What is Digg?89 Comments
- Azimuth1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+42The owners shouldn't be criminally liable. If people are retarded enough to do whatever some website tells them then that's their problem, they're not being forced to do anything. Why should a website owner be prosecuted for expressing an opinion?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -19/+50And yet, they don't shut down companies that tell girls its good to be fat (E.g. mcdonalds.)
- PueSi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+32Are you stupid or something?
Anorexia is a horrible thing, there are safe ways to lose weight (excercise, eat healthy), this is not one of those. - fliz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Promoting anorexia to deal with obesity is like promoting murder to deal with overpopulation.
(This was supposed to be a reply @ Alphateam) - nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19It's nice to have a first amendment . . . too bad EVERYONE doesn't have a first amendment.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14I wish the US would shut down Paris HIlton and Nicole Ritchie
- alantocheri, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13There's a HUGE difference between having an overweight population that be healthier if they were to loose a few pounds the RIGHT ways... and telling girls they should be thin, even if it means killing themselves in the process.
Edit: Ditto with PueSi - Azimuth1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9You are aware that Europe is a continent and that what happens in one country, in this case Spain, has nothing to do with any of the other countries in the continent?
- JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It's always weird to me when I see things happen in other countries that could never fly here in the U.S. because of the first amendment. Anyway, what if the website said drinking Draino made you healthy and some girls actually died because of it? Would the site be criminally liable? If so, isn't it the government's responsibility to shut it down before that happened? Just something to think about, I don't pretend to have the answer.
- PueSi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I don't think they should remove it, I'm totally against any form of censorship on the Internet.
Parents should educate their children so they don't get influenced so easily, we can't make the government babysit our kids.
The society is filled with bad role models, you can't censor them all. - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6By blocking them, you are reporting them. Basically, the admins go through and look at the people that have been blocked the most often and from that can determine who the spammers are, where they're coming from, etc. Then they can improve the filters to eliminate those people.
Block is your friend. Block these spammers = help digg eliminate them. - realchris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@BassCadet "Heart attacks kill people all the time."
not all the time, unless my grandpa is a zombie. - stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -22/+26NO FAT CHICKS
- Crass22, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Full Agree with ya man. The problem with their society that harbours children who starve themselves isn't the evil webmasters, but the culture and advertising in general that idolizes skinny models. Parents need to sit down and talk to their daughters about who they are, and not go after dumb websites.
- mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@GruntboyX
You can block people, if everybody did that no one would ever see them again. When I blocked diggfan, a popup asked "Do you really want to block/report this user?" But it didn't give an option to report after I clicked "OK". - Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So, how exactly is Spain's law for censorship about "unhealthy advice" worded?
I didn't even know there was a country that had these, but apparently Spain does.
I'm not against people trying to help against anorexia, however this could be a slippery slope, where e.g. companies producing controversial, but scientifically OK products, to be shut down. What about energy drink companies if they'd be put responsible for some controversial deaths after people having drunk from those? Now that they've done this, they need to be very clear about exactly what kind of censorship they're willing to apply and for which reasons. - pinkgreenblue, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4No, they're not being forced to be anorexic, but society already has a strong hold on these girls by promoting extreme thinness as beauty. It's hard to avoid television, magazines, movies, the internet, and more, but even if you do, society and everyone else are a part of those things. Whether you like it or not, people judge you and no matter how much you stay away from the media's pull, it is still ingrained in everyone else. Short story shorter: do everything the right way and everybody will still judge you. While I am a fan of free speech, I wouldn't find myself supporting the webmasters of these pro-anorexia websites. Quite frankly, modern society easily makes a lot of people insecure about themselves and their bodies, and to say that everyone is mentally able to be above that kind of insecurity is just silly. I think shutting down those websites will be beneficial for Spanish society, although I welcome your opinion because I'm not claiming to know everything.
- fallenone05, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I like big butts and I cannot lie..
- akzidenzgrotesk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3wait, i thought boobs and asses were making a comeback? i mean, scarlett johannsen certainly isnt anorexic, and she seems to be the it girl lately.
but im a girl, so maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part. - logicnazi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Saying, 'I am against any kind of censorship but...' is like saying 'I'm against any kind of violence but we need to kill that *****.' My point above shows that there is no essential difference between suppressing these kinds of messages and suppressing any other kind of message you don't like. EVERYONE who demands a website be taken down or some message be censored does so because they think the message is harmful and people will be hurt. Free speech is meaningless if it only protects popular or inoffensive ideas and ideas are offensive because people think they cause harm.
Free speech works in western democracies exactly because the majority doesn't think the fact that an idea is harmful or encourages bad behavior is sufficient justification to censor it. Once you obliterate this line there is no more protection for free speech.
