Isn't that the basic error of this whole ordeal? Thinking that there are tons of people who want to commit suicide, but they don't do it because they don't know how to, and finding a text document on Gitub that describes how to would remove that obstacle.
Russian authorities could easily upload anything to github to justify censorship. Since they can freely choose, the debated content can't be part of the justification. (even if I acknowledge that there is some emotional value which has to be considered in public policy..)
I hadn't realised what the content was, my argument's more one of general censorship.
Given the content It's hard to take seriously (not meaning to be disrespectful to anyone affected by suicide)...
- What sort of person looks up how to commit suicide on the internet?
I'd guess anyone wanting to commit suicide would know how; the only reason to research would be presumably be morbid facination rather than actual intent.
- Will blocking content alter the outcome of someone's decision.
Assuming it's purely instructional I doubt it. If it includes content aimed at lowering or raising the person's self esteem then perhaps it may (negatively or positively) have some influence..
- Will blocking content benefit anyone in some other way?
Perhaps; if the article proposed jumping in front of a train over taking an overdose it will lead to a train driver having to live with someone else's bad decision on their conscience, and to a number of passengers experiencing disruption (which may lead to further impacts down the line).
However, I'd say GitHub are still right to allow countries' authorities to block content...
- If the content is beneficial to the country and they block it, they lose out.
- If the content is detrimental to the country and they block it, they do well.
In both cases the country lives with the consequences of its decisions.
The only place where that argument breaks down is where the countries and their citizens interests aren't aligned. For example, an article on how to overthrow your government. In such cases citizens would look for ways to avoid being discovered reading such content anyway (e.g. using Tor to avoid monitoring, which would also get them around any such blocking) - but I admit that's bypassing the debated point.
Here the debated point becomes should a government say what content its people should be able to see, should a platform owner have the responsibility for content on their platform, should it be down to the content's creators, or to those choosing to access the content. To that, I suspect there isn't a good answer; or at least, I don't know.
runeks|11 years ago
https://github.com/l29ah/objidlib/blob/master/suicide.txt
duaneb|11 years ago
fwn|11 years ago
johnlbevan2|11 years ago
However, I'd say GitHub are still right to allow countries' authorities to block content...
In both cases the country lives with the consequences of its decisions. The only place where that argument breaks down is where the countries and their citizens interests aren't aligned. For example, an article on how to overthrow your government. In such cases citizens would look for ways to avoid being discovered reading such content anyway (e.g. using Tor to avoid monitoring, which would also get them around any such blocking) - but I admit that's bypassing the debated point.Here the debated point becomes should a government say what content its people should be able to see, should a platform owner have the responsibility for content on their platform, should it be down to the content's creators, or to those choosing to access the content. To that, I suspect there isn't a good answer; or at least, I don't know.
steego|11 years ago
knd775|11 years ago