Thorns

So, last weeks Gruen transfer was so offensive they didn't show all of it. I read that post before watching the episode so was semi-prepared but still annoyed, and it got me thinking about what I do and don't like about the show (they bring up interesting ideas, say stuff I don't know, make spurious and offensive arguments, and thus illustrate the failings of the advertising industry. So overall a "win"...of sorts)

Anyway, since I wasn't up to getting my rant on for last week, you get a brief one for this week.

They were talking about burger ads and got onto how they're deliberately aimed at children so kids will pester their parents. Todd and Will were trying to argue that companies have a responsibility to avoid creating this situation since it puts pressure on parents and leads to childhood obesity etc. Everyone else argued for Personal Responsibility. Bah. I hate that phrase. I mean there are situations where it applies but it's one of those phrases which tends to imply a whole slew of really creepy extra attitudes. I get the feeling that if they were allowed to create ads so kids would pester parents to buy them cigarettes, they totally would. Noone's making the parents buy them!

(nb, this is not a fully reasoned argument. It's a rant. And I feel better for saying it)

A question that has come up in two comments I've been pondering my reply to ¹ and on which I think I may actually have a really basic ethical difference about:

Lets assume a certain act is "bad" under your ethical code. It's hurtful, unethical, immoral, etc. If you did it yourself you would be being immoral/unethical.

If there is something bad going on, and you're aware of it, and you could (try to) stop it, and you don't, are you complicit in that bad act? Are you being somewhat immoral/unethical?

Because I say yes. Inaction is itself an action. It's not the same as doing the "bad" act yourself, but it's not completely different either.
( Read more... )
So, do people agree? Or do you not see inaction as just another form of action, subject the same moral/ethical rules (whatever they are, depending on your own POV) as, uh, active action? (You can tell I never studied philosophy, there's probably proper jargon for this stuff) Is there some hole in my argument or description?
( An embarrassing number of footnotes )

Any time I come across an imbroglio/wank etc on the internet part of my reaction is to think "Could that be me?"(*). Since I tend to run a mile from conflict (if someone criticises me I tend to either apologise or "agree to disagree") a lot of the time the answer is "Maybe to begin with, but it wouldn't spiral out of control like that".

But something I am in danger of doing is staying silent when I should confront people, and by my silence implicitly supporting their actions. I've been thinking about the latest explosion with this whole Elizabeth Bear thing and comparing what she did to what I might do in such a situation (I don't have such a large friendslist, and I don't think anyone has ever posted anything critical about me that my friends might takes offense at, so I can't say for sure) But I have a headache and I'm not really up to it.

Luckily On safe space and responsibility is a post which says a lot of what I wanted to, so I shall link to it instead :)

I do mean to have a serious ponder about the downsides and of being "nice" and how responsible I am for the consequences of my own non-confrontationality especially as the moderator of the comments on this lj, but not today, I think. And now for a change, saying what I actually think was the last time I tried pondering it.

(*)though the post ven ve voke up, ve had zese wodies makes the very good point that it's pretty insulting to people being racially attacked to see this educational effect as the primary effect of racism imbroglios without acknowledging the pain they cause

The next of my General principles of internet communication, once again prompted by me starting a post about something else (in fact, the same post. I will finish it one day!) and going off on a tangent :) Really obvious, yet I am constantly forgetting to do it.
( Read more... )

Freedom of speech is a nice concept, and one worth fighting for. It's not something you can assume you have a legal right to on the internet, especially when you consider all the different countries' legal systems involved (my own country offers pretty patchy support) Sop when I say "right" here I just mean in the non-legally binding moral imperative sense.

But even when we consider the principle, what it means is that you have the right not to suffer legal consequences for expressing an opinion, and the right to have public spaces in which you can express yourself.

It does not mean you have the right to avoid social repercussions. If it did, wouldn't you complaining about the people complaining about you be a violation of their right to "free speech"?

Secondly, just because something is publicly visible doesn't make it a "public space". If a private individual or organisation is in charge of a space (and this is true of pretty much everywhere on the internet) then they have the right to completely control what is said there, and that includes deleting content and banning contributors. Which is not to say that this isn't sometimes a bad thing for them to do if they are inconsistent or overly harsh, but they still have that right to dictate both the general nature and specifics of what is and is not said.

If you want to say something they don't like, say it somewhere else.

On the other side: if you are in charge of a space (the comments to your blog, say), while in principle you have the right to run it how you like people will be justifiably annoyed if you act inconsistently or (in their opinion) overly harshly.

For further discussion on the specific issues involved with blog comments, you might like to read my post POLL: When is it ok to edit a blog post?.

This post was written as part of my General principles of internet communication.

Recently there's been a huge ruckus as livejournal has (inconsistently and hamfistedly) tried to rid itself of pedophiles and visual pornography involving minors. (EDIT: Which I think they're well within their rights to do, I just think they screwed up the execution) One of their more controversial stances has been to lump drawn pictures of fictional characters with actual photographs, calling it all "child porn". (EDIT: they didn't just ban both, they explicitly said they're the same) This attitude is not uncommon in society at large. (I say having read the justifications for Australia's inconsistently strict child porn rules)

This attitude bothers me a lot, and after much thought I've recently realised why. In short: these people have forgoten that child porn isn't wrong because it's gross. It's wrong because making it involves hurting actual children.
( ...and in not-so-short... )