More German Anti-Tech Lunacy

[Illusions]

I'm beginning to think you don't know what censorship actually is... when you remove something you uploaded, from the site you uploaded it to... this is not censorship. It's censorship when *I* try to remove something *you* uploaded.

If my friend on Facebook tags me in a photo, I can untag myself. If someone posts something on my wall, I can delete it. This is already a feature. If they opt me into having my picture featured in their ads I can opt out. They already provide methods for censorship, you can remove or undo things other people do. So if Facebook auto-tags me in a photo, I can manually go through and untag myself. Since I already have the option to do it manually, how is it worse to allow me to opt out all together, or let me automatically do it?

See I don't think the problem is that I don't know what censorship is (I do know what it is, thanks for the explanation*), I think the problem is you don't know the already existing functions within Facebook (like untagging photos, or deleting other people's wall posts).

* When you delete something you wrote out of concern someone may find it and use it against you, this is self-censorship.

[CitizenCain]

If my friend on Facebook tags me in a photo I can untag myself. If someone posts something on my wall, I can delete it. This is already a feature. If they opt me into having my picture featured in their ads I can opt out. They already provide methods for censorship, you can remove or undo things other people do. So if Facebook auto-tags me in a photo, I can manually go through and untag myself. Since I already have the option to do it manually, how is it worse to allow me to opt out all together, or let me automatically do it?

So basically, you're saying you can control your wall, and pictures you upload into your account... and you think this is censorship (), and that there's no difference between you being allowed to modify your account and you being allowed to modify someone else's?

Really, that's really the position you're taking here?

See I don't think the problem is that I don't know what censorship is (I do know what it is, thanks for the explanation),

The more you post, the more convinced I become that you don't know what censorship is, actually. Oh crap, I just censorshipped myself by using the backspace button to remove a sentence in typing this post!

Again, it's not censorship when you control the information you share. It's not censorship when you control what goes up on your wall - it's your wall, in effect your property, of course you can do what you want with it. Same deal with your photo albums and your other account... crap.

It's censorship when a third party controls what you can or cannot say. Like, for example, the government (through legislation), or me, because I don't like what you post on your wall about me. Those are examples of censorship. You controlling your speech and your e-property are not examples of censorship... more like examples of what we in the West consider to be "rights." Also, since you seem to not be noticing the difference, me obscuring my real IP address through the use of a proxy chain is not censorship either. Me deleting my posts, also, not censorship. That's me controlling the flow of information I share. Me exercising my freedom of speech/expression, by choosing what information to express and what information to withhold.

Truly, your definition of censorship, at least based on your last couple of posts is entirely bizzare. It's not a synonym for privacy, and it's not any situation where absolutely everything isn't freely disclosed. As convenient as that might be to your argument, it's just not what the word means. It's informational control by a third party.

Facebook does some censoring on its own as well. They have blocked, banned, or removed plenty of topics, keywords, links and other doodads over the years.

It's not really censorship considering that things uploaded to their web servers are on their property. Their property, their rules. I sincerely doubt you'd consider it "censorship" to tell me I can't come into your home and teach your little kids all kinds of nasty words... so you shouldn't apply a different standard to Zuckerberg (Facebook founder and CEO). His house, his rules.

[Illusions]

So basically, you're saying you can control your wall, and pictures you upload into your account...

No, I'm stating that if someone tags me in a photo they upload into one of their albums, I can untag myself. Also if someone says something I don't like, on my wall, I can delete it. This is the very definition of censorship. Censorship doesn't involve who owns something.

and you think this is censorship (), and that there's no difference between you being allowed to modify your account and you being allowed to modify someone else's?

I can modify my own, and someone else's. Is this really that hard to follow?

The more you post, the more convinced I become that you don't know what censorship is, actually. Oh crap, I just censorshipped myself by using the backspace button to remove a sentence in typing this post!

When you removed your posts from the old Atari forums out of concern that someone would find them, that is self censorship. If you correct spelling, or remove a ridiculous sentence, that isn't. The more you post, the more I think you're an ignorant, irascible, paranoid, delusional fucktard.

Again, it's not censorship when you control the information you share. It's not censorship when you control what goes up on your wall - it's your wall, in effect your property, of course you can do what you want with it. Same deal with your photo albums and your other account... crap.

Multiple problems with this:

1. It is self-censorship when you remove information you've already shared or were intending to share out of fear/concern/whatever that said information will negatively affect you, because of the reactions of other people.

2. I've already stated, numerous times, that you can control, as in remove certain things, on other people's photo albums, and walls.

