Slashdot Mirror
Censorware and Memetic Warfare
Everyone's familiar with the term "meme" by now, so I don't have to explain that it's the unit of idea transmission. The struggle over Internet filters, or any other conflict where ideas, facts, opinions, and outlooks collide, is memetic in nature: it's memetic warfare.
All's fair in war, supposedly, but I'm someone who has been infected by the meme that we should all fight fair, even - especially - in the war of ideas.
Will the "fight fair" meme become popular in the long run? I hope so. But the way I see it, that will only happen if it is more successful at reproducing than its alternative: "fight dirty." In the long run, it doesn't matter what's right, or what's good, or what benefits us humans the most. The memes just spread because they're good at spreading.
In early 1999, my friend (now Slashdot writer) Michael Sims started a long process to obtain some Web logs from the state of Utah. Internet access for schools and libraries across the state was provided by a single network, and all their Web traffic went through proxies that had the same blocking software running. Their Web logs were a gold mine of data, showing both blocked and unblocked accesses. When users were blocked from something, the logs showed what category it was blocked in.
Our group, the Censorware Project, had been looking for a real-world test case of this software. Michael did a tremendous amount of work to file the papers, get permission to get the logs, have them delivered, gather them, and analyze them. He then wrote a brilliant report (the rest of us helped too).
What this let us do was see how blocking software's errors show up in the real world. We had known for years that the software has many mistakes in its blacklists, in every product we'd studied. But we had no data on how that affected users.
When all the data was crunched, two numbers surprised us. First, the amount of material blocked was quite small: about 0.6%. People were interested in things besides pornography on the internet. Who would have thought.
Second, just looking at the wrong blocks that we were able to find, the proportion was quite high: about one block in every 20 was Constitutionally protected material. That's a minimum - the minimum we were able to confirm. All in all, we identified over 5,000 occasions when people were blocked from reading protected material (totalling 300 unique Web sites).
Most measures of blocking software effectiveness focus on how much pornography it blocks. We weren't able to test that because we couldn't look through the 99.4% of unblocked material - over 53million URLs. Just too much data. But we did learn that, in Utah, 5% of the time, when the software said "you can't look at that," it was just plain wrong.
Ninety-five percent accuracy might sound like a nice high figure to base a good meme around. Who could argue with a number like 95%? But consider what this means for the 300 Web sites in question: each of them was blocked from being read by a great many public institutions in the state of Utah.
And the First Amendment protects publishers, not readers: it's freedom of the press, not freedom to read the press. When you're blocked from reading your favorite author, you might be annoyed, but if the censor were taken to court, the injured party would be the author.
This is exactly what we fought against the Communications Decency Act for. Except, in many ways, censorware is worse. If your site is one of the 5% that's wrongly blocked, you won't know it. Our government will stop people from reading what you have to say even if your site is completely innocent (like the Candy Land website), and nobody will bother to notify you. You won't ever know.
At least with the CDA, you'd have gotten a letter from the prosecutor telling you your site was censored - and nobody, but nobody, would ever have been censored for publishing the Bible.
(Yes, the Bible was one of the banned books we found in Utah, along with the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, etc. That kind of thing makes good memes.)
Michael put a lot of work into our report, and I even contributed a little, so I'm a little protective of that 5% meme. Which is why it was so jarring to open up a press kit distributed by the Family Research Council, last week, and find our work, cited in black and white, as support for the figure: "one in a million."
That's right, the exact same report which found one bad block in every twenty is now being cited as proving that Web sites are misblocked "one time in a million."
Now that's a good meme. "One in a million" sticks with you. It isn't backed up by any of the facts, but despite that handicap - or perhaps partly because of it - it has thrived.
It was first invented by a fellow named David Burt, who read our report not very carefully, and then decided he was going to do a little numerology of his own.
The first thing he did was ignore all the bad blocks we'd found that he thought were perfectly appropriate. For example, we'd found that the homepage of the band "The Offspring" was wrongly blocked - you may remember their songs from the fall of 1998. "I'm just a sucker with no self-esteem," and so on. (You're humming it now. Catchymeme.)
David Burt decided that The Offspring deserved to be blocked, and to illustrate why, quoted nine words from their Web site:
"These songs have ideas PLUS drugs, sex and ass-kicking"
He also decided it was OK to block BaywatchTV.com, BirthControl.com, the Starr Report, the Yahoo category "Society and Culture: Romance," and Glamour magazine. It was OK to block a page on the NASA Web site about a crackdown on hackers, because it "discusses hacking techniques." Both takedown.com and 2600.com should be blocked, he says, for the same reason. A fellow whose homepage includes a link to a PGP FAQ - no code or binaries - should be blocked for containing "cryptographic software."
Did I mention this man is a librarian?
After trimming out all the fat from our list, he got it down from over 300 sites to just 64. Of course, this was the list of unique sites. If he'd had all our numbers, he would have known that his changes affected our 5% figure by about 0.1% - this because the large majority of blocked sites are blocked few times.
