StoicGoat
@StoicGoat
13 Years1,000+ Posts
Comments: 0 · Posts: 3217 · Topics: 32
DXP Survivor 2014 Part II (Page 2)
You are on page out of 5 | Reverse Order
I think quoting from it would suffice?
Posted by SteveW
So as we have seen around dxp: Seraph is opposed to hate speech and wants it censored with hate speech laws in America. I am glad he is in Canada. But why should we censor hate speech?
We should censor hate speech because it goes in the way of freedom from discrimination. Censorship is necessary in this scenario.
Posted by ScruffyPosted by SteveW
So as we have seen around dxp: Seraph is opposed to hate speech and wants it censored with hate speech laws in America. I am glad he is in Canada. But why should we censor hate speech?
We should censor hate speech because in the Supreme Court Case of Judge Herman Munster vs ScruffyCat Supreme Court Justice Herman Munster already made a judgement for the Crab flavored kitty cat to already be eaten by him so therefore she has no chance in hell of winning dxp Survivor 2014 so therefore must be allowed to sit out and chill with Sergei upon her request.
The Supreme Court Ruling is here:
Posted by StoicGoatPosted by ScruffyPosted by Damnata
I don't support that idea because then we'll never have ONE sole survivor.
Well the sole survivor and his/her minions can then partake in debauchery in his/her hut over celebratory steaming plates of bbq'ed rats.
I believe the after party is to feature crab cakes.
No substitutions or fill-ins will be permitted.
Would you require evidence of the kitty cat's concession? I didn't think so.
I rest my case, your Honor.click to expand
Attempt to get self censored denied.
lol@ the vampire trying to lie to the judge.
We can't die, silly.
We can't die, silly.
Free will will only take you this far when we're discussing individuals. For groups, it's better to censor hate speech because hate speech will single out an entire group of people and will get translated to laws that oppress them.
Posted by SteveW
Now that we have been in the Information Age for some time now, most people enjoy the luxury of having a computer including people in other countries. With our computers: we are able to enjoy the freedom and luxury of accessing any information that we want educating and informing ourselves. But in some countries, their governments block websites and information from being received to the people in those countries. An example of such a country is Iran.
So instead of having the freedom and luxury of access to information like we have here in America, they are forced and only given the leeway to access websites and information their government deems for them.
In America, we have NSA who watches what US Citizens and foreigners do on their computers. The NSA has even gone farther than that and has embedded software in the computers so they can access files that are offline and launch cyberattacks. Edward Snowden was a former contractor with the NSA and has exposed the NSA's surveillance program on computers with many leaks.
Why should these countries be able to censor information from their people? Why should they have the controls over what information their people receive? Doesn't that give the government too much power to feed their people propaganda while leaving them uninformed of what the truth may be?
Yeah but being free from censorship has also allowed only piracy at a ridiculous rate that has hurt major business industries like the movie and music industry. No matter what you may think about HOW MUCH MONEY THEY MAY have... you want to have their product no? Why should we get it for free? That's stealing. And nothing concrete has been done about that.
Censorship is a tool. It has no mind of it's own or makes choices. It is not an entity.
In the right hands censorship can be used for all sorts of good things:
?? The censor of pornographic material prevents the corruption of children;
?? Censorship helps preserve the secrets of a nation being revealed;
?? The act of censorship helps protects individuals?? privacy;
?? The act of censorship helps prevent terrorist groups from learning about dangerous technological advances;
?? Censorship can help hide sensitive military information;
?? It helps avoid plagiarism;
?? Censorship protects children from learning things that could potentially harm them;
?? It limits the amount of violence that is broadcasted over the television;
?? It limits the amount of obscenity and vulgarity seen on television and in movies;
?? It protects the morals of society and religions;
?? It limits the amount of abuse that is viewed over the television;
?? It prevents negative displays of cultures, individuals, or communities.
Censorship is not the evil here it's YOU and ME.
In the right hands censorship can be used for all sorts of good things:
?? The censor of pornographic material prevents the corruption of children;
?? Censorship helps preserve the secrets of a nation being revealed;
?? The act of censorship helps protects individuals?? privacy;
?? The act of censorship helps prevent terrorist groups from learning about dangerous technological advances;
?? Censorship can help hide sensitive military information;
?? It helps avoid plagiarism;
?? Censorship protects children from learning things that could potentially harm them;
?? It limits the amount of violence that is broadcasted over the television;
?? It limits the amount of obscenity and vulgarity seen on television and in movies;
?? It protects the morals of society and religions;
?? It limits the amount of abuse that is viewed over the television;
?? It prevents negative displays of cultures, individuals, or communities.
Censorship is not the evil here it's YOU and ME.
Posted by SteveWPosted by NotYourAverageAquariusPosted by SteveW
Now that we have been in the Information Age for some time now, most people enjoy the luxury of having a computer including people in other countries. With our computers: we are able to enjoy the freedom and luxury of accessing any information that we want educating and informing ourselves. But in some countries, their governments block websites and information from being received to the people in those countries. An example of such a country is Iran.
So instead of having the freedom and luxury of access to information like we have here in America, they are forced and only given the leeway to access websites and information their government deems for them.
In America, we have NSA who watches what US Citizens and foreigners do on their computers. The NSA has even gone farther than that and has embedded software in the computers so they can access files that are offline and launch cyberattacks. Edward Snowden was a former contractor with the NSA and has exposed the NSA's surveillance program on computers with many leaks.
Why should these countries be able to censor information from their people? Why should they have the controls over what information their people receive? Doesn't that give the government too much power to feed their people propaganda while leaving them uninformed of what the truth may be?
Yeah but being free from censorship has also allowed only piracy at a ridiculous rate that has hurt major business industries like the movie and music industry. No matter what you may think about HOW MUCH MONEY THEY MAY have... you want to have their product no? Why should we get it for free? That's stealing. And nothing concrete has been done about that.
