That is the very definition of actively scanning. Anything you type in game goes through a function that compares it against a no no list and if a word appears thats on that list it automatically gives the prompt. Thats what this whole thread is about…
And it does report as I have seen people silenced from the prompts as well, again despite not reporting anything and it being a whisper.
Its not a removal of 230 its forcing companies to choose which they are. I was quite clear on that. Right now companies get the best of both worlds. In the future they are going to have to choose to be a utility or publisher.
I don’t need to beware at all. Its exactly what I want. Companies who moderate can be held accountable for all the stuff they decide not to moderate. Meanwhile companies that want to be protected from lawsuits can stop with the moderation and instead put into place filters and blocks to allow people to choose what they see. I am well aware of the immediate and long term effects this will have seeing as I’ve been on the internet before Ma Bell was broken up. It seems that people have forgotten that moderation particularly this heavy handed stuff we’ve seen recently is new.
So you do want some limitations on companies only you want those that conform to your values.
What would you say about someone who wants companies to be able to freely discriminate after all its the companies choice? And why is your answer any different than me wanting to express my thoughts freely online without interference from companies who hold different values?
I don’t really see how you are drawing those parallels. They are not flip flopping on what they want. They believe strongly in private property rights to a degree I disagree with but it isnt like they are all over the place.
They provide an absolutist answer and then follow it with an exception. That’s perfectly fine, most people do something similar. I don’t take issue with their approach, but I’m using their exception to highlight why others might advocate for more exceptions, potentially to the extent that these exceptions could become the norm rather than the exception.
It was right there in the post. Its why I phrased my question the way that I did. I was attempting to use Socratic questioning to get them to answer a question about someone who disagrees and thinks companies should be able to discriminate and than ask them why they don’t apply that same logic to other areas of companies freedoms.
They said that companies should be free to set their own standards correct?
They than said with the exception of… and it can be anything here as it doesn’t matter, lets say its killing animals.
I than ask why do you have that exception and what would your argument be if someone thinks that is not a good exception.
Now apply that very same argument and the principles that you used to get there to people who do not wish for companies to be granted the right to censor individuals.
The purpose is to see if they can provide an argument to it. And if their consistent in their approach to logic or if instead this is a feelings approach.
If its logic than I want to know.
If its feelings than there is no discussion to be had here as I don’t care.
Ok so I put this to ChatGTP for structure and to ensure that its clear. If this doesn’t work I guess I have no idea how to explain it in a way that you can understand.
This is a hypothetical designed to test consistency in reasoning. It’s not about agreeing or disagreeing but about applying the same principles across different situations. If this approach seems unclear, are you unfamiliar with abstract reasoning, hypotheticals, or the Socratic method?
Premise 1:
They stated that companies should be free to set their own standards.
Premise 2:
They introduced an exception to this freedom. The specific exception doesn’t matter—it could be banning companies from killing animals, forbidding the use of French words in company names, or any other condition. Importantly, the exception doesn’t need to involve legality, as that has no bearing on the questions being posed.
Inquiry:
I then asked why they hold that exception and how they would defend it if someone challenged that exception as invalid.
Extension:
Using their reasoning and principles for this exception, I ask them to apply the same logic to people who argue that companies should not have the right to censor individuals.
Purpose:
To determine whether their reasoning for exceptions is consistent and logical across different scenarios.
To identify if their stance stems from a logical framework or is instead driven by feelings.
Key Outcome:
If they provide a logical explanation consistent with their principles, the discussion can continue.
If their stance is feelings-based, the discussion is moot because I am only interested in logical reasoning.
Why does anyone need to explain a position that differs from yours? Maybe you should explain why, to some, you hold beliefs that are anti-science, anti-women, and certainly to a life alteringly harmful degree anti-children.
You have the priviledge to fling accusations and labels at anyone who disagrees with your take on this particular issue because in this particular environment it’s the “free” speech that is allowed. This post will probably get flagged but before it does I urge you to try to understand people who disagree with you instead of automatically hurling hateful labels at them and assuming the worst. I think if more people did that they’d find out that disagreement isn’t necessarily hate and that more people care about them and are rooting for them than they think. Even if they don’t agree 100%.
The simple answer is that it was not an absolutist answer, and those exceptions have reasonable foundations. If you want to ask why the government should step in if a restaurant refuses to serve people because of their skin color, for example, you can do that but everyone involved in the discussion is likely already aware of the reasons why and there’s no real need for a simplistic debate tool to make people think about that.
It’s like telling people to question everything but reminding them it’s good practice to stop at stop signs. We all know why its a good idea to stop.
Perhaps its the migraine I have but I’m failing to see the point you are attempting to make.
So lets apply that same reasoning.
If you want to ask why the government shouldn’t step in if a restaurant doesn’t censor a customers ability to say they think there are only two sexes, for example, you can do that but everyone involved in the discussion is likely already aware of the reasons why and there’s no real need for a simplistic debate tool to make people think about that.
See how that is not any reasoning at all. It explains nothing.
Why do you think discrimination happens and is it really bad when there are biological and evolutionary reasons for it? Please understand I’m against it myself but I have reasons for it that are logical based and not just out of fear of being the outsider.
Are you than against the outspoken current discrimination against Asians and White males in the educational, movie and tech industries under the guise of DEI?
Lets take an example than of a white male applying to sweetbaby inc an all female company. He is openly discriminated against while applying which is illegal so lets say the government forces him to be hired. Do you think he will be happy and or productive there? Would he not be better suited in a different company? Do you think its going to have a negative impact on the culture within the company?
So why than should we force a company who doesn’t want a white man to hire one when it ensures everyone involved will be more miserable?
If we adhere to a utilitarian ideal of morality than its obviously the incorrect solution.
My issue is that I do not feel like you are being honest in what the exceptions are. And why they exist.
It cant be anything. It can only be very specific things. We know this, because thats what the laws are.
Then you push back in court. Like how every single law on the book works if a person believes the law is unconstitutional.
Or you elect people that agree with you.
A company could not exist, literally, without the ability to censor individuals within the confines of their business. If a company did not have this right, no company in existence would risk existing as a physical place.
Every business related forums/comments section/etc would shut down. Most brick and mortar stores wouldnt risk it.
I’m going to point out you’re not arguing about the absolutism of the answer you replied to but building a strawman to shift the discussion to discrimination against white people.
Its taking your point and asking questions about how you arrive at the idea that discrimination is bad. If you have logical reasons than you can present them and there are logical reasons.
If however you are one of the masses that just follows cultural normas without understanding why a law should or should not exist than of course there is no discussion to be had.
Thats not a dig at you either. As that seems to be the vast majority of people.
As far as why white people its because its who I’m limited to talking about on the forums without fear of censorship. If you would like we could instead talk about black people in the 60’s, as I think I’d be ok there as well. The same principles apply to both.
I just figured that people would get angry at a section that suggests it might be morally reprehensible to hire a black person because it would make everyone miserable. A white person seems more palpable to most people in our society.
See, again a strawman. The same principles do not apply to both as one of these things is not like the other in regards to re: systemic discrimination by the other. I am not going to validate what is becoming an increasingly obvious agenda on your part.