Next prime targets! Homosexuality. S/M. Drug information (IE not the 'Marijuana will make you psychotic!!!! lies in the school material). Libertarian material. Sodomy! And so on.
I'm not saying it will happen now. Or the next 10 years, but if we allow ourselves to be subjected to a blacklist prone to political and economical influence then sooner or later it will.
Once again, this does not bother me (and in fact I would welcome it, and much much more besides) but it still is all irrelevant because the fact remains that the internut is not the be all and end all re: sharing of information and ideas, etc.
In fact, perhaps our education standard would rise if the gathering of information took a bit more effort, time, and care than throwing a few linked keywords into a search engine ... not that I'm advocating the demise of those wonderous tools and services – far from it.
regarDS
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt6
derspatz, why would you call the internet anarchy?
Anarchy in the context of trying to live outside the laws of the land (or much in the way of any laws that create a useful and functioning society and lasting civilisation). Even then, the subject only came up because I happened to read the nonsense that ISP-level content filtering in order to prevent the delivery of illegal material, was an "attack on democracy".
If you want a society to be all about a free-for-all "right" to express, do, be, promote, etc etc etc whatever you want, then it sure looks like anarchy over democracy that you want, along with the end of most things so called democrazy has been busy about creating and establishing.
Yes, you are free to choose to do whatever you want to do with your life – but in the democracy and society of law and order we generally in principal agree to support to the mutual benefit of most of us if not all, you cannot and should not be free to choose the consequences of your choices.
Censorship and moderation is a vital part of establishing a successful society ... and the removal of the same obviously brings about the opposite result.
With that in mind, then no, I do not support for even one moment an unfettered irresponsible "right" (HA!) to self-expression, blah, blah, blah. It simply does not work in a society consisting of more than one person and never will while there remain differences in opinion.
What I am reading in these forums is that various people want the internut to be a virtual anarchy aloof from the laws etc that we allow to rule in our offline world which we claim is (and usually barely ever agreed upon let alone understood) "democracy".
When it comes to illegal material and behaviour, they want one rule for in here (ie, no rule and "don't you tell me what I can and can't do") and another for out there.
Utter self-serving hypocrisy that deserves little by way of respect.
I for one had all the "right" I cared for to political, sexual and religious freedom from before the common herd ever heard of the internet, and I still have it now, and will continue to have it regardless of the proposed ISP-level content filtering or even if every molecule of copper turned to cheese tomorrow.
So did/do/will the rest of us ... well, those choosing to respect law and order and shunning the illegal that is.
Feel free to read this message whilst legally streaming Johnny Cash's "When the man comes around"
http://www.hit-country-music-lyrics.com/johnnycashlyrics-mancomesaround.html
Hopefully you've not so sad now and seen another side to all of this, [deleted].
regarDS
Anarchy in the context of trying to live outside the laws of the land (or much in the way of any laws that create a useful and functioning society and lasting civilisation). Even then, the subject only came up because I happened to read the nonsense that ISP-level content filtering in order to prevent the delivery of illegal material, was an "attack on democracy".
If you want a society to be all about a free-for-all "right" to express, do, be, promote, etc etc etc whatever you want, then it sure looks like anarchy over democracy that you want, along with the end of most things so called democrazy has been busy about creating and establishing.
Yes, you are free to choose to do whatever you want to do with your life – but in the democracy and society of law and order we generally in principal agree to support to the mutual benefit of most of us if not all, you cannot and should not be free to choose the consequences of your choices.
Censorship and moderation is a vital part of establishing a successful society ... and the removal of the same obviously brings about the opposite result.
With that in mind, then no, I do not support for even one moment an unfettered irresponsible "right" (HA!) to self-expression, blah, blah, blah. It simply does not work in a society consisting of more than one person and never will while there remain differences in opinion.
What I am reading in these forums is that various people want the internut to be a virtual anarchy aloof from the laws etc that we allow to rule in our offline world which we claim is (and usually barely ever agreed upon let alone understood) "democracy".
When it comes to illegal material and behaviour, they want one rule for in here (ie, no rule and "don't you tell me what I can and can't do") and another for out there.
Utter self-serving hypocrisy that deserves little by way of respect.
I for one had all the "right" I cared for to political, sexual and religious freedom from before the common herd ever heard of the internet, and I still have it now, and will continue to have it regardless of the proposed ISP-level content filtering or even if every molecule of copper turned to cheese tomorrow.
