Stop Internet Censorship!

[dazzerfong]

The one at dictionary.com

 

That site is the equivalent of Wikipedia, you know, right? Legitimacy removed. And even then:

 

1. the act or practice of censoring.

2. the office or power of a censor.

3. the time during which a censor holds office.

4. the inhibiting and distorting activity of the Freudian censor.

 

We don't need the bottom two, and the first two aren't very clear what it 'censor' is. Let's have a look:

 

1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.

2.

any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.

3.

an adverse critic; faultfinder.

 

Exactly what I said before. Like in the previous argument on stem cell therapy, Lukertin's demonstrated his/her attitude as conservative. I don't think we can change him/her.

[marharth]

That site is the equivalent of Wikipedia, you know, right? Legitimacy removed. And even then:

Sorry but this is incorrect. Anyone can edit Wikipedia (which actually makes it more accurate in the long run anyways because it requires sources for proper editing.)

 

dictionary.com is not a Wiki, and is not really similar to Wikipedia in anyway.

 

You are correct on the rest of your post, that first part just bugged me.

[dazzerfong]

Do you know why I said 'equivalent of'? Anyone can edit it. I didn't say it's a wiki.

[marharth]

Do you know why I said 'equivalent of'? Anyone can edit it. I didn't say it's a wiki.

I am pretty sure you can't. How exactly would you do that?

[dazzerfong]

You have to make an account first.

[marharth]

You have to make an account first.

Doesn't seem to change anything :armscrossed:

[dazzerfong]

It's the same as WIkipedia: you have to make an account to edit the content.

[marharth]

You don't need a account to edit stuff on Wikipedia, and I have a account on dictionary.com.

[dazzerfong]

Ah, my bad. You can edit it at your own whim. Apologies.

[Arthmoor]

<snip>

Well at least I can take comfort knowing I'm not the only person on the internet who grasps what censorship actually is.

 

Now if people could just wrap their heads around what illegal activity is, there'd be no need for the RIAA/MPAA/etc to flail about trying to stop people from stealing their stuff by asking Congress to draft legislation on topics NONE of them actually understand well enough to act on.

 

The tech sector, the ones who will actually be tasked with implementing the penalties, are telling everyone flat out that the methods are bad - they're not telling you that stopping piracy is bad. Yet go to just about any tech news site and the comment sections are filled with people who are anti-SOPA because it'll stop them from obtaining their ripped movies, music, and games. People who somehow got it into their heads that they're entitled to steal stuff rather than have to pay for it.