There's some other nonsense he tried, like saying that we were deceitful to ignore blocked banner ads because they were surely all pornographic. In fact, four of the five top blocked ad sites were perfectly ordinary, and counting ads would have made our numbers more impressive, not less.
But his main meme was the number. Armed with his new figure "64", he performed a division by the largest number in our report, which was 54,000,000. Kind of like dividing apples by hydrogen. Of the 54,000,000 URLs, only 29% were page views; only 0.56% of those were blocked; and the previously-mentioned 5% of those were blocked incorrectly. From there he switched from blocks to unique blocks, cutting the actual figure of 5,000 down to his list of 64.
Then, dividing 64 by the original 54,000,000, he got 1 in 1.18... well, for the meme's sake he got one in a million.
Publishing this in April of 1999, David Burt ignored our corrections. Despite our offering all the raw data on CD-ROM, for the cost of the media, he just accused us of lying.
You can't say anything to that, without getting into a yes-you-are no-we're-not. We'd put out two press releases about this already. We told him to order the CD-ROMs and check for himself. Then we moved on.
But his meme began to spread. In June, the company that made the blocking software pulled the same trick, reported the results to Sen. John McCain - and then issued a press release about it. Our group was now cited as supporting their software by proving its accuracy. Since the numbers were so big anyway, they just used the 300 figure and called it an "accuracy rate of 99.9994%."
A group I've never heard of, the American Decency Association, now points to our study and says: "Filters Work!" They source is another group I've never heard of, the Michigan Decency Action Council. Word gets around.
So when I opened up the report "Internet Filtering and Blocking Technology," published by the Family Research Council and distributed at their Holland presentations, I was not surprised when I found the same meme on pages 9 and 14. (I was surprised to see them divide 64 into 54,000,000 and get 6 parts per million. But as long as they've blown the numbers so badly, a little botched division doesn't make any difference.)
I talked to two of the FRC techies about this and tried to explain what was wrong with the numbers. I got some mild interest. Will the FRC correct and reprint this report? Of course not. Admitting that DavidBurt fudges numbers might be a bad tactical move. The concluding two sections of the report have 31 footnotes, 28 of which reference no one but Mr.Burt.
I choose to be an optimist about the marketplace of ideas. I believe that truthful memes will proliferate in the long run, because enough people's brains select for truth.
But in the meantime, it's frustrating when my team takes below-the-belt punches from the guys who don't care about what's true.
I don't expect everyone reading this to share my memeplex on this issue. I know from reading the comments that many Slashdot readers think censorware in libraries is a good thing, and that's fine. In fact, I'll bet many of you are grinding your teeth that I keep using the word "meme" so damn much. That's fine too.
All I ask is that, when your memes start arguing with my memes, you make them fight fair. It's only right.
I the contexts I've seen it in, meme seems to describe contagious ideas that aren't based on logic. "Attractive" thoughts that people pass around for the hell of it.
And this is precisely what we observe: that a few dummies saw this meme in a (Disney?) movie a few years ago, imitated it, got on TV, more dummies heard about it on TV, etc. Thus the meme lives on, even though the people die. If the meme were ignored, it would die out; censorship can be an inoculant.
An (approximate) quotation of Goethe's:
"People who want to appear profound seek obscurity; people who are profound seek clarity."
In other words, please stop writing in this 1d10t1c slang. It obscures any intelligent things you may have to say, and makes you look like a dumb trendoid.
Wow. In other words, they're not making an honest effort just to keep kids from seeing porn. They are, in fact, filtering dissent. This is an extremely dangerous precedent.
with less typos.
http://www.7pillars.com/papers/Memetics.html
As another poster said, you will never win by arguing with the Religious Right. They have "it's for the children". That will beat your puny freedom anyday.
So? "The Internet inteprets censorship as damage and routes around it", right? Why the hell aren't we routing?
We can write web viruses using ActiveX. We can send all sorts of nasty things to Hotmail users in their HTML. CERT showed us how to put arbitrary scripting and objects on an innocent-looking page.
The solution is simple. Find your local w4r3z d00d. Get cracked pirated versions of blocking software from him. Find the flaws. Now write web viruses (and other viruses too) that do exactly one thing: detect a censoring proxy's presence and burn away its blocklist (or change the whitelist to *). Spread them. Put them in innocent webpages, especially Christian fundamentalist ones. Hell, put them on Slashdot, even though it's probably on every blocklist.
I didn't see this article before now, so probably only the trolls will see this post. Screw it. See the post, trolls. Go write some code, trolls.
This exactly how we've <B>already</B> won DeCSS --- we all have the source, and they can't get it back. This virus will be completely silent. They won't notice it until it's too late to stop. Politics and law are their battles, and we can't fight them. So, make sure that when they win their battles they're fucked anyway.
I apologize if Jamie is a he, I must have been mislead in the last 2 articles during his visit to the Womens Leaugue of Voters.
It's not the woman's leauge of voters, its the Leauge of Woman voters. And there things are for everyone. dumbass
As far as childish behavior, there is a good deal of difference between a good healthy dose of playful immaturity and plain brattish childish behavior--of which you seem to be exhibiting the latter version yourself.
