View Full Version : Censoring the interweby
Just while I'm thinking about it from another thread.
All media has always been censored. Why do peeps think the net shouldn't be? :confused
Two issues for me.
1 with the meddling and mendacious actions of government when creating and evolving policy what happens when 'pornographic' content subtly turns into 'inappropriate' content? i.e. some quango (controlled by various string pullers) decides what what THEY think we should see and creates a list of blocked websites, who decides and who controls this?
2 The filters may well restrict many other 'safe' websites purely based on word or tags used, i.e. lesbian, sex, sexuality, breasts etc. etc. Many sites out there aimed at helping individuals with sexual or sexuality issues may suddenly disappear. Health education sites about checking for lumps on breasts and testicles may become inaccessible. But all the while, other sites and images with different tags will still be available and the file sharing by paedo's will continue.
It may also force more of these types further underground and into more complex file sharing making it harder for them to be detected.
If you have ever used a net filter on default settings (and even with custom settings) you'll soon see just how much 'safe' stuff disappears but the stuff you want blocked still comes through. We used one with our kids and things like Disney cartoons were blocked but video's containing strong swearing were still accessible.
Protection for kids needs to come from various social media sites where paedo's can pose as teenagers and then groom them into doing various things on 1 to 1 cams or even meets.
Protection needs to come from using things like PRISM to nail the abusers.
Protection 'for the children' also needs to come from the more general and broad media where so much is sexualised at a younger age, and where body shape / size and looks is placed way before health and well being.
Protection needs to come from education for both parents and children. And parents need to take responsibility for their kids, it's not down to some random ISP to bring them up.
I've beed using the internet since it was in black and white, in all that time I cannot recall a single time I stumbled on porn by accident, virus and malware programs creating certain pop-ups yes, but accidentally finding porn, no.
My guess is, those kids that may have found it have either looked for it, or found it via the history in the browser!
changilass
30-Jul-13, 01:08
At the end of the day, not sure what all the fuss is about. You can choose to opt in in you want. Its not as if you cannot access it if you want to.
If it totally disappeared then maybe I could understand all the fuss - from those wanting access.
Tilly Teckel
30-Jul-13, 01:16
Well said Phill... plenty to think about there.
At the end of the day, not sure what all the fuss is about. You can choose to opt in in you want. Its not as if you cannot access it if you want to.
If you have control of the account, yes. But if you don't....
How is the 'opt in' information going to be used???
Who is that information going to be sold to? Is everyone who 'opts in' going to be assumed to be a paedo or rapist?
Is your credit file going to be updated with your 'opt in' status? Will social services automatically be informed?
These are all technical issues. I was interested in the difference in culture that seems to surround the internet as apposed to other media.
My theory is that the business that operate the internet are often run by very young people that act like petulent children. As such there is a very good case for keeping a very tight reign.
Not sure what you mean there, the 'young people' depends on where your looking from :Razz
By operate do you mean ISP's and the like? Most of these are big corps, even the media companies operating websites, forums etc. are often part of large groups now.
The young people are often those that have a good grip on the technology behind the net and the code that is driving the websites.
What is it you want to keep a tight reign on? Technology?
My theory is that the business that operate the internet are often run by very young people that act like petulent children. As such there is a very good case for keeping a very tight reign.
Definately with you 100% on this statement
I've always viewed government calls for censorship of the Internet with suspicion. The Internet is a truly free and democratic forum where all have their say, and government 'spin' is quickly exposed, the unscrupulous are called to account. This is why so many governments talk of Internet censorship. It has nothing at all to do with 'protecting children', in reality it is all about protecting the powerful and those who govern.
I've always viewed government calls for censorship of the Internet with suspicion. The Internet is a truly free and democratic forum where all have their say, and government 'spin' is quickly exposed, the unscrupulous are called to account. This is why so many governments talk of Internet censorship. It has nothing at all to do with 'protecting children', in reality it is all about protecting the powerful and those who govern.
Ah I was wondering when the paranoia would come out.:lol:
The Internet is a truly free and democratic forum where all have their say,
What makes you think that? Surely it is just as subject to manipulation as any other media, more so, if as Phill says it is run by the huge media organisations. TimeWarner, Newscorp and DMGT spring to mind.
