Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by CheskiChips, Jul 1, 2010.
What's wrong with those??? They express the poster's viewpoint, whatever that is...
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Interesting enough the current coverage on the Wikileaks story could potentially play an important role in future forum development. You have to take into consideration that 4Chan is known to be a forum with even more liberal rules than we have here and obviously 4Chan is seen as affiliated with the Anonymous attacks.
It could be suggested that Governments might draft strict rules for forum operation online, whereby operators not following such rules are penalised. This humble forum itself could come under the firing line due to the current situation. Now obviously it's really up to the site operators to make the decision in regards to who they support, at the end of the day though they aren't going to want to get into trouble for something they haven't directly done.
So like I mention the forums future could be dependent on what activities are allowed to occur here, or not.
The obvious question
Sure. Why not?
There's nothing wrong with a member expressing a controversial viewpoint in a post, or even in the title of a thread. But when he condenses that point of view into a slogan that pops up on everyone's screen (member and non-member alike) every time he scrolls past one of the member's posts, it begins to look like we support the political, religious, cultural, etc. position behind it.
Even if everyone decides to do it so we end up with a more-or-less balanced sample of controversial opinions in our bylines, people who stifle free speech are only sensitized to the opinions they disagree with and will not even count the others.
This is what's wrong. Most of the world does not have a cultural history of free speech, so suppressing unpopular speech is their way of life. They haven't read Justice Brandeis's comment: "The best disinfectant is sunshine." Or my own version, "It's better to let the cockroaches run around on top of the linoleum where we can keep an eye on them."
where are our servers located? canada right?
where is plazma's business located? britain, right?
the us does x and sci has to do what?
you are scaring me with your rhetoric
Let me guess, for national security interests.
So when the admins send PMs asking me to change my user title regardless of whether it is hate speech or not within the hour, then ban me and change it anyway to pre-emptively protect the future of the forums even though not one of them can demonstrate where in the world antizionism is banned as hate speech - they are imitating these places?
OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG!
what was the user title sam?
i think it is time for some protest
let us all put anti zionist slogans in user titles
fight the power, bitches
here is my context...
Anti-Zionism can be opposition to various ideologies within Zionism, opposition to the Jewish state of Israel founded on that concept. Sometimes the term Anti-Zionism used to describe opposition to specific Israeli government policies. The term has been used both historically and in current debates to describe various religious, moral and political points of view in opposition to these, but their diversity of motivation and expression is sufficiently different that "anti-Zionism" cannot be seen as having a single ideology or source. This article examines opposition to Zionism, Israel, and its policies over time.
Zionism is opposed by a wide variety of organizations and individuals. Among those opposing Zionism are some secular Jews, some branches of Judaism (Satmar Hasidim and Neturei Karta), the former Soviet Union, some African-Americans, many in the Muslim world, and Palestinians. Reasons for opposing Zionism are varied, and include unfair land confiscation, expulsions of Palestinians, violence against Palestinians, and racism. Arab states in particular strongly oppose Zionism, which they believe is responsible for the 1948 Palestinian exodus. (wikishit)
fight for your freedom of expression
fight for your beliefs
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
they make better targets that way...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, I did ban you. And about 2 minutes later that decision was reversed. So, yes, technically you were banned - for about 2 minutes. Practically speaking, you weren't banned.
You were not asked to change your user title because of hate speech. You were asked to change it because it was antagonistic. It appeared on every one of your posts across the forum. And what it said was "I am itching for a fight. Bring it on. I'm here to irritate people and I want arguments on this particular topic."
Compare the four variants I posted above.
Moderator note: Gustav has been banned from sciforums for 3 days for using a user title that he was well aware was inappropriate, in defiance of site policy.
OMG, I almost literally fell of my seat laughing. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I want this one !
What's puzzling and disappointing is that what at first glance appeared to be a discussion about Internet 2 (Web 2.0) which by all accounts is not about free speech but about restriction and control and apparently creating a "safe" environment where everyone's feelings are spared.. the thread was actually more focused on one particular thing, mainly perceptions of hate speech.
Either way, SAM's response was warranted. And then James R closes it hastily, since SAM is not allowed to talk about the subject.
Which is the irony of the topic. First, it didn't really address web censorship so much, but one (personalized) facet. Next, it wasn't allowed to flourish as the timely topic that it is.
Is that James R's spiteful sense of humor?
Let me add another question: what the hell does leaked classified documents have to do with calling oneself an anti-zionist being a form of hate speech???
Gazing into your crystal ball Stryder, or has someone handed you the next PatriRot Act for the internet? And they've told you that the Wikileaks circus is theater to enable this restriction beyond merely protecting national secrets and classified documents, to restricting any speech that "threatens" national security, whatever the hell that is... Give em an inch, and they feel entitled to take ______.
SAM's "anti-zionism" has always been aimed at James R, not because he's Jewish, not because he stands for Jewish values, just because SAM gets a rise out of it. The problem is that while I and other members might see this farce for what it actually is, others on the internet don't necessarily understand the history of goading here on the forum, so it ends up looking like a hate camp.
Generally speaking a number of governments are looking at tightening restrictions online, to not just deal with spammers or thieves ripping people off through hacking, they are looking at fundamentally changing the entire way social network infrastructures exist. I mean just look at recent events, you've got the Wikileaks story but the anonymous attacks are now being downplayed because their attack vector was compromised (and limited in number), Governments will tote them Cyber-criminals due to their vigilante nature.
If you look at the UK student riots in London, there wasn't any preplanning in regards to meetings, just Tweets, Facebook and other social networking apparatus to "Make it up as they go along".
Governments are going to see social networking as a potential national security risk beyond telling Forces personnel not to use it.
Obviously this however is not about SAM, but a subject in it's own right.
If that is the basis for asking me to delete the user title then let me inform you that the UT has nothing to do with James. It was a joke on IchBin who invited me to partake of Israeli hospitality as an attempt to see "the other side" of apartheid. I believe you already know my issues with "my turn for genocide" and hence I rewrote Ich bin as an antizionistischen
Meanwhile it is the height of unethical behaviour to censor someone due to your personal opinions
SAM, there is a long history of you calling James a Pro-Jew or calling the moderators zionists etc To my knowledge all the moderators obviously just let it act like water off a ducks back since most if not all of us are Atheist, we wouldn't push any religion over another. (maybe tread on a few religions instead.)
As for "height of unethical behaviour", are you trying to seduce me with your irony?
Yes, I noticed the entire bunch of atheists with high moral standards who were taken down by a user title which spoke out against supremacism.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The same atheists btw, who have never been concerned by the anti-theist user titles or avatars popping up with every post
No I still remember your garden variety of ethics in the moderator forum.
Is this a call to try and make us be more concerning in regards to theism, on a (Pop)Science Forum no less? We try to "tolerate" religion, it doesn't mean we have to champion it.
No, its to point out the hypocrisy of being concerned about having "hate speech" show up on user titles. Even the EU has more statutes protecting religion while there isn't a single one protesting anti-zionism.
Separate names with a comma.