Should the internet be read-only?

[Space Police]

Many KF users find themselves in a dilemma when it comes to online censorship. On the one hand, we advocate for maximum online anonymity and freedom, but on the other hand, we hate toxins like pornography, Discord grooming gangs, and zoophile rings that can only be stopped by making the internet less anonymous and free. The only compromise to this issue I have come up with is restricting the ability to post online to governments, educational institutions, research groups, and businesses that sell essential products (food, medical and baby supplies, home reno/car repair companies, and educational materials). Regular people would still be able to email and Zoom with each other, but only if you have their contact information. Companies would retain these privileges as well for the purposes listed above. This would take away opportunities for companies to collect data on individuals and for criminals to set up porn sites or crime rings. It would also eliminate harmful elements of the internet such as social media. What do you think? How would you balance censoring harmful material and user privacy?

 

[Gandhi's Left Hook]

The only compromise to this issue I have come up with is only allowing our overlords to force feed us propaganda and everyone else just has to fucking take it. Take it for the health of the children you bigot.

Fixed that for you.

This is such a fucking retarded idea that I was tempted to reply with "I only support censoring YOUR ability to post online."

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

On the one hand, we advocate for maximum online anonymity and freedom

Who is we?

 

[Testacles Maximus]

we hate toxins like pornography

speak for yourself

 

[Daddy's Angry Juice]

I'm not a fan of the niggers.

 

[Space Police]

Fixed that for you.

This is such a fucking retarded idea that I was tempted to reply with "I only support censoring YOUR ability to post online."

What "propaganda" do you think we'd be "force-fed"?

 

[BiggestKai]

Who is we?

kangz n sheit

 

[White Room]

What? How the hell would that work?

 

[David Brown]

Lead by example, OP. Stop posting.

 

[The Last Stand]

Companies would retain these privileges as well for the purposes listed above. This would take away opportunities for companies to collect data on individuals and for criminals to set up porn sites or crime rings. It would also eliminate harmful elements of the internet such as social media. What do you think? How would you balance censoring harmful material and user privacy?

People misuse the Internet, so everybody has to suffer because of them. Go to North Korea or China for a controlled Internet.

 

[Stephanie Bustcakes]

Only for people from shithole countries like India and Pakistan. Only once they learn to no longer be cavemen will they earn the privilege of contributing to the Internet.

 

[Hellwalker]

That's dumb. You are dumb.

 

[We Are The Witches]

Absolute nonsense, I think it's obvious.

Instead of stagnating in the dirt like you're planning to, find ways to tackle such illegal content in ways that don't punish the rest of people.

You want to cut the whole tree down because one branch is suffering from blight.

 

[Polyarmory]

"Let's turn the internet into TV!"

Wow, genius idea OP

 

[Gandhi's Left Hook]

What "propaganda" do you think we'd be "force-fed"?

Are you really this stupid? Please tell me you're just a glownigger....

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Many KF users find themselves in a dilemma when it comes to online censorship. On the one hand, we advocate for maximum online anonymity and freedom, but on the other hand, we hate toxins like pornography, Discord grooming gangs, and zoophile rings that can only be stopped by making the internet less anonymous and free. The only compromise to this issue I have come up with is restricting the ability to post online to governments, educational institutions, research groups, and businesses that sell essential products (food, medical and baby supplies, home reno/car repair companies, and educational materials). Regular people would still be able to email and Zoom with each other, but only if you have their contact information. Companies would retain these privileges as well for the purposes listed above. This would take away opportunities for companies to collect data on individuals and for criminals to set up porn sites or crime rings. It would also eliminate harmful elements of the internet such as social media. What do you think? How would you balance censoring harmful material and user privacy

It should for you. Dont post again

 

[I Shidded I Farded I Came]

What you are proposing already exists. It's called "cable television" and it sucks. The downsides you mentioned are the price of freedom and you are basically asking if we should give up our guns because niggers exist. The answer is no. Fuck off.

 

[DoNotFeedTheSneed]

>The only compromise to this issue I have come up with is restricting the ability to post online to governments,

 

[pollution jim]

How about you implement that in India and go back jeet. No one likes you being a wannabe neoliberal dictator for everything you don't like

 

[Agent Abe Caprine]

No.

"Let's turn the internet into TV!"

Wow, genius idea OP

Even TV still allows some content creation from the public thanks to public access channels. They aren't as common anymore, though.