The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
This is what real CENSORSHIP and Oppression Looks Like...
Old 26th August 2012
  #181
Quote:
Originally Posted by e3p0 View Post
No it is not different than video game or film ratings. Is restricted use/ listening censorship? If someone under 18 cannot purchase or view content, is this censorship. I say it is.
good for you, but that doesn't make it so. would you show a 5 year old porn? is that censorship too?

Quote:
Originally Posted by e3p0 View Post
An obscure band doing a POLITICAL STUNT and being punished by their government (socialist or communist or whatever), I would say is not.
you are very confused, by definition it actually is...


Quote:
Originally Posted by e3p0 View Post
Did you hear about this thing, or was the coverage of the event kept from you? That might have been censorship.
going to jail for your artist expression is censorship in almost the most extreme form, sorry.


Quote:
Originally Posted by e3p0 View Post
If you live in Russia, you need to play by their rules, not by ours.
-e
so by that measure than you're not opposed to rouge sites being banned and blocked access from the USA... if you live in the USA you need to play by our rules not theirs!
Old 26th August 2012
  #182
Quote:
Originally Posted by e3p0 View Post
By the way, this is what real censorship looks like:
Were under 18's barred from buying those albums?
(I'm not American).

It looks like a 'parent advisory', which is 'advice' NOT censorship.
Old 27th August 2012
  #183
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by champ View Post
Reality is that not I nor did you create these laws.
We are slaves to these rules unless the government changes them to something else. (and no we haven't got a vote in that, thats all for show)

I'm not killing any musicians, I run a music store for a living providing musicians the best tools possible...
heh i wondered when someone would comment on this.
I was actually quite proud of my leap of logic.

Of course you're not directly killing anyone.. but i could make a very good case about indirect...

"we are slaves to these rules unless the government changes them..."

..that's just it. The rules are there (at least in most countries..). the laws are there. It's illegal. What's missing is enforcement.
Old 27th August 2012
  #184
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
In fact, you're repeating exactly what I said regarding the thread's topic; I'm only surprised that you admit it so candidly. The thread is not about Pussy Riot and their situation, it is about taking fallacious shots at Google for not modifying their homepage in support of Pussy Riot.
It can't be about both? About supporting Pussy Riot and chiding that great protector of free speech and human right, Google, for not stepping up to the plate and saying even ONE WORD about it, after hiding behind the banner of human rights and free speech when they see a chance to use it as an excuse to deny the rights of a whole class of working people?

I don't see this as mutually exclusive at all, indeed, I think that both issues should be addressed.
Old 27th August 2012
  #185
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
It can't be about both? About supporting Pussy Riot and chiding that great protector of free speech and human right, Google, for not stepping up to the plate and saying even ONE WORD about it, after hiding behind the banner of human rights and free speech when they see a chance to use it as an excuse to deny the rights of a whole class of working people?

I don't see this as mutually exclusive at all, indeed, I think that both issues should be addressed.
It could be both. To an extent, it is both: other posters in the thread have expressed their thoughts as they actually relate to Pussy Riot's situation. rack gear's body of contribution, though, is much more focused on a singular contention of his.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
can anyone tell what day the internet censorship protest is going to be on to heighten awareness of actual censorship as opposed the google imagined kind?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
so where's the great internet protest and black out for solidarity in response to this censorship?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
agreed. but do let me know when the big internet/google sponsored protest is going to be, I want to make sure I'm ready with all those google and wikipedia approved anti-censorship logos and graphics...
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
just let me know when that big internet protest is going to take place in opposition to ACTUAL censorship and oppression as opposed to the imagined Google variety...
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
just let me know when that big internet protest is going to take place in opposition to ACTUAL censorship and oppression as opposed to the imagined Google variety...
still waiting...
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
just let me know when that big internet protest is going to take place in opposition to ACTUAL censorship and oppression as opposed to the imagined Google variety...
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
sorry... when is that big internet protest is going to take place in opposition to ACTUAL censorship and oppression as opposed to the imagined Google variety... so funny... actual censorship... nadda... imagined (fabricated) censorship... hire lobbyists and have a web black out to illustrate what censorship and oppression looks like...
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
no, the point of this thread is to highlight the fact that the very people who claimed to have had an overwhelming interest in censorship in January when it was ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
nothing fallacious about it... just me know know when they are blacking out their homepage in support of the bands situation ...
Google is not a "great protector of free speech and human rights" as described by your own quote above. Would any claim that they are? They are an internet service operator and advertising agency, and though I'd personally say that they are much, much, much less evil than probably almost any other company in their position would be, they are a publicly traded corporation and they do operate in the manner of a business. That's not to say that Google doesn't try to uphold certain principles within the scope of their control; Remember when Google left China in protest of censorship of search results and attacks on activist email accounts? They were lambasted by the business community for not playing along with China's repressive imperatives in the pursuit of greater profit. It's not spotless, but I'd say they have a strong record of standing up for the integrity of their services.