So did/do/will the rest of us ... well, those choosing to respect law and order and shunning the illegal that is.
Feel free to read this message whilst legally streaming Johnny Cash's "When the man comes around"
http://www.hit-country-music-lyrics.com/johnnycashlyrics-mancomesaround.html
Hopefully you've not so sad now and seen another side to all of this, [deleted].
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt6
I have just received a reply from the Liberty and Democracy Party. I believe they are the first party to unequivocally oppose compulsory internet censorship.
Too bad they are a bunch of extreme right-wing loons.
The LDP ? The "Lawlessness and Division Party" ? :)
regarDS
Too bad they are a bunch of extreme right-wing loons.
The LDP ? The "Lawlessness and Division Party" ? :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt6
Anarchy as in "self managed libertarian society" or as in the common, media fed view that anarchy is somehow evil and chaotic?
Whatever. It is still a nonsense to suggest that ISP-level content filtering is an attack on democracy when it is actually merely an attempt to bring things into line in relation to illegal material (etc) as with the offline world ... or are the folk wailing the most and loudest about all of this also of the view that it is an attack on democracy to control illegal material (etc) where ever it may be ?
In which case, not only are they arguing hysterical nonsense, but also demonstrating hypocrisy by trying to promote/continue with anarchy over democracy whilst also claiming a (false) attack on a democracy they appear to neither want nor realistically support in terms of its effective and natural/standard function.
regarDS
Whatever. It is still a nonsense to suggest that ISP-level content filtering is an attack on democracy when it is actually merely an attempt to bring things into line in relation to illegal material (etc) as with the offline world ... or are the folk wailing the most and loudest about all of this also of the view that it is an attack on democracy to control illegal material (etc) where ever it may be ?
In which case, not only are they arguing hysterical nonsense, but also demonstrating hypocrisy by trying to promote/continue with anarchy over democracy whilst also claiming a (false) attack on a democracy they appear to neither want nor realistically support in terms of its effective and natural/standard function.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt6
Stick to the point that it's an attack on democracy.
So the internut is to be deemed the benchmark of democrazy now ?
Kinda a long bow to draw, don't you think [deleted] ?
Especially when it seems to have more to do with anarchy than anything else ...
regarDS
So the internut is to be deemed the benchmark of democrazy now ?
Kinda a long bow to draw, don't you think [deleted] ?
Especially when it seems to have more to do with anarchy than anything else ...
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt6
If anything it will build a false sense of security.
No doubt ... but there is already plenty of that going on in relation to all sorts of things. People prefer the freedom that believing a lie can bring rather than the responsibility that knowledge of the truth can require, and all that.
Regarding ISP level filtering, you've got a Keen, Supported Government on one hand, and a mostly apathetic population on the other hand (BTW, how did the protests go ?) ... so which do you think is going to win out in the long run ?
While folk can still shop til they drop, ebay the latest fad crap, watch their sports on the kingsized plasma screen, dial in pizza and teevo (or whatever it is), swap ring-tones and trade SMSs in their banal billions, you're really not going to get too many folk caring for too long that they can't p2p lovelace being sold out by her husband like they could the other month.
Time a few here started to face the fact that their precious/sacred McNet just doesn't figure in many people's lives anywhere near as precious/sacred/important as it does in their own life.
In my book (including the type that, you know, like, can be read, like ?) the flow of information, truth, falsehood, ideas, knowledge and history isn't in any way the exclusive domain of the internut, and government enforced filtering of illegal material along with a percentage of false positives just ain't going to matter in that regard.
The Web is NOT the be all and end all, and only fools would place their complete trust in it anyway. Eggs in one basket and all that.
Oh, and on the subject of false-positives, on one hand I reckon folk likely to have their sites and pages hit by such filtering will do what any of would do in similar circumstances. We would change the content of the page to make it less filterable, yes ?
Ah, but here is a winner for the "the filters will fail and should be abandoned" crew. If certain types of urls are to be blacklisted, don't you think that the kinds of folk who create such urls of questionable/blatable material will soon learn to create web pages that on the surface seem far less objectionable to the likes of google and government filters etc, and more likely to show up in normal view ?
Akin to closing down and flushing out the sewers so that they overflow and crap runs freely in the street ?
