Date Posted:Mon 2003-10-20 21:37:05 Author: Redeye Subject: Are you talking about the rules in the sticky post in GD? In reply to:
sweetheart
's message, "have democratic underground's new rules cross the line?" on Mon 2003-10-20 18:19:02
In that case, I don't think all of them are that bad - I think 1 and 4 are pretty reasonable, but I think that 2, 3, and 5 are outright censorship. For example, take onebigbadwolf's "Religion makes world peace impossible." It got locked, and it shouldn't have.
On the other hand, the Undemocratic Underground (I call its rival site Unfree Repubilc so I think it's only fair to call UU for what it is) de facto censors, as seen in religion threads and in your thread. So what if 65% of UU'ers support censoring others - almost 90% of Americans supported the Fascist Act when it was passed. So what if UU is a private place - people who want more free speech than the fanatics permit them have the right to leave.
I really don't understand why the Plaid Adder is still there. She knows that the world won't suddenly turn to a Utopia if a Democrat wins in 2004, but for some reason she still remains in that site. Too bad.
As for the egov project, I think that the main problem with the idea is that it will only function on the town or neighborhood level, and even then the user-moderation feature suggested will effectively gut free speech. Egov is really needed on the higher levels of government - state and national - where it's impossible to have town meetings or personal relations between people and representatives.