Piracy is limited and was a big thing when there wasn't any software invented to protect against it. Those businesses are now raking in the money. People were copying movies and music before they had access to a computer and selling them. Remember the warnings on the beginning of the movies that were VHS tapes?click to expand
They had VHS set up to scramble the movie if you tried to record it.
Just because people tried to steal in the past doesn't make it right
Actually, due to the proliferation of information in todays world, if you wanna get a job somewhere these days you have to practically have a spotliss online image with a non criminal record of any kind no matter the severity. If you have old misdemeanor activity but you've turned over a new leaf... without the court records being sealed or your record being expunged you likely will find it difficult to find job opportunities.
How's that fair?
If you are a key witness in a case to convict a huge crime lord... the only way to hopefully guarantee safety for you and your family is to have your identity completely erased. So no one can track you.
Why shouldn't people willing to do their part for society to put away a crime lord be allowed a little censorship for peace of mind? Why should they risk their life even more than they already have by having their identity & location available to the public?
I don't see why youtube shouldn't be allowed to censor someone trying to transmit video information on the whereabouts of people in the witness protection program for instance, or use youtube to illegally display confidential court sealed information about someone to publicly defame them and win a position from them at work as well as their clientale, or any other sensitive information meant for malice.
That's not right and that's what censorship is meant to be used for.
How's that fair?
If you are a key witness in a case to convict a huge crime lord... the only way to hopefully guarantee safety for you and your family is to have your identity completely erased. So no one can track you.
Why shouldn't people willing to do their part for society to put away a crime lord be allowed a little censorship for peace of mind? Why should they risk their life even more than they already have by having their identity & location available to the public?
Posted by StoicGoat
For the purpose of this debate censorship shall be defined as —the intentional suppression of information by an individual, group, entity, or government body, or any agent acting under the direction, authority, or influence thereof.?? Note that parent/child, adult/minor, and similar relationships are specifically excluded from the subject matter of this debate. We are not discussing mom??s right (human or civil) to determine what 9 year old Johnny can/cannot read/watch/hear. To offer just one example, we??re discussing whether a government should have the right to order YouTube to remove or limit the availability of a video that contains content it does not want made available to viewers.
I don't see why youtube shouldn't be allowed to censor someone trying to transmit video information on the whereabouts of people in the witness protection program for instance, or use youtube to illegally display confidential court sealed information about someone to publicly defame them and win a position from them at work as well as their clientale, or any other sensitive information meant for malice.
That's not right and that's what censorship is meant to be used for.
Posted by SteveW
Piracy is limited and was a big thing when there wasn't any software invented to protect against it. Those businesses are now raking in the money. People were copying movies and music before they had access to a computer and selling them. Remember the warnings on the beginning of the movies that were VHS tapes?
I beg to differ. It's not just an American problem... it's become a worldwide pandemic.
So I say again. YouTube restricting someone from trying to use their website to broadcast copyright music and movies for free is not right. It's theft. But we all have been conditioned to think that it's okay because we are just stealing from people who have the money supposedly right?
Who says they have to make the movie or music for you? You wanted to hear or watch it. When you want something you pay for it.
Who says they have to make the movie or music for you? You wanted to hear or watch it. When you want something you pay for it.
We been conditioned so to speak to think that Businesses are not people or that they have people like you and me working for them. We just attribute them with the face of some greedy millionaire who by the way has less rights then you and me because we can steal from him without getting in trouble. The CEO is less of a human so to speak.
Classical conditioning (also Pavlovian conditioning or respondent conditioning) is a kind of learning that occurs when a conditioned stimulus (CS) is paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US). Usually, the CS is a neutral stimulus (e.g., the sound of a tuning fork), the US is biologically potent (e.g., the taste of food) and the unconditioned response (UR) to the US is an unlearned reflex response (e.g., salivation). After pairing is repeated (some learning may occur already after only one pairing), the organism exhibits a conditioned response (CR) to the CS when the CS is presented alone. The CR is usually similar to the UR (see below), but unlike the UR, it must be acquired through experience and is relatively impermanent.
That's what has happened with our perception of big business.
Our rationalization of the act of traded pirated work or committing piracy has done this to us.
That's what has happened with our perception of big business.
Our rationalization of the act of traded pirated work or committing piracy has done this to us.
According to the RIAA(Recording Industry Association of America):
The Scope of the problem
Consider these staggering statistics:
-In the decade since peer-to-peer (p2p) file-sharing site Napster emerged in 1999, music sales in the U.S. have dropped 47 percent, from $ 14.6 billion to $ 7.7 billion.
-From 2004 through 2009 alone, approximately 30 billion songs were illegally downloaded on file-sharing networks.
-NPD reports that only 37 percent of music acquired by U.S. consumers in 2009 was paid for.
-Frontier Economics recently estimated that U.S. Internet users annually consume between $ 7 and $ 20 billion worth of digitally pirated recorded music.
-According to the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, the digital theft of music, movies and copyrighted content takes up huge amounts of Internet bandwidth — 24 percent globally, and 17.5 percent in the U.S.
-Digital storage locker downloads constitute 7 percent of all Internet traffic, while 91 percent of the links found on them were for copyrighted material, and 10 percent of those links were to music specifically, according to a 2011 Envisional study.
While the music business has increased its digital revenues by 1,000 percent from 2004 to 2010, digital music theft has been a major factor behind the overall global market decline of around 31 percent in the same period. And although use of peer-to-peer sites has flattened during recent years, other forms of digital theft are emerging, most notably digital storage lockers used to distribute copyrighted music.
How much money does the music industry lose from piracy?