My theory is that the business that operate the internet are often run by very young people that act like petulent children. As such there is a very good case for keeping a very tight reign.
Definately with you 100% on this statement
I'm still struggling with just who you want to reign in, and why? Just seems to me a touch of jealousy that some bright young things can make a cool few £million on the tinterweb while you struggle to switch yer phones on!
I'm still struggling with just who you want to reign in, and why? Just seems to me a touch of jealousy that some bright young things can make a cool few £million on the tinterweb while you struggle to switch yer phones on!
LMAO, is that the best you can come up with?
I'm just waiting to find out what young people you want to censor, and why?
Or are you getting confused with the perception of hackers and creators of virus's being bored kids in their bedrooms causing cyber mayhem out of boredom.
What makes you think that? Surely it is just as subject to manipulation as any other media, more so, if as Phill says it is run by the huge media organisations. TimeWarner, Newscorp and DMGT spring to mind.So everything you say here is being dictated by Newscorp? That explains a few things. The Internet is truly democratic, because everyone, no matter who they are, can have their say, without fear of reprisal from government. Unless you live in China or North Korea. Do you aspire to their style of Internet?
By the way, the owners of Google are 39 and 40 years old.
Microsoft owner Bill Gates is 57.
Steve Wosniak, remaking founder of Apple is 67.
The companies you mention do not own or run the Internet. It is not owned or controlled by any single person or organisation, because it is a global system.
I'm just waiting to find out what young people you want to censor, and why?Or are you getting confused with the perception of hackers and creators of virus's being bored kids in their bedrooms causing cyber mayhem out of boredom.Anyone he disagrees with.
Anyone he disagrees with.
I Just mean that the providers of the WWW (And I do know it is not one person) seem very outraged with any suggestion that you actually can't just say and do anything you like without consequences. I just wonder why?
I'm just waiting to find out what young people you want to censor, and why?
Or are you getting confused with the perception of hackers and creators of virus's being bored kids in their bedrooms causing cyber mayhem out of boredom.
I don't particularly want to censor anyone. Personally I couldn't care less what content people want or is available to view.
My interest is why certain people think the www should be a special case when as I originally posted, all media has always been censored.
So everything you say here is being dictated by Newscorp? That explains a few things. The Internet is truly democratic, because everyone, no matter who they are, can have their say, without fear of reprisal from government. Unless you live in China or North Korea. Do you aspire to their style of Internet?
No you can't. You can't say anything you want on this forum. And there are increasing numbers of people with heavy fines and even in prison for what they have said on various social media sites. You are in denial.
And by the way I'm being attacked for even suggesting such a thing, illustrates my point rather well don't you think?
No you can't. You can't say anything you want on this forum. And there are increasing numbers of people with heavy fines and even in prison for what they have said on various social media sites. You are in denial.That's just this forum. There are millions of fora out there where people are free to have open discussion without fear of Sir giving them the slipper. You should broaden your horizons a bit. Caithness.org is not the only website in the world.
I don't use Facebook, I use Twitter for news and discussions with my followers. The only people prosecuted are those who troll and step beyond the bounds of the law. One case in point would be the recent case where a woman and her family have been subjected to thousands of threats of violence and rape, simply because she ran a campaign to get notable British women included on British currency. That is unacceptable behaviour anywhere, not just on the web.
That's just this forum. There are millions of fora out there where people are free to have open discussion without fear of Sir giving them the slipper. You should broaden your horizons a bit. Caithness.org is not the only website in the world.
Again, you illustrate my point. Providers can censor or influence content.
Again, you illustrate my point. Providers can censor or influence content.There's a big difference between a website owner deciding what can be said, and a government deciding what a nation can say. Like I said, there are millions more fora out there where you can discuss without the website owner deciding they don't like what you say.I have never had anything censored on Twitter, or any other website I belong to. You are confusing website moderation with Internet censorship. They are different things.
There's a big difference between a website owner deciding what can be said, and a government deciding what a nation can say. Like I said, there are millions more fora out there where you can discuss without the website owner deciding they don't like what you say.I have never had anything censored on Twitter, or any other website I belong to. You are confusing website moderation with Internet censorship. They are different things..