It's sad that Pussy Riot is facing injustice in Russia, but it's so far outside of Google's purview of internet tools and services that it's ridiculous to expect them to even officially comment on the matter, let alone to expect that they should change their homepage to draw attention to the issue, let alone to feel it warranted to chide them for not doing so. If Pussy Riot was tracked by the Russian government through the use of Google services, or if their Gmail accounts were compromised by the Russian government in pursuit of material to use against them, then we might expect to see an official Google response; after all, it's happened before. There are reasonable expectations, there are unreasonable expectations, and there are deluded expectations (see quotewall above for some great examples!); terrible though Pussy Riot's circumstances are, one might do well to maintain a modicum of perspective toward the issue.
Old 27th August 2012
  #186
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by e3p0 View Post
By the way, this is what real censorship looks like:
.

Or this:





.
Old 27th August 2012
  #187
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
Google is not a "great protector of free speech and human rights" as described by your own quote above. Would any claim that they are?
Link:
https://www.google.com/takeaction/


Being slightly sympathetic to 'Rack's' posts on this, I just think it would be nice if they made up their mind.
They are for free speech and anti-censorship, or they are actually for the freedom to run their business profitably without too many inconvenient regulations.
They are kind of trying to have it both ways, in fact many web companies are. Censoring their content when it makes them more money, while claiming to passionately fight against censorship.
Old 27th August 2012
  #188
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
Google is not a "great protector of free speech and human rights" as described by your own quote above. Would any claim that they are?
Well, yes - THEY did.

Which is Rack's point. They're perfectly willing to use that as an excuse to protect their own business interests (under false pretenses), but when it's time to walk the walk to go with all that talk they're both conspicuously absent and oddly silent.

Come on, Google - let's see a big old FREE PUSSY RIOT banner on your start page!
Or perhaps you're scared it might place your business interests in Russia in jeopardy?
Old 27th August 2012
  #189
Lives for gear
 
e3p0's Avatar
 

First, who would show a 5 year old porn. This is stupid. (Notice I did not say you are stupid. I am not being confrontational)

Oxford dictionary defines censorship as :
Quote:
the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.
While the poor band members in Russia is undergoing a self-catalyzed oppression, it is not censorship. Their song and lyrics are PUBLISHED i.e. not censored. They perform in masks. They knowingly brought this on themselves. They exist only to "stir the pot". Wiki says :
Quote:
"The three detained members of Pussy Riot are recognized as political prisoners" and are charged with "premeditated hooliganism performed by an organized group of people motivated by religious hatred or hostility".
An article found here:
‘Pussy Riot trial not about freedom of speech’ — RT
says:
Quote:
“They have simply violated the law. Any civilized country has the law that protects feelings of religious people being offended,” she said pointing out that one thing is to offend someone inadvertently and another is to do it on purpose, which she says is the case of Pussy Riot.
“When they say that there is no freedom of speech in Russia, that Putin’s opponents are not allowed to speak, this is untrue because the media have been constantly criticizing Putin and they have been allowed to do so unlike many countries where you can`t criticize the regime.”
Pussy Riot are not on trial because they are against Putin, but because they have committed criminal acts which would be considered criminal in many civilized countries.
This is futile. Nothing will get solved on gearslutz.com. If you don't like the verdict, move to Russia and vote in new leadership. I really doubt that this has any direct impact on anybody posting here.

THIS IS A POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS ISSUE AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MUSIC BUSINESS.
-e
Old 27th August 2012
  #190
Lives for gear
 
e3p0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Were under 18's barred from buying those albums?
(I'm not American).

It looks like a 'parent advisory', which is 'advice' NOT censorship.

And yes, minors are prohibited from purchasing parental advisory content (Music, games, movies...)

This is in many cases just fine. Age appropriate material is just that. I am not speaking for censorship, but I am not a heathen either.
-e
Old 27th August 2012
  #191
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Link:
https://www.google.com/takeaction/

They are for free speech and anti-censorship, or they are actually for the freedom to run their business ...
Let's look at some quotes on that page.
"Celebrate freedom. Support a free and open Internet."

"Just as we celebrate freedom, we need to celebrate the tools that support freedom. "

"Add your voice in support of a free and open Internet."

"In January, the community rose together and stopped something from infringing on the freedom and openness of the Internet."

