Linked by David Adams on Tue 13th Dec 2011 03:12 UTC
Editorial I was reading today about how Linux Mint developers altered the Banshee music player source code to redirect affiliate revenue from Amazon music orders to them instead of Banshee. They've reportedly made less than $4, which has caused a kerfluffle among those paying attention to that corner of the world. But it raises a larger point that has been swirling around for a couple of decades: an OS vendor has a lot of power to influence, and even monetize their user base. Where should they draw the line?
Thread beginning with comment 499972
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Drawing the line
by cyrilleberger on Tue 13th Dec 2011 07:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Drawing the line"
Member since:

Censoring the internet is _NEVER_ OK. Child porn has to be DELETED and the people who put it there need to be prosecuted.

And exactly how "deletion" is not censorship ? Censorship is not a synonym of "blocking". Censorship means preventing access to some information, which can be done by deleting or blocking.

Reply Parent Score: 11

v RE[3]: Drawing the line
by kragil on Tue 13th Dec 2011 08:52 in reply to "RE[2]: Drawing the line"
RE[4]: Drawing the line
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 13th Dec 2011 15:54 in reply to "RE[3]: Drawing the line"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:

Then censoring it is ok?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Drawing the line
by Gone fishing on Tue 13th Dec 2011 17:16 in reply to "RE[2]: Drawing the line"
Gone fishing Member since:

I think kragil argument is that censorship is the blocking and removal of information, simply for being information and is wrong. On the other hand if information is linked to a real crime that exists in the non-virtual world, than it should be removed for its association to events crimes etc in the physical world, i.e. the world that courses pain and suffering to real people.

For example child porn should be removed for being linked to human trafficking, the rape of minors, etc and those involved prosecuted on those grounds, rather than being simply blocked virtually for being information (which child porn certainly is). So it would be unreasonably to block Lady Chatterley's lover or the Story of O as it is linked to no crime in the real world.

This argument has some merit – however, I'm not comfortable with the idea of virtually created images of child porn etc being acceptable because they are not linked to crimes in the real world, however, if we ban these then should you ban The story of O, Lady Chatterley's lover, Harry Potter etc where do you draw the line?

Reply Parent Score: 2