One credible analysis by the Institute for Policy Innovation concludes that global music piracy causes $ 12.5 billion of economic losses every year, 71,060 U.S. jobs lost, a loss of $ 2.7 billion in workers' earnings, and a loss of $ 422 million in tax revenues, $ 291 million in personal income tax and $ 131 million in lost corporate income and production taxes. For copies of the report, please visit www.ipi.org.
All the same, it's important to note that across the board, piracy is a very real threat to the livelihoods of not only artists and music label employees but also thousands of less celebrated people in the music industry — from sound engineers and technicians to warehouse workers and record store clerks. (http://www.riaa.com/faq.php)
The Scope of the problem
Consider these staggering statistics:
-In the decade since peer-to-peer (p2p) file-sharing site Napster emerged in 1999, music sales in the U.S. have dropped 47 percent, from $ 14.6 billion to $ 7.7 billion.
-From 2004 through 2009 alone, approximately 30 billion songs were illegally downloaded on file-sharing networks.
-NPD reports that only 37 percent of music acquired by U.S. consumers in 2009 was paid for.
-Frontier Economics recently estimated that U.S. Internet users annually consume between $ 7 and $ 20 billion worth of digitally pirated recorded music.
-According to the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, the digital theft of music, movies and copyrighted content takes up huge amounts of Internet bandwidth — 24 percent globally, and 17.5 percent in the U.S.
-Digital storage locker downloads constitute 7 percent of all Internet traffic, while 91 percent of the links found on them were for copyrighted material, and 10 percent of those links were to music specifically, according to a 2011 Envisional study.
While the music business has increased its digital revenues by 1,000 percent from 2004 to 2010, digital music theft has been a major factor behind the overall global market decline of around 31 percent in the same period. And although use of peer-to-peer sites has flattened during recent years, other forms of digital theft are emerging, most notably digital storage lockers used to distribute copyrighted music.
How much money does the music industry lose from piracy?
One credible analysis by the Institute for Policy Innovation concludes that global music piracy causes $ 12.5 billion of economic losses every year, 71,060 U.S. jobs lost, a loss of $ 2.7 billion in workers' earnings, and a loss of $ 422 million in tax revenues, $ 291 million in personal income tax and $ 131 million in lost corporate income and production taxes. For copies of the report, please visit www.ipi.org.
All the same, it's important to note that across the board, piracy is a very real threat to the livelihoods of not only artists and music label employees but also thousands of less celebrated people in the music industry — from sound engineers and technicians to warehouse workers and record store clerks. (http://www.riaa.com/faq.php)
Pirated material is not just limited to music and movie industry.
People pirate intellectual property like MatLab for instance a program used by engineers and scientists to perform advanced mathematical procedures to procure and understand complicated information. I've seen people pirate this program valued to as much as $ 10,000(if you have all packages) just to get out of paying for it.
Information management and censorship of access to avenues to break the law on the internet should be pursued to not compromise capitalism.
People pirate intellectual property like MatLab for instance a program used by engineers and scientists to perform advanced mathematical procedures to procure and understand complicated information. I've seen people pirate this program valued to as much as $ 10,000(if you have all packages) just to get out of paying for it.
Information management and censorship of access to avenues to break the law on the internet should be pursued to not compromise capitalism.
^^Yeah but wouldn't that mean they should have taken more stringent measures to improve the protection of the property pirated?
Posted by SteveW
And I can go to www.textnow.com and text for free if I am out of minutes on my phone or my phone is lost or stolen. Is this also considered stealing?
No that's different you payed for data to access the internet on your phone...
The site allowing you to text on it is not "free" texting.
Your data pays for it.
Posted by SteveWPosted by NotYourAverageAquariusPosted by SteveW
And I can go to www.textnow.com and text for free if I am out of minutes on my phone or my phone is lost or stolen. Is this also considered stealing?
No that's different you payed for data to access the internet on your phone...
The site allowing you to text on it is not "free" texting.
Your data pays for it.
www.textnow.com is a free texting website. You do not have to have a phone number or phone. It automates a phone number for you when you sign up to use it.click to expand
Yeah but your source of access to that site is whats paying for you to use it for free to text.
If you had no internet.. you wouldn't have access to the site... and therefore no texting.
Posted by SteveWPosted by NotYourAverageAquarius
So I say again. YouTube restricting someone from trying to use their website to broadcast copyright music and movies for free is not right. It's theft. But we all have been conditioned to think that it's okay because we are just stealing from people who have the money supposedly right?
Who says they have to make the movie or music for you? You wanted to hear or watch it. When you want something you pay for it.
Why should Youtube videos be censored? Big brother compels Youtube to quash the videos or pay the repercussions. If people who want to watch the video despite it being censored by youtube at the compelling of big brother they will find another site where the video is at. They have also compelled Google to turn over search records of millions of Americans. You want to talk about privacy? You have no privacy with big brother watching your every move and whereabouts.click to expand
Yeah so your information that Google has should be confidential and censored from hypothetical "Big Brother"
Posted by SteveWPosted by NotYourAverageAquarius
So I say again. YouTube restricting someone from trying to use their website to broadcast copyright music and movies for free is not right. It's theft. But we all have been conditioned to think that it's okay because we are just stealing from people who have the money supposedly right?
Who says they have to make the movie or music for you? You wanted to hear or watch it. When you want something you pay for it.
Why should Youtube videos be censored? Big brother compels Youtube to quash the videos or pay the repercussions. If people who want to watch the video despite it being censored by youtube at the compelling of big brother they will find another site where the video is at. They have also compelled Google to turn over search records of millions of Americans. You want to talk about privacy? You have no privacy with big brother watching your every move and whereabouts.click to expand
YouTube shouldn't be allowed to let people display entire movies(works of art) that people invested good money on in the attempt to recoup a profit. When you allow that then YouTube can take someone's business from them illegally and technically generating extra profit for themselves... via people know there will be free movies to watch so... everyone comes to YouTube for free movie central across the world and YouTube makes a killing of the work of other people. All YouTube did was make a website... that's it.
