@@oo--7714 Yes. If you find something to be 'toxic' you have the option to avoid it. Simply ignore it completely. If that thing is censored however, you have no choice at all. Someone else took that ability to choose - and thus your ability to control what you see - away from you. Censorship is ultimately a form of toxicity itself. You have no argument, you have no retort and you lack the strength of character to tolerate that which is different from yourself, so you must censor.
We are suffering the effects of censorship with no restraint. Thus, as long as censorship retains any subjective element, censorship MUST stop. The human race must just accept that and grow up.
@@matiki0211 (this may be naive) But the only speech that should be denied are those that: - are intentional lies - denigrate the intrinsic value of the human being
@@dragonhold4 *"(this may be naive) But the only speech that should be denied are those that: - are intentional lies - denigrate the intrinsic value of the human being"* I disagree even with those, personally. Lies should be exposed rather than hidden, and if a person feels denigrated by the words of a stranger they should (and do have) the ability to ignore or block them. If you are concerned about harassment, see pre-existing harassment laws. Freedom of speech is an absolute. You either have it or you don't. People should have the right to express what they want, and others should have the right to hear & react to it or ignore it at their own discretion. No government or any other form of regulatory body has the right to regulate what people may discuss or say, nor should they ever have the power to do so.
@@dragonhold4 That is totatlly naive. Lies are protected under free speech. That has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the U.S., under our First Amendment, even telling known lies is still protected speech. And the kind of speech that denigrates is the most important kind of all. If you couldn't say anything critical or negative, or unpopular, then you couldn't really say anything at all. There's no challenge to saying popular, nice things. Free speech only exists if you can say the mean things, that offend all the people who need to be offended. That call truth to power.
This video is full of concerning speech. "Balance point between freedom and protection". The same dilemma used to justify the Patriot Act, freedom and privacy taking a back seat to National Security. "If terrorists are given free speech it is used as a weapon to take your freedom". I don't see this logic of being intolerant of the intolerable being any different to Communist China Censorship. It isn't a principled stand that considers censorship and free speech like an academic or scientist.
The video *"The Anti-American Dream"* by Pat Condell and the article *"The Internet: A mousetrap about to snap shut?"* by Sam Gerrans sum it up nicely... That any of this needs explaining at all is indicative of how conditioned many have become to tyranny.
Ironically, if he had not seen the thing, he would have nothing to talk about and prove how wrong he is about being pro censorship. He is condemning other people for doing exactly what he did. This is hypocrisy is inherent in censorship. Its indefensible when talking about adults with the right to make their own decisions if you respect them as much as yourself... But obviously thats not where he really sits.
If he wasn't a censor, he wouldn't have to have watched that. I wouldn't want to watch the content he watched, either. Here he is complaining to the audience of seeing something that very few people in the audience would seek out themselves to watch. People don't generally go to places to view content that they themselves already know they won't like.
There is no excuse for censorship left or right. When you do it gives government permission to be the clearing house for information. I can tell when I'm being lied to or manipulated. There is no defense to having information withheld; it leaves the public totally vulnerable.
You can't hide information forever. People will talk about it. You're just making the problem harder to solve and harder for people to communicate and find agreement. The only way someone supports censorship is if they believe they're the only one who can dictate what's true for everyone else and their own opinion alone should be held against all other people's.
Censorship of any kind anywhere is bad. There are very few instances where it crosses the line. Will free speech be abused? Are there detestable people? Sure there is. If it's criminal it needs to be removed. Besides that free speech should be protected.
How about we decide for ourselves what is good for us and what is not? Are we kids or free citizens? Parents should censor the content their child has contact with, but not the government or any other private corporation that thinks they know "what's best for us".
So the government shouldn't restrict advertisements of alcohol and cigarettes for children, and it should be the responsibility of the parent to do that?
@@tylerchambers6246 Okay but what if all the parents come together and decide what is acceptable for their kids to watch so they can restrict it, and then together they find a way.. oh wait..