This is probably one of the best written posts I've ever read on slashdot. Please mod it to 5 where it belongs.
Personally I think all religion is just plain silly...
Mind you, there ARE subtle differences. Instead of always throwing 'Open Source' everywhere in his posts like Katz does, Signal 11 throws Quake references.
sid=moderation
They talk about it in there.
It is conviently hidden from Slashdot users. More of that selctive freedom stuff. Kind of ironic that I mention that in a story about freedom.
'Idea' is to 'car' as 'meme' is to 'road'.
Yes, there is a meaning that has escaped you. How hidden it is depends on how recent your dictionary is. Remember, having more words in our vocabulary is double-good, comrade.
It's a little 133t, too. Yeah.
i say we get some haxors together and take down those sites!! Never let those Taliban MFs get a foot hold......never give'em any ground
That's really an awesome idea. If you can't beat 'em with fact (www.skepticsannotatedbible.com) then get them with pictures.
anyone who has any personal convictions whether they be christian, atheist, whatever, gets crushed under the behemoth of the capitalist agenda: profit. christians and atheists are both drafted to go to war. christians and atheists can both be fired from work for their beliefs, persecuted in government obedience training centers (aka schools), brainwashed, etc. just ask the amish, the pagans, the jews, catholics in the south, atheists, vegetarians, lesbians, punk rockers, people who like earrings, etc.
I mean, Jamie's cool sometimes, and her points are usually decent, but damn. These articles suck. She's in a fight witht the FRC (did I get that right) and she's using Slashdot to try and fight it. This isn't what Slashdot is here for.
Of course, I'm sure the moderators won't understand this, so I'm going AC.
The Capt said: But Christianity, it seems to me, requires believers to love their neighbors; to consider one's own problems before considering others; and is generally against hostility. I can see proselytizing coming from Christians, but not much more. Sorry Captain, maybe you're a christian and you like to simply overlook certain atrocities. If you think Christians are harmless then go talk to the people of Croatia and Bosnia who had to suffer from the Orthodox Christians. Tell it to the few survivng members of Vokovar.
"All the intelectuals[sic] are leaving organised[sic] religions for atheism/agnostism[sic] or new age religions becuase[sic] these 200 year old religions are irrelevent[sic] to our intelectual[sic] persuits[sic] and even our daily lives today"
I believe equating these to religion is wrong. First, both are based on skepticism, not faith. Of course, the average athiest probably hasn't though about this issue in detail, so there may be a certain amount of "faith" involved. However, we also have to look at the fact that there are no set behaviors or rituals set forth for athiests/agnostics to follow.
Religion is the opposite of logical scientific thought (now, some of the ideas are presented and can be come to logically, but this is usually not the case for the unwashed masses - because, of course, the word is from god and we can not question it)
Thats duckspeak. Having more words is doubleplusungood. We must reduce the number of words in order to protect our children from thoughtcrime!
"And according to my morality, these people are evil"
I think this is a little strong. They may have differing viewpoints, but I doubt you could label them as "evil". Even then, think about it, especially from their perspective. What are they thinking? Why do they believe what they believe? Why do you disagree with what they say? I think once you do this, you will find that "evil" is very subjective.
I think I mentioned this before in another post: Shades of gray people !
"But should not the appeals of the Divine, be able stand on their own to legs? "
Appeals of the divine? These are human issues.
"without *petty* human attempts to *unfairly* and *criminally"
Oh my god. You're so indoctrinated. How about we *think* about our ethics and morals next time instead of taking the absolute "word of god" without question. Do you really think there is some anthropocentric god hovering over your head? Why do you feel you have to take the "word of god" instead of actually thinking about human issues? But no, I can't differ because this is the "word of god" and differing would be evil and criminal. Thinking? I'm too weak to actually think. I need to follow.
I believe equating these to religion is wrong.
Sorry, you did not make it clear which two religions? I assume you mean atheists vs. new agers. I am an atheist and I have read enough Carl Sagan to have a healthy dislike of the irrational, so I'm not equating anything. I'm just saing that they may have a simillar effect on traditional religions. Plus, the new agers are irrational, but I doubt they have as much hostility to science as traditional religions (I don't know enouhg of them).
Religion is the opposite of logical scientific thought
Agreed. This is why it is useless today.
bzzzt. Humans do accept crap without proof or any element of truth without question. It's just that simple. There are many stupid and/or ignorant people in the world who haven't gotten to a level where they can question certain things.
Throw the length of human life into this and you have a never ending cycle of (subjectively) false information.
"Islam and Christianity are mutually incompatible and have been around for at least 1500 years - a pretty 'long run' wouldn't you say? "
Fundamentalist muslims and christians are unable to question their beliefs. It's like a virus really. What? You dare question faith? You must be evil and out to destroy us.
