How do you battle pornography? I usually beat it off. Whack it around a bit. Bash it out.

>> ^NetRunner:
China doesn't have the ability to censor anything outside of its own domain either

What are you talking about? The Chinese government controls or monitors most or all communication channels going in and out of the country (thanks in no small part to Google). Not only do they effectively prevent communication about certain topics between their own citizens, they prevent communication between their citizens and the outside world. When the censorship is circumvented, the consequences are dire, sometimes fatal.

>> ^NetRunner:
in the hypothetical situation that Google stuck to their guns, and thunderf00t decided to keep breaking Google's policy to make a point, ultimately the U.S. government would be drawn into the fight, and would, if nobody backed down, arrest thunderf00t for trying to use Google's property in a way that they didn't consent to.

lmahs! On what charges? Google wouldn't even have grounds for a civil suit unless they could demonstrate some real harm to their business. Short of thunderf00t actively hacking Google's servers to post his videos, he would face no consequences more severe than those set out in the terms of service:

1. YouTube will terminate a user's access to the Service if, under appropriate circumstances, the user is determined to be a repeat infringer.


2. YouTube reserves the right to decide whether Content violates these Terms of Service for reasons other than copyright infringement, such as, but not limited to, pornography, obscenity, or excessive length. YouTube may at any time, without prior notice and in its sole discretion, remove such Content and/or terminate a user's account for submitting such material in violation of these Terms of Service.

That might be terrifying if YouTube was the only useful video host, or could somehow exert influence on all the others to prevent access to those as well.


I think this comes down to two interrelated disagreements. First, I view censorship, like most tools, as morally neutral. It can be used morally (e.g., preventing the dissemination of information on how to design biological weapons) or immorally (e.g., preventing the dissemination of information on government corruption). The immorality of an act of censorship is based on what the information is, why its censored, who is censored, and the consequences for circumventing the censorship.

Second, in this case, I don't think Google is in a position to use censorship in an immoral way. This is what I mean by "effective" censorship. If circumventing the censorship requires little or no effort, and there are no real consequences for doing so, it can hardly be called "effective", can it? Hypocritical and unethical? Absolutely. But Google can neither prohibit nor prevent thunderf00t from communicating anything he wants to whomever he wants.

I think you're mixing a few separate questions.

In particular, the idea that Videosift banning pornography is "self" regulation. If dag decides that he personally doesn't want to post pornography on the Internet, that's self-regulation. If dag wants to host a site that publishes user content, but wants to regulate what those users are allowed to publish, that's not him regulating "himself" that's him regulating others.

I'm also not taking an absolutist stance against private censorship -- I think it's perfectly kosher to say that private publishers are free to limit certain specifically enumerated types of speech (hate speech, incitement to violence, pornography, etc.), but that the general rule is that if it doesn't clearly fall inside one of those enumerated categories it's against the law for them to censor it.

As for the historical case, I'm not aware of any country where an attempt to ban censorship turned into a regime that chilled free speech. What I'm talking about here is really Net Neutrality stated as a general principle rather than as an Internet-specific legislation.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@NetRunner So videosift is violating free speech by its terms and agreements by not allowing pornography? People can't self regulate without Congregational approval? You think that will create MORE free speech and not less? I don't think there is a history of that being the case.

>> ^sepatown:

Please do not post pornography or "snuff" films (which we define as the explicit depiction of loss of human life displayed for entertainment).
Note: The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera.


I disagree, but I'll leave it up to people who've been here longer or whoever to decide.

It's not entertaining to me. It's shocking and demonstrates in less than a minute why you should be really cautious on the road and be very wary and respectful of semi trucks even in good conditions.

Please do not post pornography or "snuff" films (which we define as the explicit depiction of loss of human life displayed for entertainment).

Note: The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera.

@NetRunner So videosift is violating free speech by its terms and agreements by not allowing pornography? People can't self regulate without Congregational approval? You think that will create MORE free speech and not less? I don't think there is a history of that being the case.

Good idea. The whole slippery slope thing, when applied to everything, is stupid.

I think that as a society we just have to have some extreme things that we just will not tolerate no matter how much you're into free speech and libertarianism. Child pornography is one area like that, as would be, I hope, videos of murdering people for pleasure/amusement.

If there is anyone who is honestly bemoaning this move, and thinking that their particular quirk is next in line, maybe question your particular quirk, because if it's anywhere near child pornography you're a pretty scary member of society.

Suppressing child pornography promotes child rape.

