<div dir="ltr"><div style="min-height:100%"><div style="width:1200px"><div><div><div><div style="width:998px"><div><div><div><div><div style="min-height:474px"><div style="min-height:284px"><div><div><div><table cellpadding="0" style="width:968px"><tbody><tr><td><div><div><div><div><div><div style="width:693px"><div><div><div><div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><div><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><blockquote type="cite" style="font-size:12.8px"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default"><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px;line-height:20px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Well Dan I hate to tell you this, but we have censorship now in TV, movies, books and maybe more. I read recently that about 40k books are published every month and some one has the say-so about its going on sale somewhere (where might be determined by its rating).</span></div></div></div></blockquote><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">No, that is not censorship. If you as a publisher tell me that you will not publish my book because it is crap/politically incorrect/will not sell/it is </span><span style="font-size:12.8px"><span>Friday</span></span><span style="font-size:12.8px"> that is your prerogative. There is no right to have stuff published. Censorship occurs is when a centralized power can decide to prevent publication because of content. (Some iffy definitions for post-publication action, but the core is prepublication approval). <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0);display:inline">anders</div></span></div><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span style="font-size:small;font-weight:bold;color:rgb(106,106,106);line-height:18.2px"><br></span></div><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span style="font-size:small;font-weight:bold;color:rgb(106,106,106);line-height:18.2px">Censorship</span><span style="font-size:small;color:rgb(84,84,84);line-height:18.2px"> is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions. dictionary</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small;font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(84,84,84);font-family:arial,sans-serif;line-height:18.2px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small;font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(84,84,84);font-family:arial,sans-serif;line-height:18.2px">I don't want to quibble about words, but what I wrote is well within the definition above. Certainly the type Anders mentioned is far more dangerous and threatening. This has nothing to do with free speech. Of course Anders </span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small;font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(84,84,84);font-family:arial,sans-serif;line-height:18.2px">is right that no one has the right to have his stuff published anywhere. College newspaper editors found that out for sure a few years ago in a court case. Not letting a college writer put his stuff in a campus newspaper is not a violation of free speech, but it is censorship.</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small;font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(84,84,84);font-family:arial,sans-serif;line-height:18.2px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small;font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(84,84,84);font-family:arial,sans-serif;line-height:18.2px">bill w</span></div><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0);display:inline"></div></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 3:10 AM, Anders <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:anders@aleph.se" target="_blank">anders@aleph.se</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 2016-05-26 21:49, William Flynn Wallace wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">Why
would it be ethical to have censorship in the first place?
It's like saying "Put an AI in charge of slavery..."</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px;line-height:20px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Dan</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px;line-height:20px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px;line-height:20px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Well
Dan I hate to tell you this, but we have censorship now
in TV, movies, books and maybe more. I read recently
that about 40k books are published every month and some
one has the say-so about its going on sale somewhere
(where might be determined by its rating).</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, that is not censorship. If you as a publisher tell me that you
will not publish my book because it is crap/politically
incorrect/will not sell/it is Friday that is your prerogative. There
is no right to have stuff published. Censorship occurs is when a
centralized power can decide to prevent publication because of
content. (Some iffy definitions for post-publication action, but the
core is prepublication approval). <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default">
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px;line-height:20px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">I
can easily see an AI being used for some of the labor of
digesting all this material. I also think an AI would
never be in charge of actual censorship, but the AI
could kick out books, movies, that fudge certain
guidelines so that a human, or a committee, or the
Supreme Court could decide what to do with it. <br>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
In a sense this is happening with YouTube, where copyright
infringing material is blocked - officially after a human has looked
at what the algorithm found, but obviously often without any human
oversight. For various sad, hilarious or rage-inducing examples,
just search Boing Boing or Slashdot's archives. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default">
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px;line-height:20px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Now
whether there should BE any kind of censorship is an
entirely different question, one that could be debated
in this group if it hasn't before (not likely). </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
As I have mentioned, I am starting to study information hazards (
<a href="http://www.nickbostrom.com/information-hazards.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.nickbostrom.com/information-hazards.pdf</a> ) Some of these
may actually be serious enough that we rationally should want some
form of censorship or control. <br>
<br>
Others are not serious enough, but we may want to have systems that
discourage them (libel law, boycotts, whatever). <br>
<br>
But we have to be careful with that (e.g.
<a href="http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/04/the-automated-boycott/" target="_blank">http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/04/the-automated-boycott/</a>
). I recently enjoyed reading a series of case studies showing how
information concealment played an important role in many big
disasters (
<a href="http://aleph.se/andart2/risk/the-hazard-of-concealing-risk/" target="_blank">http://aleph.se/andart2/risk/the-hazard-of-concealing-risk/</a> ).
Generally, limiting information cuts out the good with the bad, and
we are not very skilled at distinguishing them a priori. Plus,
management requires information: if the problem is an underlying
structure or something concrete rather than bad information per se,
then the agencies that manage - whether institutional or the open
society - need to get that information to do something. Far too
often censorship just looks for surface detail. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>