This is done by private companies. So it is moderation not censorship. So, please stop calling the employees doing this censors. They are moderators. Or something...
No, it does not matter;-) My post was irony of the position taken by all the hobby semanticists who defend corporate censorship by arguing that it really is not censorship but moderation.
At least China is honest and open about having a one-party system. They think it's best for them and is a model for the world. And to be honest, a lot of American elites are looking longingly at their system, such as the New York Times. [nytimes.com] The Chinese system gets things done, and would never yield an invalid result like Trump or Brexit. One can see the attraction.
The article you referenced wasn't American elites longing for a Chinese based system. The author was simply saying even the Chinese system is better than a system where only one party is trying to make meaningful improvements. When even centrist policies such as universal health-care are spun as liberal left wing ideas, the US government is essentially in a dead-lock.
It has been this way for decades, with very little meaningful legislation since the 60's. From 1865 - 1971 there were 14 amendments to the Con
Well I certainly don't agree with much of what Jack Goldsmith wrote in that article. It is fairly common for me to agree with a bit of Goldsmith's opinions but disagree with a lot, which makes sense to me since he was a rising conservative star until he came at odds with the Bush administration over what he felt was abuses of power (that is a severe over-generalization of his beliefs, but I believe is mostly accurate). I think the opinions and beliefs of conservatives who are at odds with the most extreme c
Do you suffer painful hallucination?
-- Don Juan, cited by Carlos Casteneda
Moderation not censorship (Score:4, Interesting)
This is done by private companies. So it is moderation not censorship. So, please stop calling the employees doing this censors. They are moderators. Or something...
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
No, it does not matter;-) My post was irony of the position taken by all the hobby semanticists who defend corporate censorship by arguing that it really is not censorship but moderation.
Sarcasm [Re:Moderation not censorship] (Score:1)
Until the coffee kicks in, many of us won't recognize the sarcasm quick enough.
Re: (Score:2)
At least China is honest and open about having a one-party system. They think it's best for them and is a model for the world. And to be honest, a lot of American elites are looking longingly at their system, such as the New York Times. [nytimes.com] The Chinese system gets things done, and would never yield an invalid result like Trump or Brexit. One can see the attraction.
The article you referenced wasn't American elites longing for a Chinese based system. The author was simply saying even the Chinese system is better than a system where only one party is trying to make meaningful improvements. When even centrist policies such as universal health-care are spun as liberal left wing ideas, the US government is essentially in a dead-lock.
It has been this way for decades, with very little meaningful legislation since the 60's. From 1865 - 1971 there were 14 amendments to the Con
Re: (Score:2)
Well I certainly don't agree with much of what Jack Goldsmith wrote in that article. It is fairly common for me to agree with a bit of Goldsmith's opinions but disagree with a lot, which makes sense to me since he was a rising conservative star until he came at odds with the Bush administration over what he felt was abuses of power (that is a severe over-generalization of his beliefs, but I believe is mostly accurate). I think the opinions and beliefs of conservatives who are at odds with the most extreme c