Censoring the interweby

[ducati]

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.

[Flynn]

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.

[ducati]

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.

[Flynn]

.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?

[ducati]

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?

[Flynn]

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?

[ducati]

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?

[Flynn]

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'?

[Phill]

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)

[ducati]

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).

[Flynn]

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.

[ducati]

Yes, I already mentioned the twitter issue on page one.

Sorry, didn't see the edit. What are you, the Mesiah?

[Flynn]

Sorry, didn't see the edit. What are you, the Mesiah?

It's been all over the Internet, the newspapers, the TV news all weekend.

[ducati]

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?

[Maxx]

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?

[Phill]

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]

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]

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)

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 from home, but I can access it from my work!

Great post Maxx!

[Alrock]

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.

[ducati]

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.