Really, it comes down to this: censorship is bad. Always.
If someone violates the law, get a court judgement. With the judgement in hand, take down that specific material.
Too much work? Tough...
If not you can get around the absolute statement “censorship is always bad” by just making more things illegal.
I think censorship is so clearly good in some scenarios that we would never think to even debate it. Like child porn.
Creator, first share (direct), second order sharing (public-ish website), third order sharing (indexed resharing), and finally the consumer wanting it presented.
In the way there are things we clearly want to censor for being awful, there are things we must never allow to be censored. Eg knowledge of a genocide.
But the solution kind of rights itself. To censor something you need as many actors as possible in that enormous graph of sharing nodes to clearly want to censor that thing we all agree we clearly want to censor. I.e. a public library doesn't censorship child porn because they are required to.
> Isnt taking down illegal content censorship?
So yes this is censorship, but 'illegal' content is too vague.
We want to know about the censorship beyond the natural baseline.
Censorship, usually, means the extraordinary request for powers to control the web of communications - in the context of what and why.
Apparently its basically verboten to ask them how many they caught vs how many they supplied.
Uhhh how about both? It is vital the material be taken down as well.
Hentai depicting animated/drawn fake children means that 0 children were harmed, thus CSAM rules do not apply.
My guess is that slop generated CSAM images are NOT 'child sex assault' in any way. Are they icky? Uh, hell yeah. But it seems similar to hentai here. There's nobody being sexually assaulted. Hell, there is nobody at all - just a large multi-billion array of floats.
What are you suggesting?
Sure! Great slogan! Who can disagree! Now, let's define the terms?
What's censorship? Don't we all want some sort of censoring of content? If someone doxxxes me, posts revenge porn of me, threatens me and my family with credible threats of harm, shares my credit card numbers and bank/Bitcoin/Ethereum accounts, uploads all 400 of my password credentials and my mobile phone#, posts videos of them strangling my dog, wages a campaign to redefine my personal name into a perverted sexual practice...
Aren't those the sorts of things where we encourage the censorship of content? Do those fall outside of our definition of the term, so that "censorship" is bad, but "moderation" is good?
If someone gets a hold of "F/OSS" software and distributes it contrary to the licensing and violates that licensing, do we want their distribution censored or suppressed or, what's the term for good censorship? LLMs and generative AIs are moderated/constrained as a matter of course, and we've got the entire board here in an uproar over too much moderation, or too little? Because AI Slop Is Ruining Everything and please rein it in?
Our Founding Fathers espoused "Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Religion" but is that an unbounded, unchecked, lasseiz-faire freedom that they envisioned, or were there boundaries?
To be sure its not an easy question, but we aren't starting from zero here.
Sure, "fair game", whatever, how can you "censor" a grassroots parody/mockery like this? Part of the game was, it wasn't actually stoppable in any meaningful fashion.
It seems rude, unethical, puerile even, to do this name-calling and dragging through the mud, if you will, and it was perpetrated/spearheaded, so to speak, by a journalist whose morals and platform encouraged that sort of tactic.
I don't think "censorship" was a solution to that incident, and since Mr. Santorum was a politician then "fair game" is a meaningless circumscription.
But perhaps the whole episode should reflect more on the character of the originator, rather than the target?
Isn't it under penalty of purjury?
DMCA Section 3.A v) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
It is only the part about being authorized that is under the penalty of the perjury. You can be as malicious as you want as long as you don't falsely claim to own or represent someone who owns the rights to something.
we'll have a great wall of Europe ... my guess is that they're following the Russian / Chinese model.
banning of VPN is a matter of time.
then the days of free or anonymous internet is behind us.
We already have a great wall of Europe, it's implemented on the US side of the ocean by websites that are afraid to somehow get in GDPR trouble or (more likely) want to put pressure to repeal GDPR.
Did you know you can do that, by the way? You can block your website in Bumfuckistan citing bill AB1234 and if your site is big enough it puts pressure to repeal that bill no matter what it's about.
The merits win in a lawsuit only if you don’t run out of money first.