To give you an example outside of religion:
Look how in some countries women are treated like objects. Those of us in european, american and various other countries have gotten over this false notion. There are apparently some countries in the world where the people are unable to see this because they have been so indoctrinated that they are unable to see this viewpoint. Why will (again my subjective opinion) this stupidity continue in the future? Because
1) these values and beliefs are passed on from generation to generation. It takes a lot of effort to learn about opposing viewpoints - and even then, you probably have to question that viewpoint before you research it
2) those in certain fundamentalist organizations are unable to question without being labelled as satan, or a collaborator, or a traitor. In the womens rights case, they blame it on poisoning american viewpoints.
Those that are ignorant will pass on that ignorance.
Meme is similar to Idea just as cout is similar to printf.
So you're saying meme was a promising idea that turned out to be awkward, inconsistent, and hard to debug ??
Again, and I'm not the same AC as above, why don't you leave? If you have so many problems with how people conduct themselves on slashdot, then why not go somewhere else? Your staying here to criticize appears to dismantle your own criticisms. If things are so bad, then go away!
I think you're right. Several encyclopedia's have tanked in recent years due to information being completely out-dated. They also often present history in a one sided manner as if reality were so simple. They also fail to go into detail on many things, whereas I can search the internet and find hundreds, if not thousands of pages regarding a certain topic.
However, the internet is often not perfect in that you sometimes can't find detailed research materials. This is why sites like amazon.com are so popular. Good information often comes at a price.
IMO, encarta hasn't made a particularly good transition to the net because they rely on people to find relevant information, and as a central source they can not be very efficient given the large amounts of information they must cover.
Brittanica.com has done a better job of this, linking to many outside sites with information showing different sides of arguments / interpretation of events - but is still partially stuck in bringing the encyclopedia to the net instead of adapting it to the net. Nevertheless, they still present a rather western perspective on many issues and do not give other cultures a chance at presenting their perspective. I value the internet most for its diversity and so would like them to allow for it to exist in their site which is obviously a tome of knowledge.
I don't have a problem with censoring the christians-or any dominant religious group that begins to show the desire to control other peoples lives that aren't in their sphere of influence. The reason I don't have a problem is that I'm all for minding my own business, it's the religious groups that can't keep their noses out of others business. And the particular religious group in question has a long record of killing people in the name of God. Hell, look at the Nazi's. They were as Christian as they come.. and look what they did.
Yes, there is a country whose official name is The Kingdom of the Netherlands, but it is often called Holland, in much the same way as there is a person whose official name is Henry Miller but who is occasionally called bluGill. Both are quite excusable.
This is how to combat the troll problem. Jst post all of these stories that no one cares about. I mean please, more and more of the same.
Slashdot is becoming insignificant. A few years ago there was no real central place for Linux news, but now linux.com, linucworld.com have real news (surprise).
VA is going to pull the plug on this site after it continues to be the embarassment that it is.
The operators of the site complain about childish behavior, yet the man in charge is named CmdrTaco and writes about legos.
I am sure this will go straight to -1, or even the dreaded -5 that the Ninja pancake guy got, but it had to be said.
Not all ideas replicate. Meme is a better word because it encompasses the full concept of Meme Theory.
Where are the morons???!!!
What ever happened to the common sense memes? All the morons who believe in filtering software should move to montana (maybe utah'd be better) and have their own damn country so they can filter each other's petty lives.
Either way, I don't want them controlling what content I see.
Two words: tough luck!
George W Bush is gonna change things around here, punk. No more kittie porn for you, pervert!
How about "shall not be infringed" as a meme bungwad?????
Some of the bible is so explicitly hardcore that it makes Penthouse Forum read like a Hardy Boys adventure. For the sake of our children, their morality, and their future, this book should be banned at once, from all libraries across the nation.
The whole idea of 'memes' is an attempt to avoid responsibility for thinking things through. Arguing for 'rights' when you've adopted meme theory is just incoherant.
Now put away your National Geographics with the naked aborigines and learn to read, fuckwit.
:-).
That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Thanks
The best way to post is make a logical point, then follow it up with some dripping sarcasm. Not enough people can do it...
replicate this!
The hippies were a minority, even in the 1960s. There were plenty of other social/cultural groups. The pro-censorship groups remind me of the Nixon Jugend (AKA Young Americans for Freedom).
;-)
Mystic One, I agree completely with you on regards to not look if you don't like it as well as the the awe in the fact that someone thinks that they can impose their morals on you. Except... it doesn't matter. You aren't dealing with logical, reasonin gpeople... you're dealing with fanatics. The religious right won't stop until they have a Taliban situation going. Think about this.. in the early 30's the people of Germany weren't too concerned with the Nazi party as no one believed a bunch of hoodlums and bufoons could possible amass enough power to effect any ones lives. Go to the web sites of the religius right and you'll be amazed at what these people are advocating! Try a Christian government... P.S. If anyone thinks I'm being paranoid or unrealistic then take a moment to think about the families of Drs that have been killed because they performed medical procedures that these "christians" did not agree with.
(NT)
In addition, Jamie's argument does not seem to be that the online equivalent of Juggs should be available at libraries. What he is saying is that 5% of the sites blocked are constitutionally protected, non-pornographic speech. His opponents are responding that these other sites should in fact be actively blocked by a government entity. They are using that justification to fiddle with the numbers, and then using the numbers in a way that implies that only porn sites are blocked after all.