_"Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard."_ - Robert Jackson
"In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire for a safe and secure society" - Emperor Palpatine
“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.” - Albert Camus
He takes the right and the responsibility away and decides upon all media he is shown what you should have access to, what information you are allowed to be made aware of. censorship is dangerous, it can control what you believe and the narrative you are told, who and what you should believe. It should never be the choice of any one man or group. He takes away the right and freedom to know the truth, and in so doing takes away the burden of responsibility we all should share. This may in his eyes be a small blessing, but it is truly an even greater curse.
That's the fundamental problem in their line of argument. Who is David Shanks and what makes him so special (other than the government giving him a fancy title) that he can determine what is good and what is not good for the rest of us?
Consider this a "retweet". My comment from "1 year ago" is below and is particularly timely. Now, you see what I'm talking about? Subjectivity in censorship equals corruption on a massive scale. And, TEDx had the nerve to phrase the title of this video declaratively?! From one year ago: "We are suffering the effects of censorship with no restraint. Thus, as long as censorship retains any subjective element, censorship MUST stop. The human race must just accept that and grow up."
Removing need for cell towers reduces network vulnerability. Each phone is a transciever with ability to transmit and receive data, you dont need phone bills if your community networks their devices with networking software. Maybe try blockchain encryption for voting, ranking, and propositions for worker owned co-ops instead of supporting corporate dictatorships
I’m on the fence. It’s too tight of a line. I don’t like censorship, but if there is any, I’d rather it be in a country that has very little and respects freedom. I don’t know where NZ is on a scale between China-North Korea, and ... well I’d say USA except as of Jan 2021, kinda doesn’t seem like USA is at the top of the list anymore. I’d like to steel man and play devil’s advocate against any anti-censorship message, here. I need better opponents to this.
Take someone's ability for free speech and yours could be next. Legislation is already in place against heinous actions, it doesn't need additional censorship that silences the voice of the ordinary folk.
Just because one person disagrees with what they view should not speak for everyone else each person has their rights to decide what they want to see or not
Why can't you let people decide what's good for themselves, instead of you deciding for them? This is the core mentality of every single tyrannical regime in the history ''I know what's good for everyone else''
Censorship is never a good idea under any circumstances!! This guy is saying that he is able to watch that horrific video but other adults shouldn't be able to watch it because of the violence in it?? Movies, video games etc... include all sorts of violence and people continue to consume these types of media, what's the difference if this was a real event? People who are too sensitive to watch this, they do not need to watch it. Also parents shouldn't allow minors to watch anything like that if they don't want them to see it...
On aside, the video *"The Anti-American Dream"* by Pat Condell and the article *"The Internet: A mousetrap about to snap shut?"* by Sam Gerrans are worth a look. Both men are British, yet have a better understanding of freedom than this clown or a good chunk of Americans.
I think Pat Condell is great. He hasn't made a single video I disagree with yet, which is particularly amazing for someone as critical and misanthropic as me.
Censorship isn't about the truth. If it was there wouldn't be literally hundreds of videos freely available to watch so that you can achieve "free energy" on RUclips. Those videos would be the first to be censored. This excercise is purely political
I've seen that video..I own that video..that shooter in Christ church did not get welcomed. He shot the first guy in the back. Since it's banned in NZ his audience may not have seen it and thus can't refute a lie he tells just to embellish his story. He wants to basically treat normal people like children and a certain elite can be our overlords.
If censorship is the way to go then where does one draw the line? Why is it drawn there? Who gets to decide where the lines is drawn? Why them? Where does it start and where does it stop and why? Either all of it's ok or none of it's ok.
that the achieving of results is easier to derive from negative or violent actions, can those effects even be considered results if we are staying optimistic result indicates something positive this is all super interesting
Never. It is never necessary. It violates the basic human rights of bodily autonomy, both the right to use your vocal cords to speak and the right to use your ears to hear between two consenting parties.
Imagine being a RUclips censorship curator? what horrific karma!!!!! Everything we do is multiplied Cursing and blessing. Those who stifle speech wow shudder to think of the karma. Can only imagine the reasons someone would have that job. I hope they can get some therapy and a life of their own. and cease and desist creating in other people's lives.
