>I genuinely don't understand how some companies voluntarily providing filters to their customers, that those customers can chose to use or not to use, can possibly be censorship.
1) That the companies provide it "voluntarily" doesn't matter at all.
For one, the government asked them to do it (and they want to have good relations with the government, it's good for business).
Second, the government threatened them that if it's not satisfied with their "voluntary" progress, it will make it into law.
Third, even if a single company, totally voluntarily, filters content, it's still censorship. Censorship is not just about totally blocking access to content: it's also about intimidating people that want to see certain content, which is what the need to go on record and opt-in does.
And that's just for the head of a household. Do you think their spouses or kids will have much say about if they want to opt-in or not themselves?
>It's fucking insulting to people living with real censorship.
Let's not pull the "there are people having it worse" defense. Shouldn't, say, blacks protest in the USA in the sixties because other blacks had it much tougher in South Africa?
What would actually be insulting to people living with real censorship (if they cared about us in the first place, which they don't much) is that we are ready to accept any form of censorship ourselves willingly.
1) That the companies provide it "voluntarily" doesn't matter at all.
For one, the government asked them to do it (and they want to have good relations with the government, it's good for business).
Second, the government threatened them that if it's not satisfied with their "voluntary" progress, it will make it into law.
Third, even if a single company, totally voluntarily, filters content, it's still censorship. Censorship is not just about totally blocking access to content: it's also about intimidating people that want to see certain content, which is what the need to go on record and opt-in does.
And that's just for the head of a household. Do you think their spouses or kids will have much say about if they want to opt-in or not themselves?
>It's fucking insulting to people living with real censorship.
Let's not pull the "there are people having it worse" defense. Shouldn't, say, blacks protest in the USA in the sixties because other blacks had it much tougher in South Africa?
What would actually be insulting to people living with real censorship (if they cared about us in the first place, which they don't much) is that we are ready to accept any form of censorship ourselves willingly.