Someone got a -5?
Where ?
Man, if only I was that good....
People realise it but don't really whant to say it clearly: marketing is transforming the world into a cynical place.
Each time you see an ad, it almost always stretches the truth.
Same goes for the fore-mentionned articles about filtering internet, with the added bonus that the gain is not only economic, it is political.
Furthermore, this debate is included in the ongoing debate about how a few specific individuals are more apt than others to correctly spell out what the internet can and cannot be. Clearly to accept filtering is to accept that internet can and should be controled by a handfull of individuals that are not elected and that do not poll anybody to make decisions (not even recommandations!) about internet content.
Last but not least, filtering programs use the same marketing schemes as the media in general: Don't trust internet. Internet is dangerous. Let us be your entrance to internet and let us tell you what's fit and what's not. Trust us, we derive no economic gain from sheltering you from "bad things".
Having been fooled more than once by cheap marketing, I cannot help thinking this is just another ploy to steer people away from internet democracy.
Obi Wan Celeri
- JUGGS magazine must actively be purchased and archived, with specific library resources devoted to its inclusion in the catalog. Buying it may mean choosing not to carry Scientific American. Not carrying JUGGS does not mean that Scientific American issues with controversial articles on abortion must also be unavailable.
- Censoring internet access requires ACTIVE censorship, as opposed to the passive act of not buying JUGGS. Access to questionable internet sites does not take resources away from legitimate sites, or consume any specific, countable resources at all (unless wild-ass guessing is your idea of evidence for sound policy). Censoring sites equivalent to JUGGS also has the effect of restricting access to legitimate social and scientific publications regarding issues which touch on sexuality (e.g. AOL's censorship of the word "breast" blocking access to breast cancer sites), thereby impeding the mission of the library.
Now put away your National Geographics with the naked aborigines and learn to read, fuckwit.You are wondering where all the 60's free-speech advocates went? Well, they are probably a part of the majority of Americans who aren't even aware of what's going on here. They aren't protesting because they are no better informed than anyone else is. They are getting the same 'meme' about this that everyone else is. And they are from a pre-computer generation where only a few of them will be aware of this issue.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
The reason such memes last is part of what memetics is all about - mutation. Memes survive by mutatuing to deal with changes in the environment. Since a meme is purely an idea, it can mutate very fast relative to a physical gene.
In your example here, the memes survived by mutating whenever necessary. This doesn't have to be deliberate, either. The memes that didn't mutate into something more tolerable died off leaving only the tolerant ones left. The meme that Popes are infallable, for example, has died out because to hold onto it would be too hard. (Obvious contradicitons like collaboration with Hitler, condemnation of Galileo, etc make it hard to pass the meme on to others. So it dies to be replaced by the slightly more reasonable meme that the Pope can make mistakes too, but is generally less likely too.)
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Instead of actively researching the topic, I would just pad my bibliography with the references from my one source. I am sure that quite a lot of disinformation is spread in this way, out of pure laziness.
-- Too lazy to get a lower UID.
This started to happen in political campaigns, just because the mudslinging was so obvious, and the voters were offended. But it doesn't always work that way.
:|
I'm amazed that Offspring was blocked. Anyone who actually listens to the words (and that's what this is about, right? Lyrics, getting your message across...) knows that Offspring is a lot less malicious than these people. Or maybe they're just really bad at math. Either way, I don't want them controlling what content I see.
"When will the world listen to reason /
I have a feeling it'll be a long time /
When will the truth come into season /
I have a feeling it'll be a long time..." - Offspring
Yeah, it is kinda catchy. Too bad, really.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
If you can prove they are not telling the truth then their credibility will be removed.
Deleted
Yes, but isn't Holland an English name anyway? Does anyone in Holland actually call it Holland, or do they call it Nederland?
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
Blocking can be very wrong most of the time. /.! /. without trouble?)
/. at home.
The blocker we use regularly blocks
It did again today. It didn't say why though.. Just "Page blocked: sex". I'm guessing it's because of the suck.com refference.
It happened about 3 weeks ago too. I still have no clue why.
The problem is, being in Holland (The Netherlands this time.. not Michigan (sp?)) onyl ENGLISH words are banned.. When I go to any sites containing dutch vulgar language, it goes through perfect. (Maybe if they made a dutch babelfish, I could read
Maybe I should go talk to sysadmin about the blocking..
Maybe I should just let it slide and read
Taken from Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: meme
Pronunciation: 'mEm
Function: noun
Etymology: alteration of mimeme, from mim- (as in mimesis) + -eme
Date: 1976
: an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture
In other words, a trend. This whole "memetics" thing is bullshit, if you ask me.
Heh. Actually, I'm Jewish. But I never said that people who _claim_ to be Christians are harmless. I would expect, OTOH, someone who firmly believed and behaved in accordance with Christianity would likely be harmless. There is a difference in what someone says they are and what someone actually is.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
What makes you say this? From what I know of the two religions (I'm neither, thanks) they should be able to coexist peacefully without too much trouble if both sides are willing to live up to the teachings.
