I have heard of people being thrown out of mall's because they were wearing an offensive t-shirt. I think the analogy that google+ is basically private property that is open to the public. The website isn't owned by the public instead it is owned by google. The point of google censoring offensive content is to not only follow their own rules but to make the company that provides this service to still look good and keep up their public image.
...and, to add to your point, as a not-public organization they build this product for company benefit. They let you do things on it that they benefit from. Why on earth would they be required to let you do things that are bad for their business?
Sure, but good luck finding a company who cares more about letting you express your "fuck you's" than they do about money, and good luck to them in building to scale with money only from advertisers who don't mind being next to MG's middle finger.
good luck to them in building to scale with money only from advertisers who don't mind being next to MG's middle finger.
But would they have to? I mean, Google's whole business model is to match ads to the right content, and they specifically say they're good with detecting such "offensive" images, so they could simply content match advertisers who were looking for "edgy" images.
But, and I'm just throwing this out there so hold off on that downvote for a second, if a website has a comments section, doesn't such a feature act as something similar to a "town square"?
In which case, if a website has a comments section or other area where users can interact with one another, should that area be a "public" place, and allow free speech etc.?
Addition: since the purpose of free speech law is to allow anyone to say things that may well not be liked by an authority figure, companies being censors could act as a surprisingly effective loophole to free speech law. Just make all methods of communication between citizens pass through a company, who handles the censorship, leaving the tyrant free to go about their day.
I mean, I didn't read it, but I'm sure somewhere along the way of my signing up for Google+ I agreed to their terms of service stating that they could remove whatever content they deemed unacceptable that I post or create.
As for your addition, to make all methods of communications pass through a company would either require a law, which would be unconstitutional, or would require more insidious methods. The government already has plenty of insidious methods of dealing with people.
I think it's offensive, and I would like to not see things like that pop up in my stream.
Isn't this one of those things that are on the line where if just 1 person says it's offensive, then it should be treated as such. It's kind of like if there were only 10 men and 2 women in a room, then by democracy, you'd probably end up with rape being OK.
I find a lot of religious imagery horribly offensive.
Also a lot of right wing politicians. Republicans for example. Actually most Democrats too - I'm not American.
And political statements against meat eaters - I want my steaks, and I want them bloody.
I can go on. I'd rather not see any of the above pop up in my stream.
At the same time, if the choice is between having to see them in my stream or having censorship, I'll tolerate seeing them in my stream. Together with people giving me the finger.
IANAL, but I think your #1 and #2 do apply most of the time for anything that can be seen in the public. Defamation of people's religions in a dis-respectful way is generally unlawful (though maybe not illegal). The act of giving someone the finger is generally regarded as a sign of violence.
You might have more liberal views than me, but I do think it's a violent gesture. I get the point you're trying to make, but I simply disagree that for this specific case, this should be something that is generally acceptable in a public social network with 13+ year olds on it.
"Defamation of people's religions" falls squarely under free speech in any country that has it. And if you consider "defamation of religion" a "violent gesture", consider re-examining your values. The attitudes you suggest would fit right in in countries still ruled by religious bodies, but they have no place in in civilized societies. (Any country that still places restrictions on speech, or intertwines religion and government, hasn't quite figured out "civilized" yet.)
Also, "unlawful" and "illegal" mean the same thing.
Now, I'd absolutely agree that defamation of religion can potentially offend people. And I suspect that if someone had a profile picture that defamed someone's religion, Google would remove that one too, because they want to keep profile pictures inoffensive to most of their target audience. That does not make such images illegal, though.
For that matter, promotion of religion can potentially offend people, but I doubt Google would remove profile pictures with overtly religious messages, because they don't particularly care about the small number of people offended, and they don't want the massive backlash from religious people, whose ability to stir up angry mobs has only grown with modern technology. (Oops, I've defamed religion there.)
Google could also choose to delete all profile pictures that contained the color red because they don't fit a preferred color scheme. If they did so, they'd attract quite a lot of complaints and ridicule, but they certainly have the right to do it.
> Isn't this one of those things that are on the line where if just 1 person says it's offensive, then it should be treated as such.
I find your post offensive, but I'd never suggest that you shouldn't have the right to post it. (Hacker News would certainly have every right to delete it if they wanted, but I'd find that even more offensive.)
> It's kind of like if there were only 10 men and 2 women in a room, then by democracy, you'd probably end up with rape being OK.
Speaking of offensive, you just implied that at least three out of ten men would find that an acceptable outcome. I understand the point I hope you meant there ("majority rule" has serious problems if you don't preserve fundamental rights), but you picked a truly awful way to express it.