3. If something being someone else's property means that if they remove something they don't like from it, that this action isn't censorship, then censorship is pretty shot as a concept. Newspaper changed your hateful rant against the government into something that makes you look like a moron? Not censorship, they own the paper. Book publisher removes that chapter about the government being pigs, because it might offend people or get them in trouble? Not censorship...they own the books. News reporter cuts you off when you start ranting about the government? Not censorship, they own the television broadcast! Friend said something unflattering about you on your wall on Facebook, so you delete it? Not censorship, its your wall!

...yeah I don't think your opinion on this one is in the majority.

It's censorship when a third party controls what you can or cannot say. Like, for example, the government (through legislation), or me, because I don't like what you post on your wall about me.

Or me, because I don't like that you tagged me in your photo album (an actual function Facebook currently has).

What if a third party owns the property you're trying to broadcast your message through...oh damn, wait, thats not censorship.

That's me controlling the flow of information I share.

Out of a paranoid delusion that someone will use it against you, which is self-censorship.

It's informational control by a third party.

Self-censorship as a concept exists and is used by many numerous people. I'm really interested in seeing you argue that words, or concepts, things that exist solely because they are defined and agreed upon by people, are wrong because you, a singular person, said so.

[LittleFuzzy]

Self-censorship as a concept exists and is used by many numerous people.|

It is. . . but it's also not. Self-censorship is actually also external. At its most non-coercive it's still basically doing something solely because of peer pressure even though it's not what YOU want to do. Self-censorship is an exercise of 2nd-degree power. Rather than directly suppressing something, they have you do it yourself. It's still the suppression of what you want for what the third party wants, still third-party control over your actions and voice.

[CitizenCain]

When you removed your posts from the old Atari forums out of concern that someone would find them, that is self censorship. If you correct spelling, or remove a ridiculous sentence, that isn't. The more you post, the more I think you're an ignorant, irascible, paranoid, delusional fucktard.

In accordance with Illusions' stated beliefs on everyone's right to control expression about themselves, I hereby exercise my right to privacy, and demand that the mods remove this. It is expression made about me, without my consent, and apparently I have a right to have it removed.

Thank you in advance for protecting my rights, and supporting Illusions' beliefs, at your earliest convenience.

[Illusions]

In accordance with Illusions' stated beliefs on everyone's right to control expression about themselves, I hereby exercise my right to privacy, and demand that the mods remove this. It is expression made about me, without my consent, and apparently I have a right to have it removed.

You seem to have problems with the difference between a right, and an already existing ability a website offers you. I'm stating that Facebook has an already existing ability to censor people, not that we have an inherent, natural right to it, like we do life or liberty. Stop acting like a child. Besides that, this website does offer you the ability to censor my posts at the mod's discretion, which involves using the report post function.

Thank you in advance for protecting my rights, and supporting Illusions' beliefs, at your earliest convenience.

Again, you don't have a right to censor other people, you have the ability to request from moderators that they remove a post, which you can do via the Report Post button.

It is. . . but it's also not. Self-censorship is actually also external. At its most non-coercive it's still basically doing something solely because of peer pressure even though it's not what YOU want to do. Self-censorship is an exercise of 2nd-degree power. Rather than directly suppressing something, they have you do it yourself. It's still the suppression of what you want for what the third party wants, still third-party control over your actions and voice.

So when Cain deleted his Atari forum posts out of concern someone might find them, would you consider this self censorship when the third party is an abstract concept like Cain's bogeyman government?

[Dreadnaught]

And the point I'm making is that Facebook already has tools available for what you consider "censorship", ie. that you can untag yourself after the fact, or opt out of a service after you're automatically opted in, or do those things once you become a member, and I am asking how you assume it is intrinsically different "censorship"-wise whether you opt out beforehand (my suggestion for how Facebook could operate), or opt out afterwards (currently implemented functionality).

Besides that stop acting like all censorship is bad. Your entire position here at the forums is to censor people when we ask for it. You don't post about who you actually are in real life, and have edited this information out of your own posts when it accidentally happens, and have edited it out of the posts of others. Is this not censorship too? How would you feel if I posted your IP address? The other person I'm arguing with uses a Tor gateway or other anonymizing proxies to hide or "censor" his IP address from us. Hell didn't Cain, at the other forums, go on a huge deleting spree to remove his posts? For two people arguing how awful censorship is you seem to be alright with it to a degree.

