That isn't my take on this. It sounds like the Archive is wary of the direction the Internet censorship is heading. It seems to me they are warning against this political censorship, not encouraging it.
I can agree with someone, in this case Archive.org, on principal that censorship is bad.
I don't have to have exactly the same imagined set of fears and concerns they have outlined to find some common ground with them.
I don't like the big tech leftist censorship we see today. I don't expect it playing out the way they have imagined. But maybe they don't need to give someone with my principles the hard sell. Maybe there are a lot more lefties that need to see how authoritarian censorship looks from another angle. So I kind of see this mockup as persuasive marketing, but you and I aren't the demographic they are trying to convince.
I can't agree with the reasoning because it's a very superficial agreement and there is no common ground beyond the statement of "obvious bad thing is bad".
Agreeing with them just emboldens them, and emboldening them leads to their terrible solutions that just lead to more of the bad thing. Doesn't matter if it's censorship, the environment, or kung flu. It's never good.
If the left worries about anything and it's actually legitimate, it's only because the wheel they've been slowly crushing people with is now next to crush them. I have no sympathy.
So, which is it? Am I supposed to superficially agree with them so the sheep can be convinced to go along with something that'll just lead to more censorship, or am I supposed to shed a tear when the woke go broke?
That isn't my take on this. It sounds like the Archive is wary of the direction the Internet censorship is heading. It seems to me they are warning against this political censorship, not encouraging it.
Political censorship from the right (somehow), yeah. I mean just look at their "Interactive Timeline" of doom and gloom.
That's lefty fearmongering if I've ever seen it.
I can agree with someone, in this case Archive.org, on principal that censorship is bad.
I don't have to have exactly the same imagined set of fears and concerns they have outlined to find some common ground with them.
I don't like the big tech leftist censorship we see today. I don't expect it playing out the way they have imagined. But maybe they don't need to give someone with my principles the hard sell. Maybe there are a lot more lefties that need to see how authoritarian censorship looks from another angle. So I kind of see this mockup as persuasive marketing, but you and I aren't the demographic they are trying to convince.
I can't agree with the reasoning because it's a very superficial agreement and there is no common ground beyond the statement of "obvious bad thing is bad".
Agreeing with them just emboldens them, and emboldening them leads to their terrible solutions that just lead to more of the bad thing. Doesn't matter if it's censorship, the environment, or kung flu. It's never good.
If the left worries about anything and it's actually legitimate, it's only because the wheel they've been slowly crushing people with is now next to crush them. I have no sympathy.
So, which is it? Am I supposed to superficially agree with them so the sheep can be convinced to go along with something that'll just lead to more censorship, or am I supposed to shed a tear when the woke go broke?