OK. But why shouldn't content on the web be censored, as is every other kind of media there has ever been?
He asks again just incase nobody was listening.
.OK. But why shouldn't content on the web be censored, as is every other kind of media there has ever been? He asks again just incase nobody was listening.Why should the Internet be censored? Why are you so in favour of censorship?
Why should the Internet be censored? Why are you so in favour of censorship?
Let's try a different question. What is special about the interweb, that it shouldn't be censored when every other media is?
Let's try a different question. What is special about the interweb, that it shouldn't be censored when every other media is?Because the Internet being uncensored means we have a place free from government, corporate, military influence, where people can talk freely. Why are you so against the free exchange of ideas, against free discussion? Why are you afraid of it?
Because the Internet being uncensored means we have a place free from government, corporate, military influence, where people can talk freely. Why are you so against the free exchange of ideas, against free discussion? Why are you afraid of it?
Why do you keep badgering me? I just asked a question?
Why do you keep badgering me? I just asked a question?And I answered your question. Then asked my own questions. Is that what you mean by censorship? Only you are permitted to direct a conversation, and when others have their own perfectly reasonable questions you think it is 'badgering'?
Outside of the current laws covering pornographic / indecent images, libel, copyright and the current censoring of child abuse websites. Why do we need special censorship for the web?
The following is to be banned:"content tagged as violent, extremist, terrorist, anorexia and eating disorders, suicide, alcohol, smoking, web forums, esoteric material and web-blocking circumvention tools"
Just who is going to decide what goes on this list? Caithness.org banned as extremist!? (or esoteric) :eek:
And I answered your question. Then asked my own questions. Is that what you mean by censorship? Only you are permitted to direct a conversation, and when others have their own questions you think it is 'badgering'?
Just the tone, difficult to assess in this format. I don't think the internet should be censored any more or less than any other media.
I do think certain peeps are a bit naive in thinking it isn't though. Only on the news tonight, I heard that the directors of Twitter are to be hauled up in front of MPs to discuss their failure to censor certain tweets. (for which they have already appologised and accepted that they should have).
Just the tone, difficult to assess in this format. I don't think the internet should be censored any more or less than any other media.I do think certain peeps are a bit naive in thinking it isn't though. Only on the news tonight, I heard that the directors of Twitter are to be hauled up in front of MPs to discuss their failure to censor certain tweets. (for which they have already appologised and accepted that they should have).Yes, I already mentioned the twitter issue on page one.
Yes, I already mentioned the twitter issue on page one.
Sorry, didn't see the edit. What are you, the Mesiah? :lol:
Sorry, didn't see the edit. What are you, the Mesiah? :lol:It's been all over the Internet, the newspapers, the TV news all weekend.
It's been all over the Internet, the newspapers, the TV news all weekend.
Well pardon me.
Another issue, the influence of big media organisations. It may or may not surprise you to know, the DMTG (Daily Mail you despise so much) is responsible for publishing and providing a major percentage of the on-line and text book content used in the education of college and university students throughout Europe and beyond.
Is that a good thing do you think?
I for one (and I know I'm not in the minority) am seriously concerned about any government that wants to censor anything on the internet. If the Government is actually concerned about the abuse of children and not just concerned about scoring points with Child protection organisations then why are they not attacking the source of their concerns. This kind of censorship is akin to everyone being forced to blacken the windows of their house so that they cannot see and report anything untoward going on in their street.
When it comes to viewing porn on the internet, the porn industry is much like any other, it wants to make money. They don't hide themselves from their customers, they make themselves as obvious to their customers as is possible. In fact they have made many attempts to ensure that they are as easily divided from the rest of the internet as is possible even requesting .xxx domains and other similar methods. These methods make it easy for parents or anyone else to block the content from that part of the internet from entering their homes.
And that is really the point isn't it, you or any parent can decide what is or is not acceptable content to be viewed in your home. You or any parent can blanket-ban whole swathes of content or precisely filter specific topics, it's up to you. Parents can educate their children on what topics/types of content are acceptable to them or are not acceptable to them.
This happens all the time right now with things that are not on the internet.