"... exhibiting both the power of the Internet and the reason why we have to defend it."
Google does try to exercise principles within their scope of operation as I argued in my previous post. And the scope of their operation is limited almost exclusively (self-driving cars and other minor research projects aside) to the internet and networking. Pussy Riot is simply outside their domain of influence and relevance, and so too are the starving children of Africa. It doesn't mean the people at Google don't feel bad about either circumstance. It's just not reasonable to expect the Google entity to go so far outside their domain of relevance in materially supporting these causes. Sure, it'd be great if they did support Pussy Riot. It would be even more amazing if they fed the starving children of Africa. But it's not right to expect them to, even if they are better than any other business would be in their position.
Old 27th August 2012
  #192
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
Let's look at some quotes on that page.
"Celebrate freedom. Support a free and open Internet."

"Just as we celebrate freedom, we need to celebrate the tools that support freedom. "

"Add your voice in support of a free and open Internet."

"In January, the community rose together and stopped something from infringing on the freedom and openness of the Internet."

"... exhibiting both the power of the Internet and the reason why we have to defend it."
Google does try to exercise principles within their scope of operation as I argued in my previous post. And the scope of their operation is limited almost exclusively (self-driving cars and other minor research projects aside) to the internet and networking. Pussy Riot is simply outside their domain of influence and relevance, and so too are the starving children of Africa. It doesn't mean the people at Google don't feel bad about either circumstance. It's just not reasonable to expect the Google entity to go so far outside their domain of relevance in materially supporting these causes. Sure, it'd be great if they did support Pussy Riot. It would be even more amazing if they fed the starving children of Africa. But it's not right to expect them to, even if they are better than any other business would be in their position.
Except all that talk of "a free and open internet" is lies and nonsense.

They don't support a free and open internet - they support what is in their business interests to support. They have no problems with not being "free and open" when it suits their purposes. China. Kiddie porn. The German (and if I'm not mistaken, French) anti-**** laws. Etc.
Old 27th August 2012
  #193
Quote:
Originally Posted by e3p0 View Post

RT is a government news agency:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)
Old 27th August 2012
  #194
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
Let's look at some quotes on that page.
"Celebrate freedom. Support a free and open Internet."

"Just as we celebrate freedom, we need to celebrate the tools that support freedom. "

"Add your voice in support of a free and open Internet."

"In January, the community rose together and stopped something from infringing on the freedom and openness of the Internet."

"... exhibiting both the power of the Internet and the reason why we have to defend it."
Google does try to exercise principles within their scope of operation as I argued in my previous post. And the scope of their operation is limited almost exclusively (self-driving cars and other minor research projects aside) to the internet and networking. Pussy Riot is simply outside their domain of influence and relevance, and so too are the starving children of Africa. It doesn't mean the people at Google don't feel bad about either circumstance. It's just not reasonable to expect the Google entity to go so far outside their domain of relevance in materially supporting these causes. Sure, it'd be great if they did support Pussy Riot. It would be even more amazing if they fed the starving children of Africa. But it's not right to expect them to, even if they are better than any other business would be in their position.
Funny how in all the above you highlighted 'internet' multiple times but didn't highlight the line 'Celebrate freedom'.
I also don't see how repeating 'the starving children of Africa' over several days has any bearing on a debate about censorship of artists and music. and freedom of speech regarding web corporations.
Old 27th August 2012
  #195
Lives for gear
 
Joe Porto's Avatar
 

Wrong title....Should have read "This is what failed censorship and opression looks like". If it was true censorship, it wouldn't be on youtube, the girls would be dead, and no one would have been the wiser.


Old 27th August 2012
  #196
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
Google is not a "great protector of free speech and human rights" as described by your own quote above.
I know and I'm glad you agree. So I won't need to argue with you about what is and is not censorship they next time they start a disinformation campaign, right?

They seem to take up that role whenever it looks like their bottom line may be effected by ACTUAL artists rights... funny how that is...

did they announce the date yet for the next blackout in support of REAL censorship or they just holding out for the next time their margins may be effected?

you do know this whole red herring/strawman they use on "censorship" is trotted out every time something may actually make them accountable, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
Would any claim that they are?
Google did in January... remember that whole blackout day thingy?
Old 27th August 2012
  #197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Porto View Post
Wrong title....Should have read "This is what failed censorship and opression looks like". If it was true censorship, it wouldn't be on youtube, the girls would be dead, and no one would have been the wiser.


But it is censorship to slam people in jail if they say something you don't agree with. How many albums are those three girls going to be making, stating their anti-government view over the next few years (in jail)? Which means, yes, they have been silenced from future commentary - by being put in jail.
Old 27th August 2012
  #198
Lives for gear
 
freetard's Avatar
 

But Google.
Old 27th August 2012
  #199
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by freetard View Post
But Google.
This may be the most coherent counterargument to my posts yet posed within this thread!