Illusions, this is a really incongruent point. The fact that almost all of us don't reveal our true identities here is a choice, not an act of coercive government censorship. As Fuzzy points out, some people may be peer-pressured not to have their real identities here (EG I fear social and professional ostracization if my political views were known). But that is at best self-censorship and entirely not the issue being forced by the German and Spanish government.

This forum has (and Atard had) written and unwritten policies about protecting personally identifiable information that is let loose or regretted later. But there is a massive difference between not posting information about yourself and the government actively restricting your right to post anything about anyone.

[Illusions]

Illusions, this is a really incongruent point. The fact that almost all of us don't reveal our true identities here is a choice, not an act of coercive government censorship.

You were making out that censorship of any sort was a terrible act, and I was arguing that we all engage in censorship, because we recognize that not all censorship is terrible or bad.

As Fuzzy points out, some people may be peer-pressured not to have their real identities here (EG I fear social and professional ostracization if my political views were known). But that is at best self-censorship and entirely not the issue being forced by the German and Spanish government.

Yet you made it seem like you considered untagging myself from a photo to be a horrible act of censorship, on par with say Stalin airbrushing an executed officer from a photo.

This forum has (and Atard had) written and unwritten policies about protecting personally identifiable information that is let loose or regretted later. But there is a massive difference between not posting information about yourself and the government actively restricting your right to post anything about anyone.

Care to quote my original post again. Go read it.

Perhaps to be clearer, since I now realize my original post was not:

Other people have control over information about you that they can share via Facebook, with hundreds to millions of people. Facebook already has in place methods for you to control this information that other people, and Facebook, share about you. However Facebook favors an approach that mostly benefits them, in that you are opted into these services, or included automatically. You can still, after the fact, opt out. They also favor terms of service that behave as if you retroactively agree with any new service they offer. It would appear that Facebook would be better off if they 1) started by allowing people to opt into services they want, instead of requiring them to opt out if they don't want to participate, 2) be clearer about upcoming features, and allow people to either opt out of them in advance, or to quit using Facebook before the new service comes into effect. Right now Facebook acts like a large, selfish, entitled child whose behavior seems to be of the type where its easier for them to ask for forgiveness after getting what they want, if only for a little while, rather than to ask for permission, and be denied, and not get what they want at all.

So your position is...? (Other than "censorship" apparently meaning any and everything, I mean.)

Censorship isn't always bad (a position which I entered into when Dreadnaught made it out as if censorship was the most horrific thing ever), and that Facebook has a possible alternative that in part already exists, if they would only implement the rest of it, that doesn't involve legislation, to solve this privacy issue.

If Facebook already offers the ability to limited censorship (untag photos of yourself uploaded by others), why do you seem to be in favor of laws and regulations that would force Facebook to... um, let people do what they already let people do? Not really helping your case there - we already let people do it voluntarily, so now we need a law forcing people to do it as well...?

If you'd have read my replies, never did I mention that I was in favor of this legislation. I've never even mentioned it, or discussed it until now, what I've been discussing originally were points Dreadnaught brought up, and then later that you brought up.

[LittleFuzzy]

So when Cain deleted his Atari forum posts out of concern someone might find them, would you consider this self censorship when the third party is an abstract concept like Cain's bogeyman government?

I have no idea, I never really understood why he did that.

[CitizenCain]

You seem to have problems with the difference between a right, and an already existing ability a website offers you. I'm stating that Facebook has an already existing ability to censor people, not that we have an inherent, natural right to it, like we do life or liberty. Stop acting like a child. Besides that, this website does offer you the ability to censor my posts at the mod's discretion, which involves using the report post function.

So your position is...? (Other than "censorship" apparently meaning any and everything, I mean.)

If Facebook already offers the ability to limited censorship (untag photos of yourself uploaded by others), why do you seem to be in favor of laws and regulations that would force Facebook to... um, let people do what they already let people do? Not really helping your case there - we already let people do it voluntarily, so now we need a law forcing people to do it as well...?

I have no idea, I never really understood why he did that.

Yeah, in fact, I was pretty sure he didn't really explain his reasons either... but why let details get in the way conflating it into "censorship?"

[Dreadnaught]

If Facebook already offers the ability to limited censorship (untag photos of yourself uploaded by others), why do you seem to be in favor of laws and regulations that would force Facebook to... um, let people do what they already let people do? Not really helping your case there - we already let people do it voluntarily, so now we need a law forcing people to do it as well...?

I would argue the law is a slippery slope to go even further and demand people remove plain text captions identifying who is in a particular photo.