Lol fail.
>> ^gorgonheap:

Pornography is ultimately deconstructive to healthy relationships. Just about any marriage councilor will confirm this. It degrades those involved with it. Some may disagree with it that but everyone should remember the sick feeling that accompanys the first few time one sees pornography. That's , in my opinion, a God given instinct to turn away from the filth.
Yes porn is attractive, especially to the male psyche. But it's incredibly damaging to ones relationships and how they view members of the opposite sex.

That will never be a controversy. That's just like calling someone's face ugly. It will be shrugged off.


No, to get a proper controversy: I call your core beliefs INTO QUESTION!!
>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^bareboards2:
There hasn't been a lot of controversy lately on the Sift, has there?
Part of me is relieved. Part of me misses the drama and adrenaline rush.
The part that is relieved is much bigger.

I hate you and every stupid thing that you say.

>> ^bareboards2:

There hasn't been a lot of controversy lately on the Sift, has there?
Part of me is relieved. Part of me misses the drama and adrenaline rush.
The part that is relieved is much bigger.


I hate you and every stupid thing that you say.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

I believe the Big Bang Theory because I have faith in the scientific community.

There is a faith aspect to "science". I have faith that E=MC^2. I've never checked, but I have faith that the scientific community have checked. However, this is not blind faith. I could, if I was sufficiently motivated, read up on the science and prove this to myself.

Well, this is only half the story. There is a certain amount of faith in science as a whole. This is because science doesn't actually prove anything:

http://www.digipac.ca/chemical/proof/index.htm

To believe in science you must have faith in empiricism, which says that all knowledge comes from sensory experience. Yet there are many truths empiricism cannot account for. Science itself is predicated on a series of unprovable assumptions called "brute givens" which presume the operations of the Universe have remained constant in the past and will continue to do so. Here is a good dialog on the matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco

Please ignore the title, it was just the best clip I could find. Also, check out this conversation between a physics major and a bunch of physicists and mathematicians about him losing faith in empiricism:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-184699.html

Another reason why "science" isn't a religion is that if something is shown to wrong, it gets corrected. If those neutrinos sent from CERN disprove E=MC^2, then my mind is open to change. If something is shown to be wrong in religion, the people who show it up get in trouble.

This isn't always true. For instance, the scientific community at large consider evolution to be "proven" and won't tolerate any dissent on the issue. A scientist who even breathes the words "intelligent design" will be totally ostracized, have their reputations ruined, be unable to publish scientific papers and lose their ability to get grants. It is nearly impossible to do any work on intelligent design for that reason. Evolutionary theories are the sacred cow of science, and they religiously defend it, even to the point of suppressing any debate on it, and also by propagating this view into our political and education system. They also file lawsuits to keep intelligent design from being mentioned in classrooms. This has clearly gone beyond the bounds of mere scientific inquiry. If scientists had taken this same attitude on classical mechanics, quantum mechanics may never have been discovered.

The key is that I don't "believe this nonsense without question". I believe this with question and with the readiness to believe something else if something else is proven. I believe in facts because they are self-evident, and I believe in doubt because I believe we don't know everything and that we should strive to know more and to prove more. Denying proven without offering an alternative which can be backed up at all* just isn't reality. Do I feel I have a claim to rationality and logic? Well, that is what my beliefs are based on. There is proof for Earth being 4.5 billion years old, rational and logical proof.

Well, you have to realize that some of things you seem to consider facts, aren't. The Big Bang theory is not a fact, it is totally unprovable. Not only that, but the theory itself doesn't even really work..it has a number of problems, from how stars and planets form, to the lack of observable matter and energy to make it work, to what they call the smoothness problem:

"These structures must have arisen from tiny variations in the energy density in the early universe. Where the densities were greatest is, presumably, where gravity caused matter to collapse into the structures we see today.

The problem is that to explain these structures seems to require a universe that was created in an incredibly smooth non-chaotic manner. This seems extremely unlikely."''

I like the last bit. It isn't unlikely if you consider the Universe was created by an omniopotent being. The basic problem with big bang cosmology and evoltuion is that they are not real science. You can't observe and test them, they are speculation and assumption about things that happened in the past. It is mere interpretation of data, and there are many ways to interpret it. We are both looking at the same facts, but interpreting them in different ways.

Of course, you presumably do believe that Christianity can be backed up, which is where we've even less chance of agreeing on anything. Every argument I've heard for religion is ultimately circular or illogical.(I don't understand the crutches thing, from either side.)

