Bit Congress is the future of government. p2p voting with Proof of "be Nice" lol, no proof of Love! or proof of proof, proof of not lying, i dunno i triedlooking up proof of service, i found THIS court rom definition lol
"Papers which start an action (Summons, Petition, Order to Show Cause, etc) must be filed first and then served on the other person(s). ... After the papers are served, a Proof of Service form must be filled out and signed by the person who served the papers. The Proof of Service form must be filed with the court."
so proof of service already means in court jargon, proof that someone's been served a court summons LOL
or maybe in future peopel will say "man's hes a real proof of work" as an insult instead of Piece of work
man i forgot about XKCD, they were old school internet from teh days of web 2.0
hah remmber web 2.0?
RENMBER DIGG?!?!
Digg.com alex jones even mentioned it a few days ago, no iea why, its not user submited site anymore is it? man digg was the original reddit hah andthen thre was that mass exodus
i only found OUT about reddit BECAUSEi was looking up Mobile versions of Digg (like diggriver0 on my RAZR pe android phjone which had a simple text browser, and i could read reddit on there but not digg, and i found that site rddit when looking for a "mobile version of digg" and i never went back to digg after that reddit was the best but wanst as big so u had to refresh all day to get new content, man was it special back then
That comic is so Ameri-centric. Conflating the principle of the right to free speech with a particular US legal restriction on government provides a convenient way to justify the shutting down of debate.
Valuing free speech goes further than that. Healthy debate requires that ideas are not supppressed whether the forum is technically privately owned or public (remember, there are no truly public places on the internet, every forum can be bought and have debate shut down, just look at Reddit which now is trying to "clean up" to please advertisers).
And freedom of speech is supposed to protect you from consequences. If you are penalized for expressing a political view, then you are not free to do so by definition. We value this freedom in order to be able to hash out our differences without fear. If we are afraid to speak our mind, our views will be held silently and unchallenged. Does anyone actually think that the recent trend of shaming as a weapon against prejudice and "hate" has done anything to reduce those elements in society? If anything they seem to exacerbate it.
That comic is so Ameri-centric. Conflating the principle of the right to free speech with a particular US legal restriction on government provides a convenient way to justify the shutting down of debate.
People have the right to shut down certain types of debate when that debate presumes upon access to their audience. My free speech rights don't include the right to run into a concert and grab the mike away from Kanye to talk about my own views.
Same goes on the Internet. If an author posts content in a predictable place, that author has the right to shut down debate in that particular place, because they have spent time cultivating that audience, which has grown to trust their views and editorial decisions.
Same goes for any website or forum. Freedom from censorship is not a US-centric thing. Nothing about this comic references the 1st Amendment to the US constitution.
The comic references the first amendment specifically in the third panel.
Same goes on the Internet. If an author posts content in a predictable place, that author has the right to shut down debate in that particular place, because they have spent time cultivating that audience, which has grown
This same comic is used to justify censorship in places where the audience was there due to a lack of or minimal editorial policy. The private nature of websites means that (at least until the advent of public blockchains), there is no place safe from an arbitrary change in ownership or editorial policy even when it explicitly violates the trust (such as when the owners or moderators have promised it won't happen) of their users.
It follows from this comic that there if no place where the shutting down of debate is unacceptable, only who gets to shut it down. If so what is the point of claiming to value free speech on the internet? Where exactly is anyone protected from censorship by such a value/concept?
Whenever there is a new forum, the owners and admins apply a free speech policy because they know this is what gets users. They usually claim to value free speech deeply, and often promise that the site will always uphold free speech.
Then one day the website has critical mass, to the point where users are 'locked in'. The owners suddenly change their policy please advertisers and cash in on the userbase. The value of the websites network effect (which is created by the users themselves) must be sacrificed by the user, who tries to convince the other disenfranchised users to come to consensus on an alternative. This generally takes years.
When we complain about censorship private forums, we are holding the owners accountable to this. Free speech is a value more than it is a law. When your private site changes policy in violation of the values which users got on board with, don't expect to be able to hide behind "it's not censorship because we are the private owners, not the government".
The private nature of websites means that (at least until the advent of public blockchains), there is no place safe from an arbitrary change in ownership or editorial policy
...except on your own website, which anyone can set up and run.
There is a reason we come to forums for debate. Forcing debate to happen in a disjointed and fractured way is similar to the "free speech zone" policy, it merely undermines the capability to have an effective and free debate.
They showed me the door either. Yes, and I'm out. No more first class content from my side anymore. Bye steemit. Your people are really lovely but some people are just rich. They do what they want. Free speech is a fake. Censorship is the standard. Asymetric vote power is the tool for repression.
There is no censorship or moderation on steemit.com whatsoever at the moment (with the exception of copyrighted content we are bound by law to remove under DMCA). I haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.
The light heartedness of this while being a bit educational too is quite interesting, who was the official target of your cartoon?