Damn, this is pathetic and sad. How weak a person do you have to be to silence the people you disagree with rather than going into a rhetorical debate.
The guy claims to be for freedom then makes excuses for censorship. Reminds me of Animal Farm....."Four legs good.....two legs better". This guy assumes that we are idiots. I've watched this video and it's still out there.
Or maybe they're the kind of people that like to decide for themselves what to watch and what not to watch? Take that boot out of your mouth, you aren't making any sense
@@DarkPrinceNeo Infomercials are irrelevant. Now China barring people from talking about the racial discrimination there IS internet censorship (merged with physical censorship there as well, with the social credit system doling real-life penalties to "problem" individuals).
This guy has never read the final chapter in Carl Sagan's Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark book. It's called "Real Patriots ask questions" and I uploaded the entire audiobook to archive dot org. It even has the quote another person below typed: "Those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither." -- Benjamin Franklin
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
― S.G. Tallentyre, The Friends of Voltaire
I think you would not stand up for me, but thanks for the thought.
@@LOSTONITALL based on?
Super funny that this TED talk is one of the few that has comments enabled.
Lol you commented
Censorship and bans have caused more grief than any "toxicity" out there
Why would they disable the comments?
@@GamingDualities lol no
@@oo--7714 Yes. If you find something to be 'toxic' you have the option to avoid it. Simply ignore it completely. If that thing is censored however, you have no choice at all. Someone else took that ability to choose - and thus your ability to control what you see - away from you.
Censorship is ultimately a form of toxicity itself. You have no argument, you have no retort and you lack the strength of character to tolerate that which is different from yourself, so you must censor.
Censorship and bans have caused more grief than any "toxicity" out there
To be unfairly gagged is a form of demoralization.
We are suffering the effects of censorship with no restraint. Thus, as long as censorship retains any subjective element, censorship MUST stop. The human race must just accept that and grow up.
censorship sucks
Censorship: "Ban everything that spreads *hate."
> Who defines what's hateful?
Censorship: "Me"
> 1984
[Disliked]
but do you agree that somethings need to be banned? or do you think that censorship shouldn't exist at all?
@@matiki0211
(this may be naive) But the only speech that should be denied are those that:
- are intentional lies
- denigrate the intrinsic value of the human being
@alexa
That should be allowed.
The label "violence" can easily be stretched and abused to censor.
@@dragonhold4 *"(this may be naive) But the only speech that should be denied are those that:
- are intentional lies
- denigrate the intrinsic value of the human being"*
I disagree even with those, personally. Lies should be exposed rather than hidden, and if a person feels denigrated by the words of a stranger they should (and do have) the ability to ignore or block them. If you are concerned about harassment, see pre-existing harassment laws.
Freedom of speech is an absolute. You either have it or you don't. People should have the right to express what they want, and others should have the right to hear & react to it or ignore it at their own discretion. No government or any other form of regulatory body has the right to regulate what people may discuss or say, nor should they ever have the power to do so.
@@dragonhold4 That is totatlly naive. Lies are protected under free speech. That has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the U.S., under our First Amendment, even telling known lies is still protected speech. And the kind of speech that denigrates is the most important kind of all. If you couldn't say anything critical or negative, or unpopular, then you couldn't really say anything at all. There's no challenge to saying popular, nice things. Free speech only exists if you can say the mean things, that offend all the people who need to be offended. That call truth to power.
This video is full of concerning speech. "Balance point between freedom and protection". The same dilemma used to justify the Patriot Act, freedom and privacy taking a back seat to National Security.
"If terrorists are given free speech it is used as a weapon to take your freedom". I don't see this logic of being intolerant of the intolerable being any different to Communist China Censorship. It isn't a principled stand that considers censorship and free speech like an academic or scientist.
The implications of his stance are far more concerning than any stance I can think of and yet, I do not want him silenced.