I don't preumse I can prove to you that Christianity is true. I can show you that there are good reasons to believe there is a God, and that there is good evidence for Christianity, but I cannot prove my experience. I can however tell you this is something you can prove to yourself. If you ask God for the evidence, He will provide it to you. You can do this by praying something like this: "Jesus, if you're real, I want to know about it. If you're God please come into my life and I will give it over to you" If you can pray those words and mean them, you will get an answer. He promised to reveal Himself to those who seek Him dilligently.

As far as the crutch thing goes, what I am speaking about is sin. Those who don't know God are in a servitude to their passions and desires. Meaning, the first priority is a fulfillment of these desires, which the intellect first assents to, and then seeks out a worldview that justifies this fulfillment. Meaning, the atheist naturally doesn't want to believe that which contradicts the fulfillment of his natural desires, and will resist believing it. Admitting that God exists also means that you have a responsibility to obey Him, which further means that you can no longer live according to fleshly desires. So, an atheist will resist the knowledge of God so they can continue to live as they please, doing that which they know by their conscience is wrong, but being unable to resist these things. It has virtually nothing to do with evidence; our sinful nature is just naturally inclined to be in rebellion against Gods authority and will continue to operate this way on any pretense that seems even remotely plausible.

>> ^Quboid:
I believe the Big Bang Theory because I have faith in the scientific community.
There is a faith aspect to "science". I have faith that E=MC^2. I've never checked, but I have faith that the scientific community have checked. However, this is not blind faith. I could, if I was sufficiently motivated, read up on the science and prove this to myself.
Another reason why "science" isn't a religion is that if something is shown to wrong, it gets corrected. If those neutrinos sent from CERN disprove E=MC^2, then my mind is open to change. If something is shown to be wrong in religion, the people who show it up get in trouble.
The key is that I don't "believe this nonsense without question". I believe this with question and with the readiness to believe something else if something else is proven. I believe in facts because they are self-evident, and I believe in doubt because I believe we don't know everything and that we should strive to know more and to prove more. Denying proven without offering an alternative which can be backed up at all just isn't reality. Do I feel I have a claim to rationality and logic? Well, that is what my beliefs are based on. There is proof for Earth being 4.5 billion years old, rational and logical proof.
Of course, you presumably do believe that Christianity can be backed up, which is where we've even less chance of agreeing on anything. Every argument I've heard for religion is ultimately circular or illogical.
(I don't understand the crutches thing, from either side.)
>> ^shinyblurry:
The problem with Bill Maher and his cackling hyenas, and most atheists in general, is that they seem to think that they have some sort of claim to rationality and logic above theists. Yet, as you pointed out, they are no less dogmatic about their faith than anyone else. Though you seem to think that they are in the superior position. I would say that you shouldn't forget about the religion of scientism which teaches that nothing exploded, and that this explosion magically produced order and complexity, and from this rocks became alive and turned into soup which turned into monkeys and then into you. These are metaphysical beliefs taken on faith. I find it amusing that people actually believe this nonsense without question and then have the nerve to call me irrational.
The fact is, everyone worships something. Every person has something which they bow down and kiss. Whether it is money, or celebrity, or power, or nature, or themselves, atheists are no different than anyone else. I also find it funny that you talk about crutches, as if atheists don't have crutches? What about drugs, alcohol, pornography, cigarettes, food, sex, etc? How many atheists do you know who use those crutches to get through life? Knowing Christ removes crutches from people, and being a Christian is freedom from crutches, not enslavement to one. Anyone who sins is a slave to sin, but anyone who knows Christ has been set free from that bondage.
So, I appreciate your attempted voice of reason, though you couldn't seem to manage it without condescension towards me, and Christians in general. Perhaps you feel you have to denigrate us in order to be socially accepted here. I think though that you see the futility of anti-theism, and the blind ignorance and hatred it produces in people. You know a tree by its fruit, and that fruit is rotten to its core.

I believe the Big Bang Theory because I have faith in the scientific community.

There is a faith aspect to "science". I have faith that E=MC^2. I've never checked, but I have faith that the scientific community have checked. However, this is not blind faith. I could, if I was sufficiently motivated, read up on the science and prove this to myself.

Another reason why "science" isn't a religion is that if something is shown to wrong, it gets corrected. If those neutrinos sent from CERN disprove E=MC^2, then my mind is open to change. If something is shown to be wrong in religion, the people who show it up get in trouble.

The key is that I don't "believe this nonsense without question". I believe this with question and with the readiness to believe something else if something else is proven. I believe in facts because they are self-evident, and I believe in doubt because I believe we don't know everything and that we should strive to know more and to prove more. Denying proven without offering an alternative which can be backed up at all* just isn't reality. Do I feel I have a claim to rationality and logic? Well, that is what my beliefs are based on. There is proof for Earth being 4.5 billion years old, rational and logical proof.

