CraigOhMyEggo @ CraigOhMyEggo @lemmy.ml

Posts

214

Comments

115

Joined

1 yr. ago

It's not though.

You do realize adult content can be printed or watched on TV, right?

When I was younger, I used my radio.

So my reasoning is for a few reasons. The internet is the largest source of knowledge. People use it for things such as research, homework, chatting, entertainment, expression, art, debate, and uploading content. We currently exist in a world where there are as many personal devices with internet as there are devices with clocks. For many, the internet is a form of escapism, and there's a lot of escaping going on. That I think would be a good idea to channel so, one, its usage isn't willy-nilly, two, misinformation and conflict doesn't run amuck in the digital sphere, three, it would give social incentive, and four, it would give value to knowing things (as in, before the internet, you were considered learned if you knew something, but nowadays, it's impossible for someone to know something everyone else already has the potential to know, since the knowledge is at everyone's fingertips, which isn't a bad thing on its own but takes away from any individual advantage of knowing things not easily learnable). There are places out there that want to ban the internet entirely, mostly authoritarian countries as well as some cults, and this I absolutely disagree with, especially as a librarian, and I also figure it might be a good middle ground to pacify urges to outright ban the internet, especially as society is getting numb, knowledge is taken for granted, and people are getting too carried away. It's no different from proposing something such as us all living in communal housing.

So my reasoning is for a few reasons. The internet is the largest source of knowledge. People use it for things such as research, homework, chatting, entertainment, expression, art, debate, and uploading content. We currently exist in a world where there are as many personal devices with internet as there are devices with clocks. For many, the internet is a form of escapism, and there's a lot of escaping going on. That I think would be a good idea to channel so, one, its usage isn't willy-nilly, two, misinformation and conflict doesn't run amuck in the digital sphere, three, it would give social incentive, and four, it would give value to knowing things (as in, before the internet, you were considered learned if you knew something, but nowadays, it's impossible for someone to know something everyone else already has the potential to know, since the knowledge is at everyone's fingertips, which isn't a bad thing on its own but takes away from any individual advantage of knowing things not easily learnable). There are places out there that want to ban the internet entirely, mostly authoritarian countries as well as some cults, and this I absolutely disagree with, especially as a librarian, and I also figure it might be a good middle ground to pacify urges to outright ban the internet, especially as society is getting numb, knowledge is taken for granted, and people are getting too carried away. It's no different from proposing something such as us all living in communal housing.

Thanks for not downvoting then.

So my reasoning is for a few reasons. The internet is the largest source of knowledge. People use it for things such as research, homework, chatting, entertainment, expression, art, debate, and uploading content. We currently exist in a world where there are as many personal devices with internet as there are devices with clocks. For many, the internet is a form of escapism, and there's a lot of escaping going on. That I think would be a good idea to channel so, one, its usage isn't willy-nilly, two, misinformation and conflict doesn't run amuck in the digital sphere, three, it would give social incentive, and four, it would give value to knowing things (as in, before the internet, you were considered learned if you knew something, but nowadays, it's impossible for someone to know something everyone else already has the potential to know, since the knowledge is at everyone's fingertips, which isn't a bad thing on its own but takes away from any individual advantage of knowing things not easily learnable). There are places out there that want to ban the internet entirely, mostly authoritarian countries as well as some cults, and this I absolutely disagree with, especially as a librarian, and I also figure it might be a good middle ground to pacify urges to outright ban the internet, especially as society is getting numb, knowledge is taken for granted, and people are getting too carried away. It's no different from proposing something such as us all living in communal housing.

That's got to be the nicest looking pool gym I've ever seen.

But why have two pools?

You mean like what Peewee Herman tried to do?

The more you know.

Thanks friend.

The first one. Or perhaps it shouldn't be illegal but rather discouraged in some way.

Wait, it would? My local library's biggest demographic is disabled people.

It happens often. It has happened to me before, but not as often as I see from other people. In nearly half of all communities where it's common to find people complaining about being banned, the reason cited for said ban is something along the lines of the authority figures judging the banned individuals based on things they do in their personal lives. And that has intrigued me as it's difficult to wonder how they deduce things such as whether the place they did that thing didn't already punish them in some way, or if they're not perceiving the correct context from what they see. I once got banned from a science fair because they thought I had been spreading misinformation during the pandemic in a forum in a completely different place.

"Thing", "ban", and "jurisdiction" don't cease to have meanings just because the most general sense of each word is used. Go look them up in a dictionary, my meaning of them isn't narrower than what the dictionary says, and what a dictionary says should suffice for an avid user of the language.

I have no issue with either one, and neither am I comparing them just because one was the inspiration for the other. It's an overlooked science trope and I wanted to see what people would realistically do in such a scenario.

It wasn't one of the ml buddies that got banned (I don't even have any), the instances of people banning each other that inspired me to make this did so because I wanted to know the borders of what people considered overreach when it came to ethically justified bans, and me inquiring something shouldn't be any issue either way.

Ever ask if maybe you and maybe others are being a tad toxic? Funny how I've been experiencing this ever since standing up for someone from another instance (completely unrelated here) as if there's something more going on. If you don't understand/like something, talk it over or leave.

Quite often.

I was speaking generally because my question didn't refer to any specific situations.

I personally don't understand why the five boroughs (there even being precisely five or six of them, which would make this all the better) don't adopt a system of governance similar to the five Iroquois tribes which once lived right next door to it. It was quite designed against the possibility of totalitarian rule.

This is a "creep" question?

I'm asking because school just started for everyone in the Northern hemisphere.

pleainly

You prove my point. There's a difference between ways of communicating that go against the rules of language and ways of communicating that simply, to some people, seem to overuse it. My original message had no typos.

There's nothing stopping a sound mind that wants to understand it from understanding it. Or this sound mind could also, in theory, ask for a paraphrasing, and maybe the asker would have the courtesy to elaborate in some way.

Treating someone as having committed an offense worse than using slurs, just due to the way they explained something in the style of normal speech and language rules, is at least two levels of escalation above that and unprovoked.