No one is suggesting the USA is some great model of how to deal with the media. However, I would add that I would find it much less problematic if this sort of material was just restricted from TV but still easily accessible by adults. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I don't really think a site advocating anorexia will really do all that much to promote it anyhow, as I have been anorexic before. You dont just suddenly become anorexic, you slide into it.
Say you begin to diet, and you begin to lose weight. You are happy with what's happened, so you step it up a notch so that you can lose more. You feel great, and you're losing weight, and you continue to cut calories, fat, and carbs. Before you know it, you're skinny as a rail. You feel great about the weight you've lost, but you are also eating barely a full meal in one day.
Its all perspective when it comes to anorexia. - BarriedaleNick, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Good for the Spanish. I dont normally support removal of websites but the proanna sites make me sick (no poun intended). I've seen the damage anorexia does and it mostly effects young girls who dont know better - Ive got no problem with this.
- SteelChicken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3because marketing targeted to children should be held to stricter standards, DER
- ellecon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree with logicnazi....and this is from someone who had her grandmother's entire family wiped out bu Nazis. Paradoxically this is why I support logicnazi's right to use the word Nazi in any way he/she chooses.
Giving the state the ability to censor or suppress offensive content seems like a good idea if you ignore the slippery slope argument. Allowing the state to remove sites for "good" reasons sets a precedent which will allow the state to remove sites for corrupt reasons.
Anorexia is a dangerous and potentially life-threatening disease and parents should be on guard in case one of their children should fall victim. Parents should also be aware of drug abuse,unsafe sexual practices,underage drinking,on-line sexual predators,etc,etc,etc... It's why raising children is such brutally hard work.
There is no question that kids need adult guidance, but that is the responsibility and right of the parents/family of the child. The child's family should have an open line of communication regarding eating disorders rather than relying on the state to be a nanny.
- rowanjl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hooray for arseholes!
not. - metamorfoza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There is a difference in expressing an opinion about something (let that be and way of life) to adult person and to under aged person. How would you feel (for example) I've had a website that tells to teenage girls to have lots of sex and advise them to have babies. Not only that but I also promote heavy usage of alcohol and drugs also - calming that that's good for them. And you underage daughter subscribes to it?
- Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Azimuth1 -- Yeah, except that NO country in Europe has an analogous Bill of Rights as broad and sacrosanct as the United States. As a result, freedom of expression gets trampled all the time -- the oppression just comes mostly from the left.
- JurneyAhed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"but kids are kids and they will belive anything"
and that's where parents come in - jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It is terrible that there are sites like this. It disgusts me, but its even more worrying that this might and probably will set yet another precedent against freedom of speech... censorship of the government, which happens slowly over a period of time, until we simply accept it.
- metamorfoza, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3just small update to my post ...
Don't get me worng, I totally yundestand your point - but kids are kids and they will belive anything regardless of the source and i don;t think that makes them retarted. - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2End the nanny state.
- zlyoga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I can't believe there are people here who support taking the site down. Yes it is dangerious. Yes people disagree with it's message. But that doesn't make censorship okay.
- B0jangles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If we can't see your pancreas curves, you're not sexy.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The reason people get sick (and possibly die) when they don't eat right is that the body is deprived of nutrients it needs to function properly. Anorexia is STUPID. It's a stupid way to deal with any insecurities or issues anyone has.
Destroying your health will not make anyone feel or look better, and it especially won't solve any problems. Talk to people and ask for help.
I say good riddance to web sites that promote practices that have negative effects on people's health. - logicnazi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, it sets a horribly bad precedent. See my full reply below.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah. they should shut down sites that talk about smoking and drinking too. Unhealthy.
And perhaps eating foods with trans fats in them. - scottfarner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1First of all, I should preface this comment by stating our laws have absolutely no bearing on Spanish law.
In our country, there is legal precedent for censorship when the health/lives of children are at risk, as they are unable to make informed decisions on issues regarding their health and safety. IMHO it would be a failure of society not to remove a site with unsafe/inaccurate messages regarding heath that are directed at young women. - itisme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm no supporter of these websites, but regarding the argument that young people are reading these sites, information available via the internet is largely uncontrolled and represents a very wide array of cultures, beliefs and ideals. I'm continually surprised that in general parents etc. allow young people unrestricted access to information with little or no thought or guidance, then when they see information/discussion they're unhappy with they ask someone to remove it/make it go away.
The most surprising aspect is possibly that on youtube and TV/News young people are watching the state sponsored killing of saddam, complete with mobile phone happy slapping degrading behaviour and yet its this website that really worries people.