I certainly remember it from my childhood, "no, you are not old enough to watch that film", "don't say things like that, it's not nice", "don't speak to little Johnny, he's not a nice kid". If I did watch that film, say things like that or speak to little Johnny, punishment and re-education ensued.
Why is the same not true of the internet?
If parents today cannot provide guidelines on what is acceptable in their own homes then I think that the problem for society is a much more dangerous one.
In much the same way that my parents could decide that little Johnny was not coming round to our house again, they could have blocked Facebook, BBC iPlayer, porn, anything they liked. However, why should filters that my parents have decided upon affect anyone else?
Filters are not an exact science, parts of this website for example are regularly blocked by certain free Wi-Fi connections because some filter has decided that a page contains unsuitable material. As this topic, censorship, is likely to contain discussions of the types of topics that may be censored, that would make this thread even more vulnerable to censorship as it will contain words like porn, or child abuse.
How fair is that?
Does anyone, including the Government think that the mention of these topics should warrant being filtered out so that children cannot view them? If you or the government think it should be filtered, where does it stop?
Look back at the history of software filters for the internet and you will see how many problems they have caused for innocent website owners. Sexual health websites are often blocked by filters as are news sites due to the topics being discussed. But then so are schools' sites, sites like this one and many, many others because some obscure mention of a topic has triggered a filter to block them. These filters are based on the views of people with good intentions, with a real desire to help parents feel safer when their child is surfing the net but yet a great deal of good content is filtered along with the bad.
Filters based on what a Government thinks is unacceptable, should be viewed with a tremendous amount of suspicion. Who can say that they will stop at filtering porn, what about information on their activities and policies or views opposite to their own? The sooner people are made responsible for the content they provide and people are responsible about what they allow into their home the happier we will all be.
We do not need or want the government to decide what is acceptable, that is what the law is for. The Government is in place to ensure that the law that has been agreed by everyone is upheld, If they want to change it, they need to seek the agreement of everyone in order to do so.
Surely that is the heart of democracy?
Quite. As already pointed out the topics for censor are quite broad, where does it end? Using a proxy to view China or Iran's tinterweb as it's less censored!
As we've seen from the NSA & GCHQ, they have the technology to go after the people peddling indecent images of child abuse etc.
If they are so concerned why don't they use it?
Funny really, if i'm correct, I think you pretty much need to be 18 to sign up for broadband & telephony services. Which they want to censor to protect us.
But quite happy to send young teenagers out on paper-rounds delivering the red tops with page 3 'girls' in!
secrets in symmetry
30-Jul-13, 21:19
Another issue, the influence of big media organisations. It may or may not surprise you to know, the DMTG (Daily Mail you despise so much) is responsible for publishing and providing a major percentage of the on-line and text book content used in the education of college and university students throughout Europe and beyond.Where do you get this information from, and what is "a major percentage"? (I assume you're referring to Northcliffe.)
secrets in symmetry
30-Jul-13, 21:29
The following is to be banned:"content tagged as violent, extremist, terrorist, anorexia and eating disorders, suicide, alcohol, smoking, web forums, esoteric material and web-blocking circumvention tools"
Just who is going to decide what goes on this list? Caithness.org banned as extremist!? (or esoteric) :eek:That's a rather encompassing list!
I think Cameron is applying early-20-century thinking to a 21st-century issue.
Amusingly, I can't access thepiratebay.se (http://thepiratebay.se) from home, but I can access it from my work!
Great post Maxx! :cool:
Let's try a different question. What is special about the interweb, that it shouldn't be censored when every other media is?
Nothing special about the interweb, censorship in general is a bad thing, it's just existed for years in every other media. Just because other media is subject to much undue censorship that is no reason to impose it upon the interweb...
Maybe if we can keep the interweb censorship free, then that will eventually trickle down to other forms of media.
Where do you get this information from, and what is "a major percentage"? (I assume you're referring to Northcliffe.)
Not Northcliffe, another business within the group. I used to do business with them.
I'm sure there are many more examples of big global business having influence over the content available on the internet. Fox for instance are a multi-channel media business that many of you may be concerned about.