The video *"The Anti-American Dream"* by Pat Condell and the article *"The Internet: A mousetrap about to snap shut?"* by Sam Gerrans sum it up nicely... That any of this needs explaining at all is indicative of how conditioned many have become to tyranny.
Ironically, if he had not seen the thing, he would have nothing to talk about and prove how wrong he is about being pro censorship. He is condemning other people for doing exactly what he did. This is hypocrisy is inherent in censorship. Its indefensible when talking about adults with the right to make their own decisions if you respect them as much as yourself... But obviously thats not where he really sits.
If he wasn't a censor, he wouldn't have to have watched that. I wouldn't want to watch the content he watched, either. Here he is complaining to the audience of seeing something that very few people in the audience would seek out themselves to watch.
People don't generally go to places to view content that they themselves already know they won't like.
This man is a hundred times more dangerous than any nutter with a gun.
Exactly 100%
There is no excuse for censorship left or right. When you do it gives government permission to be the clearing house for information. I can tell when I'm being lied to or manipulated. There is no defense to having information withheld; it leaves the public totally vulnerable.
You can't hide information forever. People will talk about it. You're just making the problem harder to solve and harder for people to communicate and find agreement. The only way someone supports censorship is if they believe they're the only one who can dictate what's true for everyone else and their own opinion alone should be held against all other people's.
Shanks is offensive to me because my brother was killed in jail by a Shank. You must censor your name Mr.____
Censorship of any kind anywhere is bad. There are very few instances where it crosses the line. Will free speech be abused? Are there detestable people? Sure there is. If it's criminal it needs to be removed. Besides that free speech should be protected.
Not sure the exact definition of ' corrupting public morals' and we like to assume that people think for themselves
@@stevejea8895 nepotism?
@@leeadickes7235 is the idea still on censorship?
why?
How about we decide for ourselves what is good for us and what is not? Are we kids or free citizens? Parents should censor the content their child has contact with, but not the government or any other private corporation that thinks they know "what's best for us".
Not sure who’s worse, him for bragging about banning things or the people applauding him for banning things.
So the government shouldn't restrict advertisements of alcohol and cigarettes for children, and it should be the responsibility of the parent to do that?
@@DarkPrinceNeo *yes*
@@DarkPrinceNeo Yes.
@@tylerchambers6246 Okay but what if all the parents come together and decide what is acceptable for their kids to watch so they can restrict it, and then together they find a way.. oh wait..
The comment section makes this particular Ted talk very interesting.
Why such a lack of information about these intolerable things to prevent them from taking hold in society so easily?
You got to love how these public figures keep finding words to make their actions sound less hostile. Censorship is just a cute word for silencing.
⚠️⚠️
nah, it's not that cute. censorship means censorship. you're obfuscating
_"Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard."_ - Robert Jackson
RUclips censored the Likes and Dislikes ratio of this video, which is currently, as of October 4th, 2023, Likes: 419, Dislikes: 874.
I love this comment
Censorship is not necessary just a tool to silence and oppress those who oppose you
"for the safety of society"
An excuse used by dictators since the beginning of time.
"In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire for a safe and secure society" - Emperor Palpatine
@@toddpacker1015 An unexpected prequels reference. A surprise, to be sure, but a welcome one.
“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.” - Albert Camus
@@toddpacker1015 I was gonna comment the same thing. Beat me to it!
He takes the right and the responsibility away and decides upon all media he is shown what you should have access to, what information you are allowed to be made aware of. censorship is dangerous, it can control what you believe and the narrative you are told, who and what you should believe. It should never be the choice of any one man or group.
He takes away the right and freedom to know the truth, and in so doing takes away the burden of responsibility we all should share. This may in his eyes be a small blessing, but it is truly an even greater curse.
That's the fundamental problem in their line of argument. Who is David Shanks and what makes him so special (other than the government giving him a fancy title) that he can determine what is good and what is not good for the rest of us?
I looked up censorship is killing me, this is the first thing to come up. I WANT THAT SWEET ETERNAL REST.