Posted by SteveW
Can you believe that? Big brother has compelled Google to turn over search records of millions of American with no search warrant violating the 4th amendment.
Yeah and Ironically the only thing that would protect them IS Censorship!
Posted by SteveW
So on the piracy issue: how is that related to censorship or a supportive argument for censorship?
If the government required Google and other search engines to bar access to cites they know file share.
You could prevent online thievery.
I mean people steal EVERYTHING that can be put into electronic format online these days. And it's not even regulated. Imagine if that was you who made that product so you could earn your money and someone just steals it from you?
Posted by SteveWPosted by NotYourAverageAquarius
Censorship is a tool. It has no mind of it's own or makes choices. It is not an entity.
In the right hands censorship can be used for all sorts of good things:
?? It limits the amount of violence that is broadcasted over the television;
?? It limits the amount of obscenity and vulgarity seen on television and in movies;
?? It protects the morals of society and religions;
?? It limits the amount of abuse that is viewed over the television;
?? It prevents negative displays of cultures, individuals, or communities.
Censorship is not the evil here it's YOU and ME.
Violence is on TV and movies and it is not something that can be curtailed. Turn on Jerry Springer or the Cops show. Is it up to the government who wants to make censorship look good when it is bad to censor our TV and movies if we have kids? As a parent: I am the one responsible for it, not big brother.
And negative displays of cultures, individuals, or communities are available and seen on the internet and TV. Is it those behaviors of others that should be censored or should the people themselves be responsible for how they conduct themselves in the public eye? Why should big brother step in to have to curtail this?
No parent in their right mind should be walking their child into a pornography store to see pornographic material.click to expand
You can't control the actions of others.
You can write a law that they are supposed to follow and they'll break.
You could threaten them with a fine or prison time and they'll still press forward.
If the situation is dire enough they'd probably be will to do w/e even in the face of death.
Censorship takes the human aspect out of it that me and you can't control and gives us something that we can control.
Posted by SteveWPosted by NotYourAverageAquariusPosted by SteveWPosted by NotYourAverageAquarius
So I say again. YouTube restricting someone from trying to use their website to broadcast copyright music and movies for free is not right. It's theft. But we all have been conditioned to think that it's okay because we are just stealing from people who have the money supposedly right?
Who says they have to make the movie or music for you? You wanted to hear or watch it. When you want something you pay for it.
Why should Youtube videos be censored? Big brother compels Youtube to quash the videos or pay the repercussions. If people who want to watch the video despite it being censored by youtube at the compelling of big brother they will find another site where the video is at. They have also compelled Google to turn over search records of millions of Americans. You want to talk about privacy? You have no privacy with big brother watching your every move and whereabouts.
Yeah so your information that Google has should be confidential and censored from hypothetical "Big Brother"
No, the 4th amendment protects the people from the government from unreasonable searches. They have to have a warrant to do a search. Doing unreasonable searches on you when you have committed no crime or suspect with NO WARRANT is a VIOLATION of the 4TH AMENDMENT.click to expand
"An individual has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information provided to third parties."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Posted by SteveW
So if I am not mistaken: you support censorship of websites to prevent piracy?
Yeah I do.
The ones who are committing the crime or knowingly supporting and providing the atmosphere to share pirated material. That's sooooo wrong. All I'd have to do basically is buy a domain name and I can make money off the work of other people who by the way never got payed for it. That's wrong on so many levels.
Posted by SteveWPosted by NotYourAverageAquarius
I mean people steal EVERYTHING that can be put into electronic format online these days. And it's not even regulated. Imagine if that was you who made that product so you could earn your money and someone just steals it from you?
Yes. Not everyone abides by the law, respects copyrights, and if they know a way to break the "system" they will.
If I am not mistaken: you support regulation of the internet?click to expand
I support regulating the websites that actively provide and support pirated material yes.
Posted by SteveWPosted by NotYourAverageAquarius
We been conditioned so to speak to think that Businesses are not people or that they have people like you and me working for them. We just attribute them with the face of some greedy millionaire who by the way has less rights then you and me because we can steal from him without getting in trouble. The CEO is less of a human so to speak.
Do you know how many people looked at this and vomited?click to expand
It's true though.
Everyone hates big business... but big business is why you have a job and can pay the bills.
When you pirate the product of the big business you work for... you indirectly affecting your own job. If they can no longer afford to pay you due to stolen money the could not retrieve and they serve you a pink slip... whose the loser?
Posted by SteveWPosted by NotYourAverageAquariusPosted by SteveWPosted by NotYourAverageAquarius
So I say again. YouTube restricting someone from trying to use their website to broadcast copyright music and movies for free is not right. It's theft. But we all have been conditioned to think that it's okay because we are just stealing from people who have the money supposedly right?
Who says they have to make the movie or music for you? You wanted to hear or watch it. When you want something you pay for it.
Why should Youtube videos be censored? Big brother compels Youtube to quash the videos or pay the repercussions. If people who want to watch the video despite it being censored by youtube at the compelling of big brother they will find another site where the video is at. They have also compelled Google to turn over search records of millions of Americans. You want to talk about privacy? You have no privacy with big brother watching your every move and whereabouts.
YouTube shouldn't be allowed to let people display entire movies(works of art) that people invested good money on in the attempt to recoup a profit. When you allow that then YouTube can take someone's business from them illegally and technically generating extra profit for themselves... via people know there will be free movies to watch so... everyone comes to YouTube for free movie central across the world and YouTube makes a killing of the work of other people. All YouTube did was make a website... that's it.