Having influence over your content is very different from arbitrary censorship of the entire web. Bill et al have control over the content of the .Org, this could be perceived as censorship by some. But it is only enforced in this bit of the web, people are free to go off and post / publish 'censored' content elsewhere.
I own a couple of websites, the content is dictated by me, if I don't like it I don't post it, censorship if you like. But only on my bit of the web.
Well, suffice it to say that the www is not the jolly carefree environment some seem to think it is. It is run by big business and used by governments for their own benefit. Expecting them to leave it alone is a none starter. Time and again, people left to there own devices cannot be trusted. Look how many fat people get tattoos! :mad:
And for those of you who are very clever and think they can keep stuff to themselves, just remember, there is always someone cleverer and they work for people that drive in big black cars. :eek:
secrets in symmetry
31-Jul-13, 22:32
Not Northcliffe, another business within the group. I used to do business with them.
I'm sure there are many more examples of big global business having influence over the content available on the internet. Fox for instance are a multi-channel media business that many of you may be concerned about.What's the name of the other company within the group?
What's the name of the other company within the group?
PMd you :D
I believe that any censorship of the internet by any government should be opposed: as has been stated on this forum by several people, it is the last free place in the world to air your views and opinions regardless of whether or not they are accepted. Censorship by the government is an attempt by them to impose their control over the populous. I as a parent may decide to censor internet content that I believe to be inappropriate for my children to watch. I believe that is my responsibility not the governments. I believe the real reason for censorship is to make it more difficult for the populous to expose government propaganda. The internet is an excellent educational tool, it allows people to make in some cases unbiased decisions based on the information received. I believe it has exposed many government cover ups, and since the advent of the internet, governments have been embarrassed on more occasions than at any other time in their history. Government has the power to silence the main stream media in this country, they should have no say on internet content coming from other countries. Leave the internet alone. Censorship should be down to the individual, if you don't want to view something then don't.
Well, suffice it to say that the www is not the jolly carefree environment some seem to think it is. It is run by big business and used by governments for their own benefit. Expecting them to leave it alone is a none starter. Time and again, people left to there own devices cannot be trusted. Look how many fat people get tattoos! :mad:And for those of you who are very clever and think they can keep stuff to themselves, just remember, there is always someone cleverer and they work for people that drive in big black cars. :eek:You clearly don't understand the Internet.Companies own, run,and control websites on the Internet, they do not own, run, or control the Internet.
secrets in symmetry
01-Aug-13, 23:06
You clearly don't understand the Internet.Companies own, run,and control websites on the Internet, they do not own, run, or control the Internet.Indeed. That's how and why it works so well. :cool:
You clearly don't understand the Internet.Companies own, run,and control websites on the Internet, they do not own, run, or control the Internet.
Which bit do I not understand? All the servers are not in someone's bedroom are they? The infrastructure wasn't set up by children was it. It is powered primarily by enterprise software designed and marketed by? Security is provided by?
Some servers are in people's bedrooms, or generally offices. Security is provided by the Chinese, and they only censor heir own stuff.
I access two servers in two different locations around the globe. I have accessed both of these from different locations on the globe and looking at the logs, everything is available and is being accessed globally.
However that will no doubt change in the UK very soon.
The interesting bit is, the peer to peer stuff. That is in kids bedrooms, or on Paedo's desktops and that will not be censored and will still be bouncing its way around the Internet.
How is that protecting the children?
Which bit do I not understand? All the servers are not in someone's bedroom are they? The infrastructure wasn't set up by children was it. It is powered primarily by enterprise software designed and marketed by? Security is provided by?The Internet has no security, the infrastructure was mainly previously existing telecommunications, which is upgraded to keep up with demand. But the builders do not control traffic on it any more than the builders of the M25 control who drives on it.Security is either on your computer or provided by your ISP.You are still confusing ISPs, websites, browsers, search engines etc. with the Internet. They are different things.
The Internet has no security, the infrastructure was mainly previously existing telecommunications, which is upgraded to keep up with demand. But the builders do not control traffic on it any more than the builders of the M25 control who drives on it.Security is either on your computer or provided by your ISP.You are still confusing ISPs, websites, browsers, search engines etc. with the Internet. They are different things.
Whatever dude.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.