Consider this a "retweet". My comment from "1 year ago" is below and is particularly timely. Now, you see what I'm talking about? Subjectivity in censorship equals corruption on a massive scale. And, TEDx had the nerve to phrase the title of this video declaratively?!
From one year ago: "We are suffering the effects of censorship with no restraint. Thus, as long as censorship retains any subjective element, censorship MUST stop. The human race must just accept that and grow up."
And this is how freedom of speech dies - to thunderous applause
lol Star Wars
Lol you clearly don’t know what censorship means
@@bullrun2772 Lol you clearly don't understand why freedom of speech is so important
Censorship is taking away freedom. If you don't want to watch or read you don't have to
brought to you by the KNEW world UDOR
This guy was bullied in school
I violently disagree with him, but I’d die to preserve the freedom to express his point of view.
Removing need for cell towers reduces network vulnerability.
Each phone is a transciever with ability to transmit and receive data, you dont need phone bills if your community networks their devices with networking software.
Maybe try blockchain encryption for voting, ranking, and propositions for worker owned co-ops instead of supporting corporate dictatorships
thank you
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither". - Ben Franklin. That's why he is on the hundred baby!
When it becomes truthful and heartfelt
What gives him the right.
These type of people don't just stop at what you want to say, they will want to control everything about your life.
I’m on the fence. It’s too tight of a line. I don’t like censorship, but if there is any, I’d rather it be in a country that has very little and respects freedom. I don’t know where NZ is on a scale between China-North Korea, and ... well I’d say USA except as of Jan 2021, kinda doesn’t seem like USA is at the top of the list anymore. I’d like to steel man and play devil’s advocate against any anti-censorship message, here. I need better opponents to this.
I’ve spent an embarrassing amount of time trying to prove censorship has no place in modern society if ya wanna try to change my opinion
A country that respects freedom would have no censorship at all.
The line is whether it has potential to harm others.
Otherwise actions wouldn't have any consequences, and we would live in complete anarchy
Take someone's ability for free speech and yours could be next. Legislation is already in place against heinous actions, it doesn't need additional censorship that silences the voice of the ordinary folk.
FED Talk
> FED Talk
Love it. Nice play-on-words.
I’m in favor of censorship as long as I’m the censor
As if its not bad enough to censor difficult to watch material, this guy literally WATCHES NETFLIX SHOWS LOOKING FOR THINGS TO CENSOR. Wow.
Funny how Ted talk is talking about censorship while they themselves censored Maryam Namazi 👎.
Just because one person disagrees with what they view should not speak for everyone else each person has their rights to decide what they want to see or not
The presenter looks like someone who could easily be an interrogator for the intel services. Definitely looks like a security services man.
new zealanders with depression? i feel so bad for you right now, you shouldn't have to live in a crazy country, no one should
So you want the rest of us to live like you in NZ? No thanks.
Why can't you let people decide what's good for themselves, instead of you deciding for them?
This is the core mentality of every single tyrannical regime in the history ''I know what's good for everyone else''
I bet you love infomercials huh
but who decides what even is bad accordance to censorship
I feel so safe now
If everything gets censored, and everything that's censored is bad then nothing is.
I'm the comment section is still open, if u love censorship so much.
Censorship is never a good idea under any circumstances!! This guy is saying that he is able to watch that horrific video but other adults shouldn't be able to watch it because of the violence in it?? Movies, video games etc... include all sorts of violence and people continue to consume these types of media, what's the difference if this was a real event? People who are too sensitive to watch this, they do not need to watch it. Also parents shouldn't allow minors to watch anything like that if they don't want them to see it...
On aside, the video *"The Anti-American Dream"* by Pat Condell and the article *"The Internet: A mousetrap about to snap shut?"* by Sam Gerrans are worth a look. Both men are British, yet have a better understanding of freedom than this clown or a good chunk of Americans.
I think Pat Condell is great. He hasn't made a single video I disagree with yet, which is particularly amazing for someone as critical and misanthropic as me.