Why not?click to expand
Because, your hurting not just the actor in the movie and the film company... your hurting everyone else who works for them. The janitor, the light specialist, the camera man, the makeup artists, etc. etc.
All your doing is taking away money and jobs from other people so you can have your own selfish FREE enjoyment. That's not fair or right.
Posted by SteveWPosted by NotYourAverageAquariusPosted by SteveW
So if I am not mistaken: you support censorship of websites to prevent piracy?
Yeah I do.
The ones who are committing the crime or knowingly supporting and providing the atmosphere to share pirated material. That's sooooo wrong. All I'd have to do basically is buy a domain name and I can make money off the work of other people who by the way never got payed for it. That's wrong on so many levels.
When I posted about the software preventing piracy, there is a software that Adobe uses that prevents the unlocking of eBooks unless it is the person who paid for the eBook. What that person does with the eBook after they unlock it is up to the person because they bought it. They can share copies of it with others.
I think software can be created that prevents piracy instead of us going to an extreme measure of regulating the internet and censoring people from websites. I am all for small business start ups, too and would like to see them get going again.click to expand
Wouldn't the software be a type of censorship in and of itself?
Posted by SteveWPosted by NotYourAverageAquariusPosted by SteveWPosted by NotYourAverageAquariusPosted by SteveWPosted by NotYourAverageAquarius
So I say again. YouTube restricting someone from trying to use their website to broadcast copyright music and movies for free is not right. It's theft. But we all have been conditioned to think that it's okay because we are just stealing from people who have the money supposedly right?
Who says they have to make the movie or music for you? You wanted to hear or watch it. When you want something you pay for it.
Why should Youtube videos be censored? Big brother compels Youtube to quash the videos or pay the repercussions. If people who want to watch the video despite it being censored by youtube at the compelling of big brother they will find another site where the video is at. They have also compelled Google to turn over search records of millions of Americans. You want to talk about privacy? You have no privacy with big brother watching your every move and whereabouts.
YouTube shouldn't be allowed to let people display entire movies(works of art) that people invested good money on in the attempt to recoup a profit. When you allow that then YouTube can take someone's business from them illegally and technically generating extra profit for themselves... via people know there will be free movies to watch so... everyone comes to YouTube for free movie central across the world and YouTube makes a killing of the work of other people. All YouTube did was make a website... that's it.
Why not?
Because, your hurting not just the actor in the movie and the film company... your hurting everyone else who works for them. The janitor, the light specialist, the camera man, the makeup artists, etc. etc.
All your doing is taking away money and jobs from other people so you can have your own selfish FREE enjoyment. That's not fair or right.click to expand
lol
No. If Vevo wants t
Posted by SteveWPosted by NotYourAverageAquariusPosted by SteveWPosted by NotYourAverageAquariusPosted by SteveWPosted by NotYourAverageAquarius
So I say again. YouTube restricting someone from trying to use their website to broadcast copyright music and movies for free is not right. It's theft. But we all have been conditioned to think that it's okay because we are just stealing from people who have the money supposedly right?
Who says they have to make the movie or music for you? You wanted to hear or watch it. When you want something you pay for it.
Why should Youtube videos be censored? Big brother compels Youtube to quash the videos or pay the repercussions. If people who want to watch the video despite it being censored by youtube at the compelling of big brother they will find another site where the video is at. They have also compelled Google to turn over search records of millions of Americans. You want to talk about privacy? You have no privacy with big brother watching your every move and whereabouts.
Yeah so your information that Google has should be confidential and censored from hypothetical "Big Brother"
No, the 4th amendment protects the people from the government from unreasonable searches. They have to have a warrant to do a search. Doing unreasonable searches on you when you have committed no crime or suspect with NO WARRANT is a VIOLATION of the 4TH AMENDMENT.
"An individual has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information provided to third parties."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The Privacy and Terms of Google and other websites states they will not give your information out though. So no warrant and no cause for the unreasonable searches on millions of Americans.click to expand
Yeah they say they won't give them away to a private third party. It deosn't protect you from the government though once you've a
Music videos readily accessible to the public and New movies like divergent that are not is not the same thing. Nor is any other movie already out on dvd or blur ray.
Posted by SteveWPosted by NotYourAverageAquariusPosted by SteveWPosted by NotYourAverageAquariusPosted by SteveW
So if I am not mistaken: you support censorship of websites to prevent piracy?
Yeah I do.
The ones who are committing the crime or knowingly supporting and providing the atmosphere to share pirated material. That's sooooo wrong. All I'd have to do basically is buy a domain name and I can make money off the work of other people who by the way never got payed for it. That's wrong on so many levels.
When I posted about the software preventing piracy, there is a software that Adobe uses that prevents the unlocking of eBooks unless it is the person who paid for the eBook. What that person does with the eBook after they unlock it is up to the person because they bought it. They can share copies of it with others.
I think software can be created that prevents piracy instead of us going to an extreme measure of regulating the internet and censoring people from websites. I am all for small business start ups, too and would like to see them get going again.
Wouldn't the software be a type of censorship in and of itself?
It's security to protect companies from losses that are caused by piracy like you had stated earlier.
Here is a cup of coffee. 🙂click to expand
Bows head thanks you graciously.
Posted by SteveW
OK I will quote it:
"Information we share
We do not share personal information with companies, organizations and individuals outside of Google unless one of the following circumstances applies:
With your consent
We will share personal information with companies, organizations or individuals outside of Google when we have your consent to do so.
For legal reasons
We will share personal information with companies, organizations or individuals outside of Google if we have a good-faith belief that access, use, preservation or disclosure of the information is reasonably necessary to:
meet any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request."
So the government compels them to do it and they have to state that.
https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/?fg=1
Confused are you saying this says they don't have to give there information to the government because of what it says?
