Our latest salvo in the filtering war, "Would the extreme cyber-libertarians please stand up?" can be found here.
We've also decided to centralize all posts on the main EFA blog, so please subscribe to the EFA RSS feed for further updates. Updates will be occuring at frequent intervals.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Although I'm a fan of the EFA's work in general it's the censorship issue that I'm keen on tracking closely.
Am I right in understanding that there is no longer any way to subscribe to just the nocleanfeed posts? That'd be a shame...
The only reason they want to censor SOME content is because idiots post porn all over the place, and even bigger idiots download so much copyrighted material that they make it too obvious...forceing MPAA etc to take action.
The net is now a major highway that we need to perform day to day routine tasks.
If you are happy to have criminals steal from your bank account, stalk your kids with kiddie porn or put porn popups on your searches if you make a simple typo...then you're a simpleton.
Get a grip guys...it's not state funded mind control.
They are actually well meaning in the final analysis.
Give them useful suggestions instead of mindless whineing and paranoia antiestablishment crap.
Then maybe the net will run cleaner,faster and more reliably for all.
"The only reason they want to censor SOME content is because idiots post porn all over the place, and even bigger idiots download so much copyrighted material that they make it too obvious...forceing MPAA etc to take action."
If that's the case, they haven't stated that.
Ridiculous theories about copyrighted content being a target for the filter aside (go ahead and show us some evidence that that's intended for the filter?), the very idea that classification occurs away from the OFLC board and in some shadowy government organisation, using "rules of thumb" to figure out what is prohibited content and what isn't is abhorrent.
It's not difficult to have just about any site banned through the proposed blacklisting system - as evidenced by the antiabortion site which was added to it recently.
"If you are happy to have criminals steal from your bank account, stalk your kids with kiddie porn or put porn popups on your searches if you make a simple typo...then you're a simpleton."
The filter will not, and does not intend to prevent "criminals steal[ing] your bank account". It also fails to address instant messaging and social networking, which are the classic playgrounds for cyber bullies (of all ages) and child predators.
Also:
If you're getting porn popups when putting a typo in your search, I suggest you clear out the viruses you picked up while browsing for porn.
"They are actually well meaning in the final analysis."
Oh well, if they mean well, go right ahead. Many of our policies which mean well have been so successful in the past.
Heaven forbid they should apply reason and science to policy.
"The net is now a major highway that we need to perform day to day routine tasks.
...
Then maybe the net will run cleaner,faster and more reliably for all."
You're proposing that our highway metaphor would be improved by blockades and searching all the cars? Last I checked, that didn't improve highway performance.
Your comment illustrates a gross lack of understanding of the way the web (and internet) works - I'll give you a useful suggestion (as you requested) for free:
Get some education on the subject. We've been pushing for improved education for a long time, and that is still part of a far better solution. If parents are aware of the dangers (and benefits) of the web, IM, social networks and p2p, they are in a much better position to do what the government cannot do - parent their kids.
Don't go mixing up the extreme "save the children" lobby, with the reasonable and informed anti filter lobby.
Dude get a life who cares if you cant watch sick porn and have a 1 buck extra taxes?
Whats your problem?
Post a Comment