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 500021
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Drawing the line
by mtzmtulivu on Tue 13th Dec 2011 17:32 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Drawing the line"
Member since:

How do you define censorship?

Where else would your definition hold apart from kiddie porn online?

I think what you( and i assume there are a few others who think like you ) are you doing is cherry picking what is to be considered censorship and what isnt.

What most people do is seeing any form of speech suppression to be censorship and then they start cherry picking what censorship is good and what is not.

The two above are not the same.

Have you ever heard of a saying "a cure to bad speech is more speech"?. That statement comes from the view that censoring even what the whole world agrees to be bad speech is bad in itself.

Most people will agree that kiddie porn is bad and hence censoring it is a good thing but it is still censorship never the less.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[9]: Drawing the line
by Tuishimi on Wed 14th Dec 2011 20:05 in reply to "RE[8]: Drawing the line"
Tuishimi Member since:

I *think* he is saying if it is illegal in the first place, then it isn't censorship. Censorship applies to limiting information that is legal, but objectionable to some.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: Drawing the line
by zima on Tue 20th Dec 2011 21:17 in reply to "RE[9]: Drawing the line"
zima Member since:

No, that still wouldn't really make sense; the systems of censorship are often implemented by making, by pronouncing the censored artefacts to be illegal (also on case-by-case basis - say, specific books; the legal ones, those in official circulation, needing to be "cleared" in effect)

Essentially, it would be falling into that cherry picking mentioned by parent - because one can always eventually say "we don't have censorship, we just target illegal stuff" in such interpretation.

Reply Parent Score: 2