Posted by SteveW
Google doesn't want to be held liable in lawsuits because of the government compelling them to do it.
What google says in some usage terms maybe a contract per say between you and them but heres the thing man... A contract cannot contradict the law. The laws states that id you give your information up to a third party then its up for dibbs to the government if they see fit. No corporation contract is going to make the federal law null in void no matter what it says.
Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius
Censorship is a tool. It has no mind of it's own or makes choices. It is not an entity.
In the right hands censorship can be used for all sorts of good things:
?? The censor of pornographic material prevents the corruption of children;
?? Censorship helps preserve the secrets of a nation being revealed;
?? The act of censorship helps protects individuals?? privacy;
?? The act of censorship helps prevent terrorist groups from learning about dangerous technological advances;
?? Censorship can help hide sensitive military information;
?? It helps avoid plagiarism;
?? Censorship protects children from learning things that could potentially harm them;
?? It limits the amount of violence that is broadcasted over the television;
?? It limits the amount of obscenity and vulgarity seen on television and in movies;
?? It protects the morals of society and religions;
?? It limits the amount of abuse that is viewed over the television;
?? It prevents negative displays of cultures, individuals, or communities.
Censorship is not the evil here it's YOU and ME.
I want to address this as you said censorship is not the issue but you and me. One has to think why censorship even has to exist in the first place? Albeit an off topic connection to gun control, we can somewhat all agree the 'tool' at our disposal is also a contributing factor.
As set forth by the debate topic I don't think any one is to argue the proper classifications, restrictions and censorship should apply when it comes to minors which leaves majority of your points irrelevant. This leaves me to address a few other points you brought up.
Secrets of a Nation etc
If the sole purpose of censorship in this context is to protect the integrity of logistics of government operations from the public I fail to see how that is favorable. The world news can be biased depending on which perspective you are taking. Let's take some harder pressing examples such as the Invasion of Iran following the tragic events of 911, however controversial things seemed one can't deny government censorship denied its citizens the truth, without all information at hand were forced to make what many view as a regrettable action as a nation.
If you know about the Ubuntu initiative in South Africa, namely a big contributor Michael Dillenger, I want to relate government censorship as a form of control much like how money and wealth (controlled by banks owners of banks) is a form of control. Censor what the majority don't need to know and sooner or later they'll conform to the system and act as sheeps.
As you stated in one of your points: Terrorism. One does not require censorship unless the information is harmful on some level or deemed harmful but isn't that to be left to the judgement of the general public.
There is a boundary between what should be kept a secret when it comes to the military. It's no secret that the US spend majority of its budget towards military/defense but why? It's designed for warfare, what good is a secret when it'll end up killing millions of innocent lives in the process i.e. Horishima. Terrorist or not WMDs should not be kept secret.
Plagiarism
In which capacity does censorship help avoid plagarisim? If we're talking commercial products one should visit China and the many counterfeit phones they produce on a yearly basis. Or the infamous Apple vs Samsung cases, what matters is the acquisition of the first patent. If we're talking about intellectual properly I'm happy to discuss the merits of anything original or creative as I'm an avid believer in that all ideas are just recycled and renewed but never original.
A more popular story perhaps nowadays is the Transformers star Shia LeDouche. Plagarism only exists after the material has been released and not before. In this context censorship simply doesn't apply to acts plagarism, it is completely irrelevant.
Protection of Morals of society and religions
This is completely based on the individual culture's perspective. If anything it serves as a roadblock in to a better understanding and acceptance of society as a whole. To censor in this context is an act to segregate one self from the rest of the world so it neither preserves or protect. Without the information available one cannot come to an understanding and when these culutures and societies were to practice its traditions they can be viewed as an aggressor.
Lastly I have to agree with your last line. It is not censorship that's evil. It is you and me. Therefore making Censorship completely unecessary and in favour of our argument.
As you stated in one of your points: Terrorism. One does not require censorship unless the information is harmful on some level or deemed harmful but isn't that to be left to the judgement of the general public.
There is a boundary between what should be kept a secret when it comes to the military. It's no secret that the US spend majority of its budget towards military/defense but why? It's designed for warfare, what good is a secret when it'll end up killing millions of innocent lives in the process i.e. Horishima. Terrorist or not WMDs should not be kept secret.
Plagiarism
In which capacity does censorship help avoid plagarisim? If we're talking commercial products one should visit China and the many counterfeit phones they produce on a yearly basis. Or the infamous Apple vs Samsung cases, what matters is the acquisition of the first patent. If we're talking about intellectual properly I'm happy to discuss the merits of anything original or creative as I'm an avid believer in that all ideas are just recycled and renewed but never original.
A more popular story perhaps nowadays is the Transformers star Shia LeDouche. Plagarism only exists after the material has been released and not before. In this context censorship simply doesn't apply to acts plagarism, it is completely irrelevant.
Protection of Morals of society and religions
This is completely based on the individual culture's perspective. If anything it serves as a roadblock in to a better understanding and acceptance of society as a whole. To censor in this context is an act to segregate one self from the rest of the world so it neither preserves or protect. Without the information available one cannot come to an understanding and when these culutures and societies were to practice its traditions they can be viewed as an aggressor.
Lastly I have to agree with your last line. It is not censorship that's evil. It is you and me. Therefore making Censorship completely unecessary and in favour of our argument.
Excuse my typos and other shit, back to the hospital I go.
*Iraq, Hiroshima bah
Posted by SteveW
They can give the search records to police officers who have a warrant. But with the "enforceable government request" clause in there: they are saying they can be compelled by the government and are forced to give the information over. The government forced Google to do it with no warrant or probable cause on millions of Americans.
It is the same thing that NSA did on collecting phone calls of millions of Americans. They compelled the phone companies to turn over the phone records with no warrant. It is a violation of the 4th amendment.
