re: #157 Obdicut

Man, I screwed the formatting on that one all to hell.

Apologies, Cato, for making it hard to read.

The murkiness of your formatting matches that of your thinking.

Cato: No, a video being removed for copyright violation with an explicit message to that effect does not look the same as censorship.

Obdicut: Yes, it does. The end result is the same; the video remains available, somewhere else, just slightly more obscured. Only when the actual subject is illegal in and of itself— child porn, for example— is it possible to really functionally quash it.

What nonsense. It is not possible to quash anything, most notably child porn. Or bomb-making instructions.

The point is that an author in the broadest sense gains every time an illegal copy of her work is suppressed. Making it slightly more obscured is a victory. It has nothing to do with and does not resemble censorship in any way.