←back to thread

The Big [Censored] Theory

(pudding.cool)
1444 points feross | 9 comments | 29 Aug 22 17:34 UTC | HN request time: 1.011s | source | bottom
Show context
aero-glide2 ◴[29 Aug 22 18:32 UTC] No.32641737[source]▶
I don't really agree with this, but consider this argument : Is it really a bad thing if different countries have different understanding of what's allowed/not allowed? If the whole world had the same system of governance, that could be dangerous too.
replies(8): >>32641842 #>>32641873 #>>32642266 #>>32644802 #>>32644850 #>>32644973 #>>32645126 #>>32651119 #
S201 ◴[29 Aug 22 18:40 UTC] No.32641842[source]▶
Because the people of China didn't choose this: their oppressive and authoritarian government did it for them.
replies(5): >>32641944 #>>32641964 #>>32643829 #>>32644009 #>>32647367 #
darawk ◴[29 Aug 22 18:49 UTC] No.32641964[source]▶
This is right. If people vote for censorship in a democracy, that's a perfectly fine form of governmental heterogeneity. What's happening in China is not that.
replies(6): >>32642181 #>>32642677 #>>32642839 #>>32643454 #>>32645266 #>>32647554 #
1. welshwelsh ◴[29 Aug 22 19:48 UTC] No.32642677[source]▶
I completely disagree.

An individual's rights should have nothing to do with the people who happen to surround them and what they happen to think.

If different countries allow different things, that would mean that what a person is allowed to do would depend on where they happen to live, which is usually close to where they happened to be born. That doesn't make any sense to me- the lottery of birth should have no impact on one's rights.

replies(4): >>32642890 #>>32643369 #>>32645268 #>>32646268 #
2. micromacrofoot ◴[29 Aug 22 20:06 UTC] No.32642890[source]▶
Despite the ideology that it shouldn’t matter, the lottery of birth is probably the single largest factor on someone’s life trajectory today - changing that is incredibly difficult and would likely require the dissolution of many countries
3. concordDance ◴[29 Aug 22 20:48 UTC] No.32643369[source]▶
A reason to allow different people groups to do different things could be uncertainty about what is harmful. Letting the various restrictions and allowances play out can give a better understanding of the consequences of these.
4. fallingfrog ◴[30 Aug 22 00:25 UTC] No.32645268[source]▶
It’s certainly an interesting philosophical problem, finding the balance between the individual and the society. My take on it is this: decisions should be made by the people who those decisions affect. In the case of censorship I agree with you completely- my watching a slasher flick does not give you nightmares. If I were playing devils advocate I might say that it corrodes the national character or something like that- but that to me is a very weak argument.
5. hackerlight ◴[30 Aug 22 03:15 UTC] No.32646268[source]▶
Possibly true, but can we at least agree that a democratic majority deciding to censor something is significantly better than a dictatorship deciding to censor something?
replies(3): >>32647798 #>>32650268 #>>32650751 #
6. throwaway98797 ◴[30 Aug 22 07:55 UTC] No.32647798[source]▶
well, depends with whom your views align with more
7. earth_walker ◴[30 Aug 22 13:39 UTC] No.32650268[source]▶
I disagree. The majority is never informed enough to make a good decision on something as nuanced as censorship. At least a dictatorship could, theoretically, be benevolent and act on the advice of experts.
replies(1): >>32650880 #
8. agileAlligator ◴[30 Aug 22 14:14 UTC] No.32650751[source]▶
ideally no one should be allowed to censor anything (using state power)
9. hackerlight ◴[30 Aug 22 14:25 UTC] No.32650880{3}[source]▶
A democracy can act on the advice of experts too via representative democracy with representatives (or appointees of representatives) that rely on experts.