The probable cause is to uphold the law from the governments point of view; however, I can sorta see why Google refused to hand it over at the time. None the less this brings to the forefront all types of unresolved issues like... should companies like Google even be allowed to track our searches on the internet? That's an invasion of privacy that many of us either don't care to worry about or are actually ignorant to it happening. Practically every website you join, even the one we are currently holding this debate on, more than likely tracks your habits and searches in an attempt to find out your interests and sell advertisement space to companies. Most of us don't even realize that when we don't read those long ass user agreement statements on websites we agreeing to online behavioral tracking and it's where those nasty little cookies you find difficult to get rid of on your computer come from.
I mean why should Google have access to your private e-mails sent through the net just because they have there network fingers into EVERYTHING? A Ph.D. of Harvard University, Dr. Epstein has published 15 books and more than 200 articles on artificial intelligence and other topics. Here's what Epstein had to say:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
"An editor at a major news magazine (not U.S. News) told me recently that Google can monitor people only when they sign in to a Google platform — Gmail or Google+, for example. Not so, I replied. Google can and does monitor people — perhaps upwards of 90 percent of Internet users worldwide — whether they use a Google product or not, and most people have no idea they're being monitored.
To make my point, I pursued a hunch. I expanded the header of the last email the editor had sent me. The header you normally see contains just four fields: From, To, Date, and Subject. But most email systems allow you to see much more. When you expand a header, you see many lines of technical information, including the names of the various computer servers through which the email passed on its way to you.
Sure enough, the editor's email had been routed through a Google server. How and why this routing was put in place, I don't know, but it appears that all outgoing emails from the magazine's staff run through Google, a company that has been known to scan email content. If you've ever received targeted ads that seem related to recent emails you've sent, you were probably scanned. The company can hardly deny that it scans; Buzz, the failed social network Google launched in 2010, was built entirely around information in Gmail messages that revealed who was friends with whom."
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2013/05/10/15-ways-google-monitors-you
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
"An editor at a major news magazine (not U.S. News) told me recently that Google can monitor people only when they sign in to a Google platform — Gmail or Google+, for example. Not so, I replied. Google can and does monitor people — perhaps upwards of 90 percent of Internet users worldwide — whether they use a Google product or not, and most people have no idea they're being monitored.
To make my point, I pursued a hunch. I expanded the header of the last email the editor had sent me. The header you normally see contains just four fields: From, To, Date, and Subject. But most email systems allow you to see much more. When you expand a header, you see many lines of technical information, including the names of the various computer servers through which the email passed on its way to you.
Sure enough, the editor's email had been routed through a Google server. How and why this routing was put in place, I don't know, but it appears that all outgoing emails from the magazine's staff run through Google, a company that has been known to scan email content. If you've ever received targeted ads that seem related to recent emails you've sent, you were probably scanned. The company can hardly deny that it scans; Buzz, the failed social network Google launched in 2010, was built entirely around information in Gmail messages that revealed who was friends with whom."
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2013/05/10/15-ways-google-monitors-you
Posted by SteveW
The search records are not shared with a third party. You are just searching on the internet. It would be like having encyclopedias in your home and searching through them. You are not specifically sharing the information through a 3rd party. Are you? That is the way I think of it.
You already shared it when you used google....HELL, even if you didn't actually lol. That's just how far Google's reach is. And Google is the third party sharing your information with government.
Posted by aquasnozPosted by NotYourAverageAquarius
I want to address this as you said censorship is not the issue but you and me. One has to think why censorship even has to exist in the first place?
If censorship didn't exist then stuff like what I presented earlier... would be public information.
Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius
Actually, due to the proliferation of information in todays world, if you wanna get a job somewhere these days you have to practically have a spotliss online image with a non criminal record of any kind no matter the severity. If you have old misdemeanor activity but you've turned over a new leaf... without the court records being sealed or your record being expunged you likely will find it difficult to find job opportunities.
How's that fair?
If you are a key witness in a case to convict a huge crime lord... the only way to hopefully guarantee safety for you and your family is to have your identity completely erased. So no one can track you.
Why shouldn't people willing to do their part for society to put away a crime lord be allowed a little censorship for peace of mind? Why should they risk their life even more than they already have by having their identity & location available to the public?
Posted by StoicGoat
For the purpose of this debate censorship shall be defined as —the intentional suppression of information by an individual, group, entity, or government body, or any agent acting under the direction, authority, or influence thereof."
I don't see why youtube shouldn't be allowed to censor someone trying to transmit video information on the whereabouts of people in the witness protection program for instance, or use youtube to illegally display confidential court sealed information about someone to publicly defame them and win a position from them at work as well as their clientale, or any other sensitive information meant for malice.
That's not right and that's what censorship is meant to be used for.click to expand
Posted by aquasnozPosted by NotYourAverageAquarius
Censorship is a tool. It has no mind of it's own or makes choices. It is not an entity.
In the right hands censorship can be used for all sorts of good things:
?? The censor of pornographic material prevents the corruption of children;
?? Censorship protects children from learning things that could potentially harm them;
Censorship is not the evil here it's YOU and ME.
I want to address this as you said censorship is not the issue but you and me. One has to think why censorship even has to exist in the first place? Albeit an off topic connection to gun control, we can somewhat all agree the 'tool' at our disposal is also a contributing factor.
As set forth by the debate topic I don't think any one is to argue the proper classifications, restrictions and censorship should apply when it comes to minors which leaves majority of your points irrelevant. This leaves me to address a few other points you brought up.
Yeah but this debate is about:
Posted by StoicGoat
For the purpose of this debate censorship shall be defined as —the intentional suppression of information by an individual, group, entity, or government body, or any agent acting under the direction, authority, or influence thereof.??click to expand
And part of the reason the government was requesting Google hand over search information on it's users was an attempt to enforce some of it's harder laws to enforce. That being the Child Online Protection Act.