When leaders parade the head of another dead terrorist like some ghoulish victory, appealing to the most base emotions it scares me, better than shutting the site down I would be the vulnerable/impressionable (of any age) being looked after properly! - AstralSin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2i like me some thick girls, not little scrawny beanpoles... thick girls jiggle just right and skinny ones HURT because of their bones JABBING your crotch. so, ffs, EAT UP GIRLS
- Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1AK-
I know what you're getting at, and I agree.
However, strangely, most people AREN'T qualified to make decisions around government. It takes a lot of knowledge and a fairly smart person. This is one of the big problems with democracy.
Not that I have any other suggestions, just, you're choice of words inspired me. - MistInTheNight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hi there from Spain. I think that the view on social liberties is different here in the UE than in the USA. I'm against censorship, any kind of censorship, but how do you control childs from accessing this kind of misinformation ? In the USA you have a strong control over the main TV channels -almost no nudes, etc- Here we don't care at all about those things, but a popular web promoting suicide for underaged people is a problem.
The solution would be to FORCE that companies to tag their website as adult-oriented and tools delivered to parents to choose what they and they children want to see. - logicnazi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This is a horrible decision!
Yes, these websites are awful and the people running them are *morally* responsible for the suffering and death they cause but shutting them down creates a very troubling precedent.
These websites promote anorexia, in other words they (effectively) promote the view that the health risks and psychological complications from this lifestyle are worth the benefits of being excessively thin. Now I strongly disagree with this point of view but once we start censoring (and yes shutting down a site for it's opinion is the essence of censorship) opinions because they urge people to make (legal) decisions about their own lives we disapprove of we no longer have any protection for any unpopular lifestyle.
If it is acceptable to shut down a website because it talks about the joys of anorexia why can't we shut down websites because they talk about the joys of smoking? Presumably websites that talk about the proper use and cultural benefits of hookahs are no more protected than ones that tell you how to binge and purge. Maybe you are okay with this but what about websites on assisted suicide? If the majority of the population decides assisted suicide is a type of self harm that people engage in out of psychological problems is it okay to shut down websites that argue otherwise? What about abortion? Many people think that having an abortion is harmful to the mother so is it reasonable for a free society to ban pro-abortion websites. Or what about websites telling you how to use medical marijuana to treat glaucoma. Once you say it is okay to ban speech because you don't like the moral trade offs it encourages people to make where do you stop?
The lessons of history teach us that we can't suspend free speech just in those cases where it advocates a 'bad thing.' Someone always has to decide what is a bad thing and that means whoever is in power (the majority in a democracy) gets to suppress views it thinks of as harmful or dangerous. Sure it's awful that some girls die of anorexia but that is a small price to pay compared to the blood that has been spilled to give us in the west the right to free speech. - Egocen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There is a big polemic here, in Spain, because the government could close any webpage without judicial order. There's a trick in the law that would allow it. It's shameful for me, and tipical from Cuba or something like that, but that is not freedom.
More information (in spanish):
http://www.kriptopolis.org/montilla-anuncia-el-renacimiento-de-la-autoridad-competente-en-internet
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad/Administraciones/podran/cerrar/webs/estiman/contenido/fraudulento/elpeputec/20061219elpepisoc_2/Tes
With Google translation:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kriptopolis.org%2Fmontilla-anuncia-el-renacimiento-de-la-autoridad-competente-en-internet&langpair=es%7Cen&hl=es&ie=UTF8
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.elpais.com%2Farticulo%2Fsociedad%2FAdministraciones%2Fpodran%2Fcerrar%2Fwebs%2Festiman%2Fcontenido%2Ffraudulento%2Felpeputec%2F20061219elpepisoc_2%2FTes&langpair=es%7Cen&hl=es&ie=UTF8 - mage1129, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Too bad they are planning on banning these websites, I was just about to start a website that helps and supports people who contract or want to contract respiratory diseases. It is disgraceful that someone set up a website to help make a disease worse, I wonder how many points you would get if you are dead?
- mancat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1good tune.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I say leave the info up on the web. Let the stupid ones off themselves. The gene pool will be better off.
- zlyoga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@battle But this is preventing the site from being accessed by adults as well as children. No one forces people to visit the site. People seek it out on their own
- rebuilder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Freedom defined is freedom denied.
- cosmicr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1so you're saying good riddance to digg?
- glmory, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It has been showed in every model organism it has been studied in that eating just slightly above starvation calories with all nutrients you need is the way to live the longest. It is true that some of these girls actually starve themselves to death, however the slightly less hard core ones may out live all of us.
-
Show 51 - 89 of 89 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is