Censorship isn't about the truth. If it was there wouldn't be literally hundreds of videos freely available to watch so that you can achieve "free energy" on RUclips. Those videos would be the first to be censored. This excercise is purely political
I've seen that video..I own that video..that shooter in Christ church did not get welcomed. He shot the first guy in the back.
Since it's banned in NZ his audience may not have seen it and thus can't refute a lie he tells just to embellish his story.
He wants to basically treat normal people like children and a certain elite can be our overlords.
It is never necessary!
Wow, I'm from Christchurch this was interesting,
What content is heinous and who's to say?
Nice propaganda
If censorship is the way to go then where does one draw the line? Why is it drawn there? Who gets to decide where the lines is drawn? Why them? Where does it start and where does it stop and why?
Either all of it's ok or none of it's ok.
The only censorship needed is if pronouns and misgendering are mentioned.
that the achieving of results is easier to derive from negative or violent actions, can those effects even be considered results if we are staying optimistic result indicates something positive this is all super interesting
Did yall hear the girl laugh in the crowd lmao
The atrocities permitted by the restraint of information will always vastly outnumber the atrocities enabled by its freedom.
Censorship is more dangerous than criminalization of speech. With the former, you have no chance to defend yourself whatsoever.
Censorship is wrong
...and tomorrow Sophie Scholl will cross that red line.
Freedom ppl don't understand what that is.
If i would be him i would leave this job for something less paid but much safer.
"Don't censor unless we have to" - proceeds to making excuses to why he censors.
Never. It is never necessary. It violates the basic human rights of bodily autonomy, both the right to use your vocal cords to speak and the right to use your ears to hear between two consenting parties.
Correct
How many of your professor asked you to watch this ?
Here. We were asked as a group if wether we agree with censorship or not. majority of my group agreed. Sad world we live in.
Imagine being a RUclips censorship curator? what horrific karma!!!!! Everything we do is multiplied Cursing and blessing. Those who stifle speech wow shudder to think of the karma. Can only imagine the reasons someone would have that job. I hope they can get some therapy and a life of their own. and cease and desist creating in other people's lives.
This guy seems like a demon trying his best to pass as a human.
Damn, this is pathetic and sad. How weak a person do you have to be to silence the people you disagree with rather than going into a rhetorical debate.
“Great films”
God meamn, it's snowing!!!
Yuck, those mouth sounds tho, should've disabled ASMR mode on his mic.
He's talking less and breathing more.. all I could hear was huff huff 😐
The guy claims to be for freedom then makes excuses for censorship. Reminds me of Animal Farm....."Four legs good.....two legs better". This guy assumes that we are idiots. I've watched this video and it's still out there.
The comments on this thread make this topic very interesting to read.
Never
pure undistilled propaganda. Shanks could press my pants with irony like that. censor that.
Any talks about traditional family, traditional values and virtues and freedom from oppresion on TED? Hmm I think not.
Move to China, bro. They'll help to SHUT UP your voice for you jack.
That ratio, tho.
answer: never.
1997. the year of fox censor.
Hi God have ignored fun wit ta foo
Only weak and fearful censor.
The same people who don't like this kind of censorship, probably are the same type of people who enjoy watching infomercials.
Or maybe they're the kind of people that like to decide for themselves what to watch and what not to watch? Take that boot out of your mouth, you aren't making any sense
@@BureauATF So you decide which advertisements you watch?
Can children decide what advertisements they get to watch?
@@DarkPrinceNeo You're going off on a very strange tangent now. So you're pro-government censorship?
@@DarkPrinceNeo Infomercials are irrelevant.
Now China barring people from talking about the racial discrimination there IS internet censorship (merged with physical censorship there as well, with the social credit system doling real-life penalties to "problem" individuals).
Weakling.
Can you c mi
gościu ma rację
no
Hunter Biden?
544 downvotes!
This guy has never read the final chapter in Carl Sagan's Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark book. It's called "Real Patriots ask questions" and I uploaded the entire audiobook to archive dot org. It even has the quote another person below typed:
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither." -- Benjamin Franklin
Never