Imagine the hue and cry when it gets to the stage where someone goes to google +hotel +cheap +melbourne expecting to be shown last minute deals pages for accommodation in Melbourne, only to find that 3 of the first 12 links lead to illegal pr0n hosted who knows where ? Do you think we might here a bit of a "oooops, we didn't think this out properly" from "teh govadmin" ?
Which reminds me, how much selective filtering does the likes of google already do anyway ? :)
regarDS
No doubt ... but there is already plenty of that going on in relation to all sorts of things. People prefer the freedom that believing a lie can bring rather than the responsibility that knowledge of the truth can require, and all that.
Regarding ISP level filtering, you've got a Keen, Supported Government on one hand, and a mostly apathetic population on the other hand (BTW, how did the protests go ?) ... so which do you think is going to win out in the long run ?
While folk can still shop til they drop, ebay the latest fad crap, watch their sports on the kingsized plasma screen, dial in pizza and teevo (or whatever it is
Time a few here started to face the fact that their precious/sacred McNet just doesn't figure in many people's lives anywhere near as precious/sacred/important as it does in their own life.
In my book (including the type that, you know, like, can be read, like ?) the flow of information, truth, falsehood, ideas, knowledge and history isn't in any way the exclusive domain of the internut, and government enforced filtering of illegal material along with a percentage of false positives just ain't going to matter in that regard.
The Web is NOT the be all and end all, and only fools would place their complete trust in it anyway. Eggs in one basket and all that.
Oh, and on the subject of false-positives, on one hand I reckon folk likely to have their sites and pages hit by such filtering will do what any of would do in similar circumstances. We would change the content of the page to make it less filterable, yes ?
Ah, but here is a winner for the "the filters will fail and should be abandoned" crew. If certain types of urls are to be blacklisted, don't you think that the kinds of folk who create such urls of questionable/blatable material will soon learn to create web pages that on the surface seem far less objectionable to the likes of google and government filters etc, and more likely to show up in normal view ?
Akin to closing down and flushing out the sewers so that they overflow and crap runs freely in the street ?
Imagine the hue and cry when it gets to the stage where someone goes to google +hotel +cheap +melbourne expecting to be shown last minute deals pages for accommodation in Melbourne, only to find that 3 of the first 12 links lead to illegal pr0n hosted who knows where ? Do you think we might here a bit of a "oooops, we didn't think this out properly" from "teh govadmin" ?
Which reminds me, how much selective filtering does the likes of google already do anyway ? :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt6
Well until a law is passed requiring every letter sent through Australia post to be open and inspected for "inappropriate" content, I'll be using an illegal VPN as an act of civil disobedience.
Speeds (in my experience) range from 9MB/s to ~18MB/s. Adds up to 200ms to your latency.
So yeah, its not perfect but not totally crap either though and it is private.
And a probably majority of Oz internut users would need/want/care about this because ?
I predict that within months if not mere weeks of the filters being brought online, most user of the McWeb won't even be aware (let alone care) that there is any filtering going on, and in fact there will be a sizeable group (no doubt from the "working families" side of the tracks) who will be glad for it so that they can settle back and watch the sport on TV and feel that they have even less to worry about what little Johnny and Jessica are getting up to on the computer in the next room.
Which brings me back to my other view on all of this – that the wrong barrow is being pushed. If the precious/sacred Net has all of a sudden become so vulnerable to such "attacks" by ideological constrained governments, then isn't it going to remain vulnerable to such attacks until IT (not the government) is changed ?
regarDS
Speeds (in my experience) range from 9MB/s to ~18MB/s. Adds up to 200ms to your latency.
So yeah, its not perfect but not totally crap either though and it is private.
And a probably majority of Oz internut users would need/want/care about this because ?
I predict that within months if not mere weeks of the filters being brought online, most user of the McWeb won't even be aware (let alone care) that there is any filtering going on, and in fact there will be a sizeable group (no doubt from the "working families" side of the tracks) who will be glad for it so that they can settle back and watch the sport on TV and feel that they have even less to worry about what little Johnny and Jessica are getting up to on the computer in the next room.
Which brings me back to my other view on all of this – that the wrong barrow is being pushed. If the precious/sacred Net has all of a sudden become so vulnerable to such "attacks" by ideological constrained governments, then isn't it going to remain vulnerable to such attacks until IT (not the government) is changed ?
regarDS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
