SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
l3g0la5 writes:
Twitter isn't allowing users to post a link to Kickass.to stating that the URL in the tweet 'appears to link to a page that has spammy or unsafe content.' I tried clicking on one of the URLs sent to me by one of our publishers who wanted to share with us a draft copy of the soon to be published book and as soon as I clicked on it I was greeted with a rather unfamiliar message on Twitter. 'The site you were trying to visit may be unsafe! This link has been flagged as potentially harmful.' This led me to try out a little test of linking a random Kickass.to link and Twitter blocked the request with a message: 'Oops! A URL in your Tweet appears to link to a page that has spammy or unsafe content.'"
Fluffeh adds: "Questions to Twitter about the reason for this unusual blockade remain unanswered. On its website Twitter claims to use Google's safe browsing diagnostic tool, but the Kickass.to domain is not blocked here. Perhaps even stranger, KickassTorrent's old domain Kat.ph gets the same blocking treatment."
(Score: 1) by DarkMorph on Friday February 21 2014, @02:29PM
You know what this reminded me of?
The government of the Soviet Union.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2014, @02:33PM
In Soviet America you block the corporations.
(Score: 5, Funny) by mtrycz on Friday February 21 2014, @02:39PM
Strange thing, I thought you'd say United States.
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DarkMorph on Friday February 21 2014, @03:07PM
My father quotes someone he heard on the radio once, though I don't recall from what year, perhaps the 1980's, and the announcer said something along the lines of, "The day they have the authority to tell us that we must wear our seatbelts when we drive is the day we lose our freedom."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hubie on Friday February 21 2014, @06:39PM
This has less to do with a slide into a totalitarian than it does with someone being told they can't do something. You hear pretty much the same thing today on issues like incandescent bulbs. If you define freedom as broad as the ability to do whatever you want, whenever you want, no matter what, then any law that puts restrictions on something, it is by definition taking away your freedom. However, the purpose of the justice branch of the government is to try to navigate that fuzzy area of what you are and aren't allowed to do, and that line shifts around.
The level and the degree of oppression one feels is proportional to how strong they feel about that issue at stake. Jon Stewart rather humorously pointed out Fox News' Megyn Kelly's opposing views on the Family Leave Act. When it first was proposed, she slammed it for being an entitlement program and government run amok. However, 10 or 15 years later she had a baby and went out on an extended maternity leave, then ripped one of the conservative commentators a new one when he questioned her being out so long. Stewart's take: They're really only 'entitlements' when they're something other people want. When it's something you want, they're a hallmark of a civilized society, the foundation of a great people. 'I just had a baby, and found out that maternity leave strengthens society, but since I still have a job, unemployment benefits are clearly socialism.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Friday February 21 2014, @08:02PM
I strongly disagree. Totalitarianism's basic tenet is that the citizen is not an individual with human rights, but the property of the state. Therefore any harm the citizen risks, even if solely to himself, is something the state has the authority to ban. The human right to free will, including the right to risk, runs counter to the goal of such a state.
The difference between seatbelt laws and the incandescent bulb ban is that not wearing a seatbelt causes no harm to anyone. Using incandescent bulbs is inefficient and contributes to pollution via energy generation. A similar analogy would be marijuana, which does not harm the the environment, and an invasive plant that spreads and chokes off native plants, which is harmful.
Freedom is that broad, and stops only where freedom does harm to others, as it takes away the freedom of those harmed thereby.
The justice branch is not the legislature.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mtrycz on Saturday February 22 2014, @06:09PM
It saddens me that freedom is so often spoken of (and thought of) only and exclusively as personal freedom.
"Your freedom ends where other people's starts" - that's a negative definition of freedom; defined by what it's not, rahter than what it is.
If we went as far as to immagine freedoms that is shared? Freedom of groups, of communities. Of the entire human race even?
An idea of freedom where an offence to your freedom is a direct offence to mine. Not because it pushes bounderies which put my freedom at risk, but because we're bound by a double bond, a pact of solidarity if you want.
You may scale your group of refence as much as you want, there's one that includes all: our common humanity.
I actually think this type of freedom is all too often overlooked.
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!