can someone explain to me the difference between corporate and government censorship, when corporations and the government are definitely fucking?
-
System shared this topic on
-
can someone explain to me the difference between corporate and government censorship, when corporations and the government are definitely fucking?
One is illegal, the other is not.
-
One is illegal, the other is not.
-
No. Nothing reddit is doing is illegal. When you sign up for a service like reddit, there is a TOS, which allows them to ban, warn, limit interaction, etc, at their discretion when terms of their TOS are violated.
If their TOS doesn't allow pictures of butterflies, and you post pictures of butterflies, you will receive a warning. Continue posting butterflies, you'll get banned, until eventually receiving a permaban. There is absolutely nothing illegal about it, because their TOS specifically states no butterfly pictures.
-
can someone explain to me the difference between corporate and government censorship, when corporations and the government are definitely fucking?
People get mad over government censorship, but condone corporate censorship if it's something they want censored.
-
People get mad over government censorship, but condone corporate censorship if it's something they want censored.
Going against an agreement you agreed to abide by is not censorship. If you don't like the agreement, don't agree to it.
-
Going against an agreement you agreed to abide by is not censorship. If you don't like the agreement, don't agree to it.
Agreeing to be censored doesn't mean you're not being censored.
Lol. The pro-censorship crowd really is a site to behold. Glad I'm not loyal to it!
-
Agreeing to be censored doesn't mean you're not being censored.
Lol. The pro-censorship crowd really is a site to behold. Glad I'm not loyal to it!
If you wanna continue to be a fucking moron, that's on you, doesn't change the fact that if you agree to not do something, and you do it, there are consequences.
But keep bitching because you're too stupid to know what a TOS is, and the consequences of breaking a TOS you agree to, because you're too stupid to read.
-
Going against an agreement you agreed to abide by is not censorship. If you don't like the agreement, don't agree to it.
It's not illegal for the other party to include it, but it is absolutely censorship by any definition of the word.
-
It's not illegal for the other party to include it, but it is absolutely censorship by any definition of the word.
If you're stupid, yes. If you have half a brain, it's not.
If you play in the MLB and take steroids, you get suspended, and if you keep taking steroids, you get a lifetime suspension. Steroids aren't illegal. That's not censorship. It's breaking the rules and facing the consequences of breaking the rules.
If you're stupid and think facing consequences for breaking a rule you agreed to is censorship, that's on you for being stupid.
-
If you're stupid, yes. If you have half a brain, it's not.
If you play in the MLB and take steroids, you get suspended, and if you keep taking steroids, you get a lifetime suspension. Steroids aren't illegal. That's not censorship. It's breaking the rules and facing the consequences of breaking the rules.
If you're stupid and think facing consequences for breaking a rule you agreed to is censorship, that's on you for being stupid.
Steroids aren't speech.
-
If you wanna continue to be a fucking moron, that's on you, doesn't change the fact that if you agree to not do something, and you do it, there are consequences.
But keep bitching because you're too stupid to know what a TOS is, and the consequences of breaking a TOS you agree to, because you're too stupid to read.
You don't sound anything like Dr. Zoidberg.
-
One is illegal, the other is not.
If they’re doing so in cooperation with or at the direction of anyone in government, it is also illegal.
-
If they’re doing so in cooperation with or at the direction of anyone in government, it is also illegal.
If we're talking first amendment, it allows for a lot.
-
If we're talking first amendment, it allows for a lot.
It doesn’t allow for this. Already been ruled on.
-
It doesn’t allow for this. Already been ruled on.
Like abortion had already been ruled on, right.
Based on the text of the first amendment, it seems like it's a slam dunk to me to destroy free speech as long as it's not Congress doing it.
-
Like abortion had already been ruled on, right.
Based on the text of the first amendment, it seems like it's a slam dunk to me to destroy free speech as long as it's not Congress doing it.
There no constitutional amendment protecting abortion.
-
There no constitutional amendment protecting abortion.
Nor free speech. That was supposed to be my retort, not yours.
-
Nor free speech. That was supposed to be my retort, not yours.
It’s actually the very first amendment.
-
It’s actually the very first amendment.
Yes, I mentioned it three comments ago. I thought you might read it.
