Who is censoring me? public wifi

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by alarmguy
I believe zeeosix (and the OP) use of the word "censorship" is being used in the wrong spirit of the word, though factually correct.
NORMALLY when we speak of censorship we are talking about government censorship, blocking the flow of information or thoughts. Not individuals, companies and non government entities.


Filtering material from being seen by other is absolutely a form of censorship, just like your example of a gov't blocking flow of information. It's really the same thing, and is not just limited to a gov't.

If you block certain TV channels on your TV from you kids from watching them, then you are censoring what they can see ("blocking the flow of information" - your words).

The definition of censorship mentions nothing about it as being only applicable to governments.


Im sure by now you understand the topic of the OP, no further comment on my part needed. Its getting really silly now.

For the benefit of others late to this thread.

People think of censorship as government restricting access to information,

People do not think of companies or individuals or websites as censorship as you are free to go elsewhere. Only government can prevent you from going elsewhere.
Wendys or ANY other company or individual OR website can decide what information it wants to provide. Its their SERVICE.



A very twisted logic, not sure why, and how, are you trying to convince yourself.
 
Originally Posted by alarmguy
People think of censorship as government restricting access to information,

People do not think of companies or individuals or websites as censorship as you are free to go elsewhere. Only government can prevent you from going elsewhere.


So if parents blocked certain channels on their family TV set because they don't want the kids watching them, you don't think that's a form of censorship just because the gov't didn't do it, and the kids could go over to Tommy's house and watch those channels. Ummm .... ok, lol. The definition of the word is actually more broad then you think.
 
Who reads those EULA's? Mostly generic to prevent you or others from suing their behinds in court. The EULA / ToS is NOT an Enforceable Agreement. EULA's are there to make it harder for a user to fight back against a corporations interests. It makes it so much of a pain to wage a legal battle against the company that it is not worth it to most people; however, this doesn't mean the EULA is enforceable in court.

If you sign away your freedoms in the form of indentured servitude, would that be a legal, binding, and ethical agreement? No. The law does not uphold such an agreement regardless of if you sign your name on every from handed to you.

Likewise, you cannot sign away your freedom of speech. This doesn't mean other clauses in the EULA are not valid, but speech restrictive clauses would most likely be ruled invalid if challenged in court.

Remember: President Trumps Twitter page is a "public forum" governed by the First Amendment.
 
Last edited:
The solution to your problem with EULAs is to avoid using products and software with EULAs as much as is possible. In reference to and in opposition against what alarmguy noted, companies do try to censor. It certainly is not exactly the same thing as government censorship, but we'll stay out of the political matters. I don't get to say what I want on BITOG and claim censorship if I violate the rules. On the other hand, Apple doesn't dictate to me how I get to use purchased music (or software) when I'm already using them in accordance with what the law permits in Canada and the States. Their EULAs and practices do not fit within copyright laws of either country. So, I don't participate in their scam.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top