As if any of us are surprised that they actually have no idea how to control their own product.

Honestly, yeah. I think this nails it. Assuming the accusations are accurate, intentionally targeting one political party over the other for spam filtering would be totally unacceptable.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I wish I could have possessed your foresight on this matter.

You sir, are a paragon of the MAGA movement. Really nailing it representing the team today. So glad you could share with us.

Valve does business in the UK and is therefore subject to UK laws for business transactions taking place in the UK. Whether or not you think the UK law is acceptable or not isn't really a factor here (unless you are a UK citizen and can protest and vote in an effort to repeal it- best of luck friend). Valve's approach strikes me as a fairly reasonable solution all things considered. It definitely sucks if you don't have / don't want a credit card, I agree. But what would your preferred method of adhering to this law be? Government issued digital IDs? Photo of DL + selfie? Hopefully your answer isn't to stick your head in the sand and say "don't adhere to the law;" Valve is not an activist company championing any particular ideology and going to bat against whatever government they can. They sell video games and would likely prefer to continue selling video games to as many people as possible in as smooth a manner as possible (clearly, while adhering to any local laws they might be required to).

Oof. Mod parent up.

No problem. It wasn't my intention to suggest or set aside the fact that slavery is against a person's will, I considered that as granted when I mentioned that it was an impingement of their liberties; I just wanted to illustrate that it was more than that as well.

So, I fundamentally agree with your position here, which I believe is an argument against appealing to popular opinion when deciding what we ought to ban. I understand that your implied suggestion here is that when I am talking about "human dignity" I am talking about something that is somehow connected to popular opinion, or a product of the times. On this point, I will disagree. I'm not trying to convey a superficial image of what a human should do in order to not embarrass themselves or others. I am talking about something as fundamental to humanity is the right to liberty. If I did not think it equal to liberty then I would never have suggested that it was worth parting with liberty in order to maintain it.

I gave what I consider a fairly good breakdown of what I'm really thinking about when I talk about human dignity in another comment in this thread, in response to Mill's harm principle. I hope this helps explain what I'm getting at:

No problem, there's definitely room for more than one take on matters like this. I'm sure we have more ground in common than not. I'm also well aware that on the collective-individual spectrum I fall quite far towards the collective side of things compared to others; I don't consider it right or wrong it's just my own value hierarchy.

I'm certainly not going to argue against Mill's harm principle. However, I would consider harm to others to have a fairly broad meaning. Clearly there are some obvious examples; but I can't help but wonder if "harm" can't include something a bit more nebulous and indirect.

I used the word "dignity" a lot, and taken alone it might seem frivolous- like I'm concerned with pride or some such thing. My real concern is the sorts of actions that become possible, even palatable, when someone (or a group) is dehumanized. Throughout history we can look at the language used by people who commit atrocities and (it seems to me) there is a thread that runs through much of it: those aren't people; they're animals; they're not really human. My deepest concern on the topic is what devaluing our collective humanity unlocks in the form of future allowance. It may be that failure to concern ourselves with our collective dignity will be the individuals burden to bare in the future. Would the harm principle include harm to others in the future? I'm not sure.

In this specific case, I do not think that the death of a human should ever be allowed to become the content of entertainment for others. I believe this is something which humans must put themselves above, collectively, despite the liberty and intentions of an individual to the contrary. I think we make ourselves better for it; and failure will yield a worse society for us all. I do not wish to see a time where dying for the entertainment of others in order to feed your family is a genuine consideration. It is not my intention to belittle the cost of liberty, it is a serious price, I simply believe that sometimes it is worth paying.

Most websites that don't sell an actual product are really in the business of advertising. Everything else, the videos, the articles, are just window dressing so they can get your eyes and advertise to you for profit. They are directly profiting from the connections and viewership of someone in France. Put another way, they are being PAID to advertise to a person in France. That seems really clearly like doing business in France to me.

You might argue that this would mean basically EVERY website is doing business in EVERY country that ANYONE connects to it from. My reply is: Yep.

Okay, well, first of all, you're not talking about the same thing we were talking about. I was answering the above parent's question "If I want to kill myself and film it, why shouldn't I have the right to do so?". That's not the same situation as the one the article describes that you are talking about. So I'm going to try to answer the thrust of your point rather than the specific circumstances you're talking about.

An affront against human dignity is about more than just an individual person. It is an affront to their dignity, yes, but it is also an affront against the collective dignity that we as humans share. When the basic humanity of an individual is devalued, it devalues the basic humanity of us all. Slavery isn't just unacceptable because it impinges on the liberty of the individual slave (though it obviously does that too), but rather it is categorically unacceptable because it makes an object of a human; which is an affront to us all. So whether the action is against another person, or against themselves, an affront to human dignity has the effect of devaluing the basic humanity of everyone; it is for this reason that it is also my dignity, and your dignity, as humans, which we are talking about. If that sort of collectivism seems impossible: think about the dignity of your family, the dignity of your company, the dignity of your country, and how one of your family or "team members" actions impact you as it pertains to that dignity, and I think you'll understand what I'm getting at, even if you don't agree with me or think this is insufficient to make a restriction on liberty warranted.

In the end, I suppose it comes down to where "liberty" falls in your value hierarchy. If you place it above all else, I'm sure what I'm saying must seem like madness.

Mod parent up. (because I mis clicked and modded down. =( )

You'll need to look up "affront to human dignity" if you think the matter is as petty as my taking offense. But to answer your question more directly: Do I consider an affront to human dignity grounds to place restrictions on someone's liberty? Yes. I do.

It is an affront to human dignity.

Missed the forest for the trees.