The laws of the land should change, not internet neutrality.
Errr, I'm not so sure I want to explore THAT one. :)
Or it should remain seperated as it has for the last 20 years, which has worked fine and been extremely successful and wondrous to human knowledge (this will not remain the case with the filter in place).
There are a number of us here who were involved with amateur international computer based communications long before the popularity of what we have today. Look up "FIDOnet" sometime. Some of us were even involved in the creation of software and utilities to make its daily operations simpler.
Come to think of it, guess what kind of software I wrote in that regard ?
Yup, you guess it ... filtering software. Heh. More irony. :)
Anyway, the WWW came along and FIDOnet was rendered redundant virtually overnight. Sure, it still has its fans to this day ... and so does CB and packet radio for that matter.
My point is that the great thing we had and built and tweaked and twisted to serve our purposes (and it served them quite well for many a year) was replaced by something far better when circumstance, situation, and technology made it both desirable and feasible.
Sure, some amazing developments have been happening with this replacement system over the years, but it has been quite a while seen I've seen anything all that wonderful about it in development terms, and certainly nothing like the progress in change it used be in comparison to what we had before.
I for one am ready to see a brand new approach to global communications, and one that although might shield/protect those who want to use global comms to do wrong, will also bring an end to the kinds of censorship systems mis-used by the likes of China et al. I have my own reasons for wanting this and it has nothing to do with enabling/protecting the unfettered flow of pron or p2p and other such annoyances.
Yes, I am aware that some might be tempted to wail back "but that's what OZ government is trying to do with this filtering, they are trying to do what China does", but let's save on the bandwidth, and not bother going around and around on that obvious nonsense, eh ?
I am also ready to see a world that gets busy bringing the cost of free and unfettered communications down to next to no public cost at all. I reckon comms should be virtually free in every sense of the word – but that is probably a subject for a different thread.
However, until this utopian idea of global communications is born from the ashes of the superceded super highway (rolls eyes), I am all for what we currently have being brought into line with our offline laws of the land while it remains feasible to do so.
On one hand I'm saying that instigating a form of filtering is the Right Thing to do while it still can be done even if it brings a degree of inconvenience to us in the short term and while a better way of doing what unfortunately needs to be done, is determined and implimented.
On the other hand I'm saying that I reckon now might be a Really Good time for keen, clever, and knowledeable folk to designing the next level in terms of a global comms system that no Government will so easily be able to fiddle with in such a way again.
This is not a doublethink. This is "small picture, big picture" stuff and even then, only part of the tapestry I'm really imagining.
Yes, it also means that I'm taking a pragmatic approach to ISP-level filtering while also sincerely agreeing with it in principal.
Does that clear up your confusion about my position, [deleted] ? :)
regarDS
Posts
