How would you feel if a government agency or ISP or some other adversary used such technology to censor all your online communications -- so you couldn't ever contact anyone, through any protocol -- because it considered you to be undesirable/objectionable/dangerous for its own reasons?
That would be both terrible and dramatically different from what I was talking about. The context here is private websites filtering comments. If you are in a private restaurant expressing some horribly offensive opinion it is appropriate for the owner to ask you to leave. It would not be appropriate for the police to come in and gag you.
How would I feel if every website on the internet decided that I was so toxic that they banned me? It's hard to say considering that has happened to a total of 0 people ever.
You have the right to free speech, but you do not have the right to be listened to. If you are on private property the owner can ask you to leave. If I wrote a script to send you an obnoxious email every 5 minutes I imagine you would set up a filter so you would not have to read them or even be aware of their existence. You don't have the right to make other people read your (hypothetically) obnoxious comments any more than I have the right to make you read my obnoxious emails.
> It's hard to say considering that has happened to a total of 0 people ever.
It's what you're proposing to do to other people, so you have the ethical burden of considering how you'd feel if it were done to you.
So how would you feel? Would you feel that it were ethical, even if it were somehow legally justified? Would you accept it? Would you consider it a good, just, humane use of technology? Stop evading the question and answer it already.
You and I are still talking about very different things. I am not proposing banning people from the internet. I am proposing that private websites should filter out particularly obnoxious hateful and unreasonable comments.
How would I feel if a website removed my profane, unreasonable, and offensive comment? Ashamed. Considering a website has no obligation to display my comment I think it would be ethical (and of course legal) for them to not display horrible comments. I would accept it. I see nothing inhumane or unjust about a website declining to distribute my hate speech.
We are talking about the exact same thing and you keep trying to evade the question.
How would you feel if websites colluded to prevent you from communicating at all, based on what they consider to be undesirable, not based on what you consider to be undesirable? By definition, you're already negatively predisposed to what you consider to be undesirable, so your proposed scenario never comes up. Mine does.
It doesn't need to have anything to do with profanity. It could be something as simple as you being a pro-censorship piece of shit. Or something else. Who knows. It doesn't matter. What matters is them oppressing you the way you'd like to oppress others, based on criteria you don't necessarily agree with, and possibly don't even know. How would you feel about that?
Stop trying to evade the question. If you evade it one more time, I will consider you to have conceded.
"How would you feel if websites colluded to prevent you from communicating at all"? They don't have that ability; a website cannot reach through my computer screen and gag me. Since the you question are literally asking is absurd, I guessed you really mean to ask how I would feel if a website removed my comment, which I answered. Now I think you are asking how I would feel if every single website agreed to a common blacklist and put me on it. This is still quite far fetched and drastically different from what I am talking about, but I will answer it anyway. I would feel annoyed and embarrassed.
What I am talking about (removing vile comments) is already done manually, so your notion that it "never comes up" is strange. If you right to force other to distribute rape threats is so important to you then I doubt we will come to an agreement.
Lastly, there is no need to call me a "piece of shit". If you stoop to this level again, I will consider you to have conceded.
Yes, they do. What stops private parties from colluding? Nothing. What stops your local ISP (in most locations, in a position of local monopoly) from denying you access, even without participation from websites? Nothing. What stops them from doing this for their own reasons, which you might not necessarily agree with, and possibly don't even know? Nothing.
And the actual point that you keep evading -- what stops other parties from approving of ideas and speech that you disapprove of, and vice versa? Nothing. What stops them from oppressing you, the way you want to oppress others, in a way that enforces this diametrically opposed configuration of approval and disapproval? Nothing. What stops them from considering every idea and form of speech that you've ever perpetrated, and every idea and form of speech that you stand for, to be vile, and to do everything in their power to censor, silence, and oppress you as a result? Nothing.
You have evaded once again, and lost by default. Thanks for your time, anyway.
P.S. I didn't call you a piece of shit, the hypothetical oppressive parties in the hypothetical scenario did. You lose by default for putting words in my mouth, as well.
You said "prevent you from communicating at all" I pointed out that websites clearly and obviously do not have this power to do what you are literally suggesting and asked what you actually meant. You ignored my response and my question. At this point I think you are being purposely obtuse. Either that or you did not comprehend my comment.
I have already answered the question you think I am evading.
