|
|
|
|
|
|
by jimmy1
2623 days ago
|
|
|
Eventually, those terms of service will cover not-so-outrageous things. If it happens in media and corporate comms, it's only a matter of time before it trickles down into software. As more and more, cueing my inner George Carlin here, self-indignant, self-righteous SJW pricks (that is, distinguishing between real social justice inclined folk, not those who are mad their college micro-triggered them by having a Westboro baptist guy on campus, or Ben Shapiro) make it into these companies, you will see more draconian measures being taken to police thought. It's not a slippery slope if it is actually happening. My personal opinion we do ourselves a huge disservice by filtering out these things. You should display its grotesqueness. Display the horrors of humanity. Teach people life isn't snowflakes and rainbows and that there actually are terrible, evil people out there, not a sea of undiscovered victims. Evil exists as a virtue in of it self, if not to simply show you what the opposite of evil is. Maybe you don't know what good is, but know that it isn't "that" |
|
|
>It's not a slippery slope if it is actually happening.
How can you start a comment with eventually and then end with, it's not a slippery slope it is actually happening?
There's a line to trace somewhere between what is acceptable to host and what isn't. You may disagree with WHERE the line is, sure, but there's a line to trace. It can be barely where it's legal in the country hosting that content (which is still open to interpretation, or else we wouldn't have court systems).
Now are you disagreeing with a line that include Christchurch shootings content? Then say that, or else, sure it will be someone else that will decide where to trace that line.