Yeah kids are the subject matter but the government is still the one whose enforcing not mommy and daddy.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
"The government's move in the Google case, however, is different in its aims. Rather than seeking data on individuals, it says it is trying to establish a profile of Internet use that will help it defend the Child Online Protection Act, a 1998 law that would impose tough criminal penalties on individuals whose Web sites carried material deemed harmful to minors.
The law has faced repeated legal challenges. Two years ago, the Supreme Court upheld an injunction blocking its enforcement, returning the case to a district court for further examination of Internet-filtering technology that might be an alternative in achieving the law's aims."
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/technology/20google.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
"The government's move in the Google case, however, is different in its aims. Rather than seeking data on individuals, it says it is trying to establish a profile of Internet use that will help it defend the Child Online Protection Act, a 1998 law that would impose tough criminal penalties on individuals whose Web sites carried material deemed harmful to minors.
The law has faced repeated legal challenges. Two years ago, the Supreme Court upheld an injunction blocking its enforcement, returning the case to a district court for further examination of Internet-filtering technology that might be an alternative in achieving the law's aims."
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/technology/20google.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Posted by aquasnoz
Secrets of a Nation etc
If the sole purpose of censorship in this context is to protect the integrity of logistics of government operations from the public I fail to see how that is favorable. The world news can be biased depending on which perspective you are taking. Let's take some harder pressing examples such as the Invasion of Iran following the tragic events of 911, however controversial things seemed one can't deny government censorship denied its citizens the truth, without all information at hand were forced to make what many view as a regrettable action as a nation.
If you know about the Ubuntu initiative in South Africa, namely a big contributor Michael Dillenger, I want to relate government censorship as a form of control much like how money and wealth (controlled by banks owners of banks) is a form of control. Censor what the majority don't need to know and sooner or later they'll conform to the system and act as sheeps.
As you stated in one of your points: Terrorism. One does not require censorship unless the information is harmful on some level or deemed harmful but isn't that to be left to the judgement of the general public.
There is a boundary between what should be kept a secret when it comes to the military. It's no secret that the US spend majority of its budget towards military/defense but why? It's designed for warfare, what good is a secret when it'll end up killing millions of innocent lives in the process i.e. Horishima. Terrorist or not WMDs should not be kept secret.
Censorship can be used in the wrong way or even maliciously to cause harm. That doesn't mean censorship is wrong. The person using the censorship improperly is in the wrong.
Posted by aquasnoz
Secrets of a Nation etc
There is a boundary between what should be kept a secret when it comes to the military. It's no secret that the US spend majority of its budget towards military/defense but why? It's designed for warfare, what good is a secret when it'll end up killing millions of innocent lives in the process i.e. Horishima. Terrorist or not WMDs should not be kept secret.
I'm not gonna say what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII was necessarily right. But, at that time in the worlds history everything was a shirt storm. The world was falling to tyrants and the US tried to do what it could to curb the violence the best way it could. Censorship hid that weapon from everyone.... I know it was a horrific thing that happened to those cities but at the same time it was horrific what Japan did to Pearl Harbor as well. No atomic bomb has been used in war time since then and it's obvious why. The fact still remains that those bomb's effectively took Japan out the picture and allowed the US to focus all there attention and energy on Europe where Germany was trying to grow an Empire and committing horrendous atrocities that could not be ignored.
Also, another tidbit is that Japan to this day cannot still fess up to what it did to the Chinese during this time. The Japanese raped and killed there young and all for pleasure. I'm not gonna say I dislike anyone who is Japanese but the people in general or at the very least the government are full of arrogant assholes. To some extent one could say it was a small measure of justice for the Chinese if anything btw... Imma stop trying to rationalize the worth of human life.
Join the Conversation. Explore Yourself. Connect with Others.
Discover insights, swap stories, and find people. dxpnet is where experiences turn into understanding.
Create Your Free Account →Related Topics
I don't know why... but since watching flavor of love & i love new york online.. I really like her wit and her style! Sh
WHO SENT THEIR VOTES TO STOIC
Since we're all from some corner of the world or another..do you agree with what this map states? Does it ring true for
Who has got one? How high? Do you work in that field?
To all the alphs (men & women) out there. Being a BTTM (Beta To The Max; not to be confused with bottom) I'm kinda
From your experiences and assumptions, which signs are Alpha,Sigma,Beta,Gamma and Omega?
Said the stupid ass extreme liberals... How stupid can people be? This was brought up last year and made the news ag
So I found this article after reading Clueless Cancer's posts in the Drake and Rihanna thread. I'm not sure which ones t
http://youtu.be/yrXWqwuOqIQ
Yesterday in NYC St. Patricks Day Parade, celebrating THE IRISH..and the traditional IRISH HOLIDAY which has been going
Welcome, players and audience members, to the St. Patrick—s Day Premiere of DXP Survivor 2014. The game will begin wit
are like chocolate kisses. I keep looking at them. @_@
The girl in the gym is so tall... but she has a fairy-like looks. Is it safe to say that she's an Aqua? I mean, she appe
Why is it that most of the DXP users are so gorgeous? Are these you guys' real pics or did yall steal them?
Well IMO anyway. I enjoyed this when I saw it the first time and stumbled upon it again.
Hey yall. i kno its been so long and all but yea... So yea since i left this place, i went to lindaland, that didnt w
I'll start for all you OCD types by dumping a carton of pins on the floor and watch you pause to count. But I am curi
Hot? Not? Fugly? Gorgeous? Does it make a difference on the shade of red? Does it make a difference whether it's a man o
How often do you judge others?
I notice that most people from outside US know another language besides English. But in America, people are lucky t
Go for launch.