Cultural, not religious differences, are more likely the root of this animosity, I'd expect. The crusaders, IIRC, killed many more middle eastern Christians than they did Muslims because they couldn't tell the difference and often didn't care.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Just trying to respond to both SIGFPE and Mawbid here...
(IANA Christian or Muslim...)
What I meant was this:
Christianity and Islam are both different religions, sure.
But Christianity, it seems to me, requires believers to love their neighbors; to consider one's own problems before considering others; and is generally against hostility. I can see proselytizing coming from Christians, but not much more.
Islam, I understand, requires believers to be tolerant of Jews and Christians, due to the related nature of the three religions. They needn't particularly love each other, but there are limits to what can be done.
But I'm not saying that you can be both, merely that both religions, imho, have practices which permit them to coexist peacefully. That they haven't is probably due to people on both sides who are not living by their espoused religious beliefs.
Perhaps someone more knowledgable of comparative religion can help out here?
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I think what is meant here is that you can't sincerely subscribe to Christianity and Islam at the same time. "Thou shalt have none other gods but me." and all that. That's not to say that either group must necessarily wipe out the other, although instructions (or at least hints) to that effect are encoded in the scripture.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
I agree that truthfullness is not the guarantee of the survival of an idea. Some people do search for truth and evaluate the worth of an idea based on it's truthfullness. However, many people evaluate ideas based on their emotions; does it make them feel good, make them look good, or agree with what they think already. In this case, truth is not as relevant.
Your password has expired, please login to change it.
Now, if I may invent a new term, you're katzbaiting.
AUP means "Acceptable Use Policy".
Where is the Holland library? Obviously not in the country by that name.
--
bgphints - internet routing news, hints and ti
Does anyone else find it funny that people would actually research raping someone? I mean, I can see a soon-to-be rapist following someone for a day or so, and finding out when they can grab the person (assuming it's not someone they already know), but getting on the internet and looking up how to rape someone? That's just a really weird idea.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
A trend would be a short term meme or meme complex. But something like the concept of 'freedom' or 'altuism' or, yes, even 'selfishness' is also a meme (or, maybe, a meme comlex), and those have been around for a looooooooong time.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Ah, but legally, according to the consitution, all states have to recognize the marriages of other states, so, CA is hoping, with this law, to stop people of the same gender from getting married in Hawaii and...waitjustasecond...since when can state laws override the consitution? Well, they're trying it with drugs, too. Maybe they want to suceed? :)
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Actually, it is a good point. Saying that people are wrong to impose their belief on you is trying to impose your belief on them.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I hope I'm not the first to point this out, but one of the leading opponents to filtering software is the ALA - American Library Association (http://www.ala.org). Check their website for more information on why.
The local library that is acting as my ISP (2 hrs/ per day on 12 lines... No great bargain, even for free) is deep in the Bible Belt, so it's amazing that a filtering policy as enlightened as ours is is in place. All machines with exposed monitors are filtered, at all times. Adults can have an unfiltered account, that is only unfiltered on the in-desk machines. Parents can elect to deny their children access to the Internet, filtered-only access to the Internet, or unfiltered access to the Internet (of course, on those machines with submerged monitors). Personally, I say unfilter them all and let Bob sort them out, but I would like to keep the connectivity, so....
One of the other Slashdotters mentioned that we need to put out the anti-censorship message a little more forcefully. I have to agree. A couple of years ago, I posted a short essay against censorship, both as a celebration of National Banned Books Week (see the ALA homepage for more info on that) and as a some new content for the new website, since our system was just going online at the time. I dashed it off in 20 minutes or so, threw a couple of graphics on the page, and left it be... So, imagine my surprise when doing a vanity search, and up pops my name in a half-dozen places I wasn't expecting. People had quoted my little article. And started linking to it. And it was getting hits. Ok, so I expected 10 or 20 hits a month... No, 10 or 20 hits a day... Wow! A minor little page that doesn't say much of anything! There can't be too much out there about censorship, if I'm turning up that high on the search engines. So, I'm begging everyone: get your views out there. Post your ideas. Get my hitrate down where it belongs!
THe abuse of statistics is hardly a new concept, and doesn't need any 'memist' explanation.
The issue is really about what is the function of a library: to give any information about anything, or to only give information on selected topics. It is also about certain people forcing their morals on everyone else. Is the United States a Christian Theocracy or a Democracy?
God damn, the Internet is weird.
AFAIK the major filters don't filter images. So why would the images have to be modified? The goal here is to get the site through the filter, not to make it unoffensive for everyone.
Here's an idea for a distributed client that doesn't use spare clock cycles, but instead just uses a few spare minutes out of everyone's day.
Provide a simple cgi that will give 10 URLs out of the 50 million that were allowed through. Let them be marked as 'clean', 'porn' or potentially something else, with some double entries to verify results.