* Of course, you presumably do believe that Christianity can be backed up, which is where we've even less chance of agreeing on anything. Every argument I've heard for religion is ultimately circular or illogical.

(I don't understand the crutches thing, from either side.)

>> ^shinyblurry:

The problem with Bill Maher and his cackling hyenas, and most atheists in general, is that they seem to think that they have some sort of claim to rationality and logic above theists. Yet, as you pointed out, they are no less dogmatic about their faith than anyone else. Though you seem to think that they are in the superior position. I would say that you shouldn't forget about the religion of scientism which teaches that nothing exploded, and that this explosion magically produced order and complexity, and from this rocks became alive and turned into soup which turned into monkeys and then into you. These are metaphysical beliefs taken on faith. I find it amusing that people actually believe this nonsense without question and then have the nerve to call me irrational.
The fact is, everyone worships something. Every person has something which they bow down and kiss. Whether it is money, or celebrity, or power, or nature, or themselves, atheists are no different than anyone else. I also find it funny that you talk about crutches, as if atheists don't have crutches? What about drugs, alcohol, pornography, cigarettes, food, sex, etc? How many atheists do you know who use those crutches to get through life? Knowing Christ removes crutches from people, and being a Christian is freedom from crutches, not enslavement to one. Anyone who sins is a slave to sin, but anyone who knows Christ has been set free from that bondage.
So, I appreciate your attempted voice of reason, though you couldn't seem to manage it without condescension towards me, and Christians in general. Perhaps you feel you have to denigrate us in order to be socially accepted here. I think though that you see the futility of anti-theism, and the blind ignorance and hatred it produces in people. You know a tree by its fruit, and that fruit is rotten to its core.

The problem with Bill Maher and his cackling hyenas, and most atheists in general, is that they seem to think that they have some sort of claim to rationality and logic above theists. Yet, as you pointed out, they are no less dogmatic about their faith than anyone else. Though you seem to think that they are in the superior position. I would say that you shouldn't forget about the religion of scientism which teaches that nothing exploded, and that this explosion magically produced order and complexity, and from this rocks became alive and turned into soup which turned into monkeys and then into you. These are metaphysical beliefs taken on faith. I find it amusing that people actually believe this nonsense without question and then have the nerve to call me irrational.

The fact is, everyone worships something. Every person has something which they bow down and kiss. Whether it is money, or celebrity, or power, or nature, or themselves, atheists are no different than anyone else. I also find it funny that you talk about crutches, as if atheists don't have crutches? What about drugs, alcohol, pornography, cigarettes, food, sex, etc? How many atheists do you know who use those crutches to get through life? Knowing Christ removes crutches from people, and being a Christian is freedom from crutches, not enslavement to one. Anyone who sins is a slave to sin, but anyone who knows Christ has been set free from that bondage.

So, I appreciate your attempted voice of reason, though you couldn't seem to manage it without condescension towards me, and Christians in general. Perhaps you feel you have to denigrate us in order to be socially accepted here. I think though that you see the futility of anti-theism, and the blind ignorance and hatred it produces in people. You know a tree by its fruit, and that fruit is rotten to its core.

>> ^bareboards2:
This is a demonstrably false statement:
@EMPIRE said Religion is NOTHING BUT bullshit, deception and complete ignorance.
I have often thought that atheists can be just as dogmatic and rigid and intellectually bankrupt as any religious person. Here is the proof of it. You have your belief and no facts are going to get in your way.
You are the holder of the One Truth. There can be no Other Truth. If someone believes otherwise, they are a Heretic and an abomination.
The world isn't perfect. It is full of flawed human beings just trying to get by, trapped by their meat puppet bodies and brains. Some need a crutch to make it through life. You would deprive them of their crutch? THEY WILL FALL DOWN.
I keep saying the same thing over and over here on the Sift. You'd think I'd learn to back out of these pissing matches. I don't though, because I know that atheists ultimately are intelligent people, open to rational thought. I wouldn't try to talk shinyblurry out of his beliefs. That is a complete waste of effort. I am enough of a Pollyanna to think a rationalist will eventually get it -- that humans are flawed, that humans have had gods since the very beginning of human consciousness, that thinking that ALL HUMANS will leave behind an evolutionary trait is a fools game.
The best we can hope for is to keep religion out of the laws as much as possible. That is where someone's evolutionary crutch needs to keep to itself and out of my life. And keep educating about rational thought, throwing a life line to people who are born into a religion and don't hear anything but their family's brand of dogma.