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Funny how in all the above you highlighted 'internet' multiple times but didn't highlight the line 'Celebrate freedom'.
That is exactly the point I was making; the context is very clearly oriented toward the internet. As an internet company and not an African aid organization, it makes sense that Google's context can be generally taken to be within the scope of the internet.
Old 27th August 2012
  #200
Lives for gear
 
e3p0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Porto View Post
Wrong title....Should have read "This is what failed censorship and opression looks like". If it was true censorship, it wouldn't be on youtube, the girls would be dead, and no one would have been the wiser.
EXACTLY!

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
But it is censorship to slam people in jail if they say something you don't agree with. How many albums are those three girls going to be making, stating their anti-government view over the next few years (in jail)? Which means, yes, they have been silenced from future commentary - by being put in jail.
Didn't other members release a new song like 5 days ago?
-e
Old 27th August 2012
  #201
Lives for gear
 
Joe Porto's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
But it is censorship to slam people in jail if they say something you don't agree with. How many albums are those three girls going to be making, stating their anti-government view over the next few years (in jail)? Which means, yes, they have been silenced from future commentary - by being put in jail.
Point being Putin et al underestimated the power of grass roots communication and turned the situation into an international spectacle. Because of his actions, millions upon millions have now heard of pussy riot, and Putin looks like an insecure leader who is scared of a few teenage girls.

I would hope the govt. attempts to save what little face they can and release the girls. This will not go away until they do.
Old 27th August 2012
  #202
Eat
Lives for gear
 




yeeeeaaah baaaaaby
Old 27th August 2012
  #203
Quote:
Originally Posted by e3p0 View Post
Didn't other members release a new song like 5 days ago?
-e
So, in your opinion the three now in jail are not silenced?
Old 27th August 2012
  #204
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
As an internet company and not an African aid organization, it makes sense that Google's context can be generally taken to be within the scope of the internet.
But their complaints, as well as others involved (Wikipedia, Facebook etc) go beyond protecting their core business (the internet). They go to global freedom of speech, the US Constitution, plus the music industry, the movie industry, publishing, politics, collection and storage of personal data.
It's just funny how it's a burning global issue when it comes to NOT helping musicians against filesharing, but it's NOT a burning global issue when young people are censored by being slapped in prison for releasing a song.
Old 27th August 2012
  #205
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eat View Post



yeeeeaaah baaaaaby
Hahahahaha

So funny, but so wrong
Old 27th August 2012
  #206
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
That is exactly the point I was making; the context is very clearly oriented toward the internet. As an internet company and not an African aid organization, it makes sense that Google's context can be generally taken to be within the scope of the internet.
But their complaints, as well as others involved (Wikipedia, Facebook etc) go beyond protecting their core business (the internet). They go to global freedom of speech, the US Constitution, plus the music industry, the movie industry, publishing, politics, collection and storage of personal data.
The second sentence here does not parse in a comprehensible fashion; I'd ask you to reword it if you are interested in my response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
It's just funny how it's a burning global issue when it comes to NOT helping musicians against filesharing, but it's NOT a burning global issue when young people are censored by being slapped in prison for releasing a song.
If one considers that "helping musicians against filesharing" was the sole purpose and the entirety of the effect of the proposed SOPA/PIPA bills, then I can see how one could find it strange that Google and Wikipedia would black out their homepages in an effort to raise awareness against this legislation, but would not do so in response to a two-year prison sentence for three Russian political activists. In reality, that was not the sole purpose of those bills, nor would that have been the entirety of their effect, and the scope of these two matters is leagues apart despite a facile similarity of free speech or censorship.
Old 27th August 2012
  #207
Lives for gear
 
e3p0's Avatar
 

SOPA and PIPA are about piracy and not Pussy Riot right?
Old 27th August 2012
  #208
We aren't talking about individual laws here. We're talking about public statements on numerous occasions, who they fund (often undisclosed), who they publicly support and what they actually do.
Google owns and runs YouTube right? Google returns search results to unauthorized materials right?
Old 27th August 2012
  #209
Quote:
Originally Posted by e3p0 View Post
and not Pussy Riot right?
Regardless of individual and controversial legislation. Young, web entrepreneurs have made a very public stand on freedom of speech and fundamental rights.
And Pussy Riot is just another case of a government stamping out an alternative opinion.
Old 27th August 2012
  #210
Lives for gear
 
Kaoz's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eat View Post



yeeeeaaah baaaaaby
Important issue, needs discussion.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump