@lucky760 @newtboy

Censorship according to the internet: "the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts."

I see public internet communication as a constantly published work of the human intellect, therefore all digitally published and public communication is media and therefore subject to censorship -- and Videosift now offers a form of individual censorship to its members, not simply the acceptable ignore feature which allows you to check the communication if you so desire.

It bothers me that people would completely block out other people's published work -- and not just their published work but their very existence -- for the same reason that it bothers me that people ban books I don't read at libraries. Mein Kampf is still a book, a poorly written book which glorifies hatred, but still an important part of human literature.

You can choose not to read it, but you can't censor it's existence from reality. Not without burning every copy and then erasing every digital copy. Though perhaps in the future an algorithm will be available which does something similar on an account wide level, visually removing all unfavorable literature and blocking people's facial features, making it so that that person and their communication might as well not exist. But I wouldn't want it to be nullified from my vision while walking through a library, anymore than I would want to nullify a person's existence who offends me; and by extension I believe the freedom to exist and to be acknowledged is an important freedom that we take for granted. You should NOT be able to remove someone from your personal existence. Yes, there are laws in place to do this, but they require criminal abuse to come into effect.

There are greater implications of this type of censorship, that perhaps do not apply directly to the Sift in it's short temporal existence and small community. But it's still an offence to my sense of justice in the realm of communication that such a thing is possible. Even the < ahref="http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-04/14/google-algorithm-predicts-trolls-antisocial-behaviour">troll algorithm isn't intended to ban or censor trolls outright, but rather to detect problematic people and find a way to limit the harm they do to a community without removing them from a community.

I think it's one thing if you want to prevent someone from posting on your profile -- which is what should actually be an option (if it isn't already) -- but to silence their voice in video comments is a high form of censorship that I fundamentally stand against. I quite enjoyed some of what Chilngalera had to say; not always and often he offended me -- but not enough to desire to remove him from my existence. I don't think anyone except violent/sexual offenders deserve that. If he vocalizedd violence and sexual threats, why would he still be in the community at all? And if he's banned, why do you need to have an option to block out people's existence?

I was employed for many years to police several massive online roleplaying games, and an ignore feature was a widely accepted form of preventing harassment -- but when it came to erasing the person's avatar or their character's physical body from the game, we always voted against such outright blotting out of a human being. Our rational was and is to this day that if the person cannot communicate to you via explicit words, their presence is an acceptable form of nonverbal communication and a reminder that they are a human being in the community, even if verbally hobbled -- because at that point they have no means of articulating hurtful words.

But to erase that person's presence is a greater act against both the human spirit and human expression as to be a reprehensible act in an of itself. Unless they commit such atrocious behavior in the form of real life physical threats of violence, constant racial/sexual slurs (in a bucket system of soft banning leading up to a permanent ban) or other forms of insidiousness, preserving their humanity is more important to a community than erasing another human being.

First, it's not censorship in any way shape or form. Not reading someone's post is simply not what the word 'censorship' means.

Second, it's actually not what people said about me that got my goat (mostly...Chingalera did make numerous personal attacks though), it was what I saw as repeated intentional provocation, racist, misogynist, and other hateful postings that, while they were designed to not cross the line and get the people banned, were certainly not what I come to the sift to read. When those posts were unavoidable because of others replying/quoting, even though the posters were ignored, it made the sift a place where reading the comments section was becoming intolerable. Now I don't have that problem.
(there are also a couple of people I ignore because they asked me to, not because they were nasty. I do wish I had the option to select who's totally ignored, or at least a way to un-ignore those on that list, but no solution is perfect, and this one was the best I could think of that was possible.

Once more I'll thank @lucky760 for his work helping me with this, it kept me from leaving the sift...I'll leave that for you to decide if that's a good or a bad thing.

My question for you, why does my not reading a few sifter's posts make you think someone has been censored anywhere besides my screen?

Why does that matter?

Plain and simple, if people feel like shit by reading someone's comments, they shouldn't have to.

If their only options are 1) stop coming to VideoSift, 2) teach an old dog new tricks (i.e., force them to teach their psychology to cope with the perceived abuse), or 3) continue coming to VideoSift but ensuring they aren't made to feel like shit, I don't understand your perspective is that option 2 is the only choice and that every dissenting opinion *must* be heard by *everyone* who comes across it otherwise... what, their civil rights are being violated or something? I don't see the offense.

Why should anyone care that newtboy is avoiding reading their comments with a little assistance from the site? From the commenter's perspective, how is that any different than newtboy just not reading their comments [unassisted]?

There are no Clockwork Orange eye-clamps here, and it's not censorship for a person to practice their right to ignore content they want not to experience.

(Btw, I hope this isn't coming across as an attack. I honestly just don't understand the point of view you're representing.)

What do people say about you that is so bad it requires the implementation of a new level of censorship at the Sift?

ok, this is much harder. First up, he's right that context absolutely matters.

But the Colbert thing was far more about stupid people not getting a joke than censorship. There was more backlash to the outrage than there was outrage in the first place.

But here's the thing, if you value freedom of expression, then you have to value people's freedom not to support forms of expression they find distasteful. People saying "I'll boycott X" is NOT censorship. Freedom of expression does not mean that private companies are required to provide you with a platform.

Political Correctness and Censorship he refers to

censorship RULES

Liberals oppose totalitarian ideologies automatically.

Read that sentence again. As far as I'm concerned, it's axiomatic. Consequent to that principle, no liberal will ever support or apologise for islam.

What we're seeing with our 'regressive leftists' is people who've been raised in an environment, the educated middle class say, in which liberalism is associated with goodness. Since they define themselves as good, they naturally also define themselves as liberal. They know that among the intellectual set to which they aspire, any admission of social conservatism will quite properly be met with contempt.

So, even while calling for censorship, even while defending the brutal and mindless suppression of individual freedom that is inherent in islam, these reactionaries delude themselves into believing that they're liberal.

No censorship for that finger?

I sincerely apologize for my ignorance, and thank you for setting the record straight. (really)

My incorrect understanding of that (education about the war in Germany) came from about 40% being presented with bad information (or interpreting information incorrectly), and 60% drawing the wrong conclusions based on the censorship of Nazi imagery there.

Before commenting, I did quick web research to support the information I had heard about the censorship side of things there. When that basically confirmed what I thought, I neglected to do the same due diligence with regards to how the war is taught in schools.

...Pretty shitty on my part, especially considering that my opener in my previous comment was that it would be "interesting" to compare how education handles history in both countries, and then apparently I wasn't actually interested enough to actually fact-check.

So again, I apologize.

With regards to the issues in the Daily Show video, ie. the Confederate flag, I think it is probably reasonable to say that in my opinion it would be a good idea to remove the flag from use for Government / State purposes. The way Germany handles Nazi imagery goes beyond that. I'm not sure that I would agree with that extent of what amounts to censorship in handling it, but that is just my opinion.

So I guess in summary, it really *is* interesting to consider both countries approaches to handling uncomfortable bits of our past. I just should have actually done it properly when I said it the first time.

What's the difference between God and a Democrat?

A: God knows He's not a Democrat.
------------------------------------------
You might be a liberal if…

you break out in a cold sweat at the mention of the Constitution.


you believe the Constitution is living but unborn babies aren’t.


you believe that a democrat freed the slaves and a republican created the KKK.

you abhor censorship unless it’s censoring race, religion, Conservatism, Western culture or Rush Limbaugh.

you believe 59% of whites who voted for Romney are racists but 96% of blacks who voted for Obama are not.

"Censorship is not censorship."

I suspect the coverup has less to do with modesty and more to do with avoiding censorship. I could definitely see this being so if it's an official or semi official campaign as it's already skirting the edges of good taste.

@billpayer, you are...mistaken. It didn't disappear, it was at the bottom of the list.

You still can't understand my clear explanation? Bill is anti-Islam, you can find many clear examples of it. This was not one of them, nor do I find it racist like you label it, so I downvoted. I stood behind it, and still do, I didn't cry, I didn't hide, and I didn't create a sift talk bemoaning a single downvote as censorship.
Please sir, where's the cowardice?

I can't believe Americans are upset over this. (whether this is fake or not)

The irony. Of all western democracies, the U.S. is the MOST like the countries they fear and despise. Censorship, extreme religious views. The idea that law should be based on a holy book. It's a long list, but you get the idea.