Namaste :)
I Miss Seinfeld
Roflz love it. What if the internet is the government however? and classical government is done away with?
Bit Congress is the future of government. p2p voting with Proof of "be Nice" lol, no proof of Love! or proof of proof, proof of not lying, i dunno i triedlooking up proof of service, i found THIS court rom definition lol
"Papers which start an action (Summons, Petition, Order to Show Cause, etc) must be filed first and then served on the other person(s). ... After the papers are served, a Proof of Service form must be filled out and signed by the person who served the papers. The Proof of Service form must be filed with the court."
so proof of service already means in court jargon, proof that someone's been served a court summons LOL
or maybe in future peopel will say "man's hes a real proof of work" as an insult instead of Piece of work
man i forgot about XKCD, they were old school internet from teh days of web 2.0
hah remmber web 2.0?
RENMBER DIGG?!?!
Digg.com alex jones even mentioned it a few days ago, no iea why, its not user submited site anymore is it? man digg was the original reddit hah andthen thre was that mass exodus
i only found OUT about reddit BECAUSEi was looking up Mobile versions of Digg (like diggriver0 on my RAZR pe android phjone which had a simple text browser, and i could read reddit on there but not digg, and i found that site rddit when looking for a "mobile version of digg" and i never went back to digg after that reddit was the best but wanst as big so u had to refresh all day to get new content, man was it special back then
I soo agree man. The only thing i ever digg for was sharing tho i didnt browse it.
That comic is so Ameri-centric. Conflating the principle of the right to free speech with a particular US legal restriction on government provides a convenient way to justify the shutting down of debate.
Valuing free speech goes further than that. Healthy debate requires that ideas are not supppressed whether the forum is technically privately owned or public (remember, there are no truly public places on the internet, every forum can be bought and have debate shut down, just look at Reddit which now is trying to "clean up" to please advertisers).
And freedom of speech is supposed to protect you from consequences. If you are penalized for expressing a political view, then you are not free to do so by definition. We value this freedom in order to be able to hash out our differences without fear. If we are afraid to speak our mind, our views will be held silently and unchallenged. Does anyone actually think that the recent trend of shaming as a weapon against prejudice and "hate" has done anything to reduce those elements in society? If anything they seem to exacerbate it.
Anonymous and pseudonymous speech sidestep those problems nicely.
Pseudonymous speech is routinely deleted and throttled on privately owned forums, and in the case with the Reddit CEO, even edited.
People have the right to shut down certain types of debate when that debate presumes upon access to their audience. My free speech rights don't include the right to run into a concert and grab the mike away from Kanye to talk about my own views.
Same goes on the Internet. If an author posts content in a predictable place, that author has the right to shut down debate in that particular place, because they have spent time cultivating that audience, which has grown to trust their views and editorial decisions.
Same goes for any website or forum. Freedom from censorship is not a US-centric thing. Nothing about this comic references the 1st Amendment to the US constitution.
The comic references the first amendment specifically in the third panel.
This same comic is used to justify censorship in places where the audience was there due to a lack of or minimal editorial policy. The private nature of websites means that (at least until the advent of public blockchains), there is no place safe from an arbitrary change in ownership or editorial policy even when it explicitly violates the trust (such as when the owners or moderators have promised it won't happen) of their users.
It follows from this comic that there if no place where the shutting down of debate is unacceptable, only who gets to shut it down. If so what is the point of claiming to value free speech on the internet? Where exactly is anyone protected from censorship by such a value/concept?
No, the comic is saying that that's not censorship.
Changing the common understanding of words to something else is a typical strategy of censors.
Whenever there is a new forum, the owners and admins apply a free speech policy because they know this is what gets users. They usually claim to value free speech deeply, and often promise that the site will always uphold free speech.
Then one day the website has critical mass, to the point where users are 'locked in'. The owners suddenly change their policy please advertisers and cash in on the userbase. The value of the websites network effect (which is created by the users themselves) must be sacrificed by the user, who tries to convince the other disenfranchised users to come to consensus on an alternative. This generally takes years.
When we complain about censorship private forums, we are holding the owners accountable to this. Free speech is a value more than it is a law. When your private site changes policy in violation of the values which users got on board with, don't expect to be able to hide behind "it's not censorship because we are the private owners, not the government".
...except on your own website, which anyone can set up and run.
There is a reason we come to forums for debate. Forcing debate to happen in a disjointed and fractured way is similar to the "free speech zone" policy, it merely undermines the capability to have an effective and free debate.
They showed me the door either. Yes, and I'm out. No more first class content from my side anymore. Bye steemit. Your people are really lovely but some people are just rich. They do what they want. Free speech is a fake. Censorship is the standard. Asymetric vote power is the tool for repression.
There is no censorship or moderation on steemit.com whatsoever at the moment (with the exception of copyrighted content we are bound by law to remove under DMCA). I haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.
Yes, i know. Don't worry. it is just my fault. I'm not interested to discuss it. I'm just writing about. But never more in whales land.