After that there should be a set of sites that could be blocked/should be blocked, but weren't. I'd probably set the specs to only block outright hardcore sites; ie anything that is even remotely purient would be marked 'clean'.
It doesn't deal with issues about whether censorship is right, but if it can be showed that 1% of the unique sites visited was porn that would hurt censorship.
Statistics people should get in on this also:
If we take out all the 100% legit requests (assume that cnn.com is _not_ an attempt to see porn), that should leave us with a set of potentially shady requests; the user _might_ have been trying to view porn. Checking those sites for actual porn/not porn would give a pretty accurate reading about how well sites block porn.
Since so many sites visited are not requests for porn, citing them as proof of 'blocking effectiveness' is not valid math; You need to look at only the potentially invalid requests to actually determine when porn was or was not blocked.
how is cout difficult to debug?
idiot
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Having worked in public libraries for 10 years, I can honestly say that many people will indeed whack off in a library, but will at least do it in the stacks, where unsuspecting staff members can come across them. Most people who use the Internet in a public library are either a) people trying to find information on the latest malady/herb/oprah touchy-feelly topic du jour, and b)high school students getting free email.
Maybe it's time to turn David Burt's revisionist statistical analysis against him.
Of the URLs that were "correctly" blocked, how many of them came from the same user session? For example, let's say that one user tries typing in the URLs for 20 pr0n sites, hoping that one of them will work. In the filtering logs, this will look like an impressive number, because many people will assume that it represents 20 different users. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the attempted pr0n/drug/gambling surfing was the work of a very small number of library patrons. Hell, some of them might just have been people who wondered what would happen if they tried to view a blocked site...
WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! (Red light over the library patron's terminal flashing) The P.A. system crackles... Security to terminal #3! Security to terminal #3! Suspect is attempting to view www.sexxx.com! Shoot to kill!
Yqy...K ecp'v dgnkgxg aqw cevwcnna vqqm vjg vkog vq vtcpuncvg oa uki. Kh aqw vjkpm vjku ku tkfkewnqwu, tgcf oa dkq.
This reminds me of another fight, almost a decade ago, that was that was very actively discussed in rec.motorcycles. (Anyone care to fill in the missing pieces? My memory is kind of hazy on this one.)
California (USA) was trying to pass legislation mandating the use of helmets for motorcyclists. They made up a bunch of statistics to support their position, ticking off motorcyclists everywhere and convincing people like me to stay out of CA as it was being run by a bunch of liars.
I don't know how (or if...) the fight ended, but there seem to be some parallels with this Internet Censoring thing:
Truth is irrelevant.
The only people who care are the ones who realize they have something to lose.
Far too few people bother to consider the motives behind pending legislation.
Quite honestly, I am glad I do not get all of the government I pay for.
The bottom line is this: It is one thing to hold a certain view (for example, the view that pornography is bad and should not be available.) It is another thing altogether to hijack the legislative process, ignore the Constitution, use campaigns of FUD, etc. to codify that view and force it upon everybody. It is this type of intrusion that we must guard against. As I've said, I don't want to get into a semantics debate; if you don't want to call this "imposition of morality", then feel free call it whatever you want.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Critically examine my words.
:-) Thanks for your thoughts.
Well, they make a hell of a lot of sense to me.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
(Note: the above statement is an example of criticism, not flamebait. Or at least not very good flamebait.)
Wow.
This process of elimination to get the list of sites down to 64 is quite unbelievable!
It's probably just the worst case if making-it-up-as-you-go-along ever.
*I* care about the truth at least!
"How much truth can advertising buy?" - iNsuRge - AK47
Anyone tried to make an anti-filter, replacing "bad" words with "innocent" ones (porn->pr0n) and passing the rest of the page through unaltered?
Would this sort of scheme work for many filters?
-Frank
In fact, I'll bet many of you are grinding your teeth that I keep using the word "meme" so damn much.
I'd imagine anyone who objects to your material loves you for using the word "meme" so much. It makes you sound like a crackpot who lines his hat with tin foil. You should probably use a different term.
"Children: The ultimate scapegoat for any political agenda."
A load of BS? I don't see where the guy is "margializing them and their beliefs" I don't see one mention of typical Christian beliefs. Unless, you're speaking about "The right to kill a Doctor" If that's a chrstian beliefe then maybe the ranter is right. I don't agree that the conservative party is an evil monster that will consume the country but I do know that here in California the conservative Xians are actively fighting homosexuals over stupid issues that don't even exist. Case in point, We have a proposition that says the state will only recognize marriages between a man and a women. Sounds fine and dandy right? Wrong. Gays can't get married in California anyways! So why the expenditure of energy? Question for you JSG, Knowing what we know now about the Nazi's, wouldn't it be acceptable to censor them? I would think the answer is "yes" Unless of course you approve of the Nazis and their methods.
Basically I agree that it's outrageous that the conservatives highjack the political process for this sort of thing. A lot of people have misunderstood me!
Female Prison Rape in NY
What truly stuns me is the lack of backlash from traditional christian denominations. Catholicism and the major protestan churches are letting these people dictate morality to them, even though their interpretation of the bible contradicts theirs.
