created a mentality where a lot of groups think the government should step in and shut down Web sites or ban citizens from social media) when they say or do something these groups don't like. Case in point: A recent VICE article titled "Social Media Bans Aren't Enough to Stop the Far Right" (here is the [url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3BM--2vDQboJ:https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9kgqe7/do-social-media-bans-really-hurt-the-alt-right+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b-1]cache [/url]of the article). The headline alone takes for granted that "bans" are necessary -- and expected -- to stop people the writer deems "bad." In this case it's "the far right." (By the way, if the "far right" is reaching the mainstream, which is is, then it's mainstream, not "far right." But I digress.) I'd argue that this started with Craigslist closing down the "erotic" sections of the site ten years ago. That shows there is a sort of morality behind these decisions -- and morality itself is very relative. Anyone can claim a moral high ground, esp. when you start bringing "the children" into the discussions. Illegality is one thing, but what's immoral? Is the "far right" immoral? Is a disabled war veteran seeking female "companionship" immoral? And who is anyone to say, anyway? I'm with you all on closing down sites that break the law per se. But I am not behind the nebulous claims of "morality" that underpin all of this. [/QUOTE]

Verification