You really can't have both. Don't believe me? Consider how easily some are offended. You have a choice of not trying to offend anyone, a fools errand, or pushing ahead and offending someone. It all sounds good to 'not be a jerk' but how do topics like illegal immigration get honestly discussed in a PC way. That's the trouble with PC efforts, they ignore or try and re-label reality and reality doesn't bend. If an immigrant is here illegally then they are by definition an illegal immigrant. The euphemi
* Who defines what is offensive? * What is or isn't offensive? (The person receiving it??)
Also what if someone is offended by the truth (such as China's retarded ban on the number 64 -- a reference to the 1989 Tiananmen Square murder -- does national Law trump Censorship ?
Under the principles laid out in the document, which Berners-Lee calls a "Magna Carta for the web", governments must ensure that its citizens have access to all of the internet, all of the time, and that their privacy is respected so they can be online "freely, safely and without fear."
Does that include people who get "de-platformed"?
Yes, I know that wasn't done by government...but hmm, lookie here [contractfortheweb.org]:
Companies will
Make the internet affordable and accessible to everyone
So that no one is excluded from using and shaping the web.
But it seems that the de-platformed are excluded from "shaping" it...
Is impossible because people are afraid of stupid shit. Specifically they are afraid of other's speech.
> prejudice, bias, polarisation, fake news,
Being able to express any/all of those is a freedom. Specifically the Freedom of Speech. Trying to disallow those is oppression and censorship. Freedom of Speech only exists if you are free to be rude, hateful, offensive, lie, spread misinformation, and express unpopular opinions. There are, of course, limits already covered by laws. Sl
Excellent points! I would also add:
* Who defines what is offensive?
* What is or isn't offensive? (The person receiving it??)
Also what if someone is offended by the truth (such as China's retarded ban on the number 64 -- a reference to the 1989 Tiananmen Square murder -- does national Law trump Censorship ?
Under the principles laid out in the document, which Berners-Lee calls a "Magna Carta for the web", governments must ensure that its citizens have access to all of the internet, all of the time, and that their privacy is respected so they can be online "freely, safely and without fear."
Does that include people who get "de-platformed"?
Yes, I know that wasn't done by government ...but hmm, lookie here [contractfortheweb.org]:
Companies will
Make the internet affordable and accessible to everyone
So that no one is excluded from using and shaping the web.
But it seems that the de-platformed are excluded from "shaping" it ...
> "and without fear"
Is impossible because people are afraid of stupid shit. Specifically they are afraid of other's speech.
> prejudice, bias, polarisation, fake news,
Being able to express any/all of those is a freedom. Specifically the Freedom of Speech. Trying to disallow those is oppression and censorship. Freedom of Speech only exists if you are free to be rude, hateful, offensive, lie, spread misinformation, and express unpopular opinions. There are, of course, limits already covered by laws. Sl