The solution is not censorship.
The solution is:
Stop all the god damned autoplaying videos! EVERYWHERE!
There inventor of autoplay video/audio needs to join that 10th (it could even be higher) circle of Hell reserved for the inventor of the pop up ad (over/under, it doesn’t fucking matter…)
Then the user can decide if they want to view the video or not. I want everyone in Facebook and Twitter to watch A Clockwork Orange continuously (they can still work, they just get the movie as a background and the soundtrack plays full blast) until they figure out that autoplay is fucking evil
It really is that simple.
Medical procedures? Sensitive? Why???
Why should be a partially disassembled human/animal body considered so much different from a partially disassembled any other kind of a machine?
I would just rather they be written about directly
Keep on wishing. You’re wishing away an extremely popular rhetorical device. Experts say it’s not going anywhere any time soon.
Because a fair percentage of people are rather squeamish and react badly to unexpected scenes of blood and guts.
Also, on a completely unrelated point, where are the usual horde of people saying “This isn’t censorship because it isn’t the government doing it”? Could it be that their definition of the word varies depending on whether they want the complainant to shut up?
Remember, the people who use Facebook are not the customers–they are the product. The customers are those who buy the advertisements and user information.
By definition, a machine is a machine because somebody made it to fulfill a purpose for them. As tempting as it may be to be reductionist, the same cannot generally be said of organisms.
That said, I think that medical images should be no more nor less subject to censorship (by which I mean anyone deliberately preventing people from seeing them) than any other images.
People react strongly to many things, and Fakebook is, as are many other web forums, trying to hedge its bets between openness and scaring away customers.
What definition?
There’s a common expression, “molecular machine”, encountered in the world of both nanotech and molecular biology.
There is no reason why the expression couldn’t scale up to organs and entire systems.
The distinction between natural and artificial is arbitrary, and modern technology is closing the gap, if there was any, anyway.
The original one - i.e a work of artifice.
I prefer it when people make new words for new meanings, instead of trying to get currency by fudging existing meanings.
The distinction I made was that organisms are self-organizing, whereas machines are not. As this changes I prefer to devise new meaningful terms rather than overload the old ones to make them less meaningful.
I take the pragmatic approach and follow the terminology used in the literature.
Genetic algorithms? Biomimetics? Ant-colony optimization? All sorts of self-organization? Couldn’t a control system of a process plant be counted as a sort of homeostasis?
The line is pretty fuzzy by now and getting fuzzier.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