This is a really interesting question. I suspect that the answer includes the following:
1) All the intelectuals are leaving organised religions for atheism/agnostism or new age religions becuase these 200 year old religions are irrelevent to our intelectual persuits and even our daily lives today.
2) The religious right is run by buisness men (like Pat Robertson) who really are out to make a buck and increase their power. Charisma is money to these people and traditional religions can not really fight off the ``memethetic attacks'' of these orginisations.
Personally, I would like to see the religious rights influence collapse and take organised christianity down with it in this country. Maybe they will fight the upcomming biotech revolution and lose big time, i.e. a "not learning evolution in high school could keep your kids from getting good biotech jobs" meme could kill their centrist support overnight. Also, we have changed our immigration policy to only allow rich and educated people from other countries (i.e. non-christian). These are pretty long term things (liek 20 years), but they could play a significant role in our political future.
Jeff
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
This could perhaps be our strongest weapon against the censorware vendors. Imagine if the same groups sold censored versions of other vendors physical magazines, crossing out all the fucks and damns, and putting stickers over breasts. Libraries started using these magazines for the same reasons they use censorware. Then some one found out that they'd been putting stickers over articles criticising their censorship practices. There'd be an outrage.
The above story is a physical version of what is occuring with censorware. So why no outrage and fury from any except geeks? Mabye because no one else has made the effort to understand. It's a shame, because these blocks are clearly in place because of company rather than "community" standards, a concern people often don't get. So I guess we need to spread the word that censorware not only blocks some protected speech, but that it blocks protected speech about censorware.
postmoderncore - art and creation are a higher purpose
Why not just spread your meme by showing the things that are blocked, to show why blocking software is currently inaccurate, I think if you started a leafeting campaign a la 2600 and DeCSS you could spread the word, if you print the American constitution or the Bill of Rights and then explain that these things are blocked by the filtering software, also use HTML redirections in web pages for those topics and put up standard message saying its nessecary to avoid the URL from being blocked, start a web site and "ribbon" campaign, spread your meme.
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
I have no love for the religious right, but from what I've seen attempted censorship is equally popular from left-wingers. Look at campus speech codes that turn students into criminals for making politically incorrect jokes, or the whole John Rocker stupidity. It's not that the left wants to censor less, they just want to censor different things.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
I agree with you completely. There are far too many of these organizations.
I'm particularly amused by the ones that are formed on the premise of "protecting the American family." With the number of people getting married and breeding, I don't think that there's any shortage of American families. When were they placed on the endangered species list? I'll resist the urge to rant on the suitability of most humans to be responsible enough to raise children without breaking them in some way.
Most of these groups have also conveniently forgotten the concept of the seperation of church and state, not to mention the fact that the USA was never meant by the founders to be a Christians-only club.
-chaosgrrl
When you can't find your jello don't come screaming at me to remove the weasle from your headgear.
I hate mimes. I went to the park one day and this mime came towards me on some stupid imaginary skateboard. I was not impressed, so I punched him and stole his wallet.- ---
----------------------------------------
Please give your mod points to others, Im at the cap. They will appreciate it more
But we want them to be less restrained when deciding what to block. The less restrained they are, the more likely they'll hit the favorite sites of their customers. This will cause their customers to complain, and hopefully, realize the folly of the whole thing in the end.
The cake is a pie
But I doubt the censorware people will be able to block all porn, or even the majority of it, without blocking so much other stuff as to make any machine that uses their software nearly useless as a web browser. So you get to hit them from both sides. You yell at them for allowing the porn through while their customers bitch about the blocking of sites they want to see. Repeat often enough and it becomes obvious that censorware does not work. People are willing to put up with stuff if it "saves the children". If they see a report, once a month, about how censorware fails to "save the children", they start questioning the point of putting up with software that blocks too much.
The cake is a pie
Your moral principle is that "You shouldn't impose your moral principles on other people." But don't you see - imposing that moral principle on others is totally hypocritical!!
;) but I do intend to make it important that no one else inflict their morals on me."
Yes, it is a nice little catch-22, isn't it?
How about the moral, "I don't intend to impose morals upon other people (excluding my children up to the age of adulthood
The trick is that people try to find a common ground on what is acceptable behavior. It used to be commonly acceptable to kill people for fun. (Everyone, that is, that was under that moral condition.)
That isn't necessarily true these days. Bummer, with all the overpopulation and everything. >;)
-Vel
It seems to me that "meme" brings with it an interesting connotations:
:)
(1) Memes spread;
(2) Memes compete with one another;
(3) People study the nature of (1) and (2).
So it seems like it might be a useful shorthand for "an idea spreading in competition with others".
But it also makes us sound geekier.
Terry
Happy Premise #3: Even though I feel like I might ignite, I probably won't.
> Man that really Chews my cud, It always seems the good guys have to
> fight fair and justify their actions where as the bad guys, well... we
> all know what they can get away with. But how does one let the people
> on the fence see the truth?
The above comment was moderated down to -1 as a "troll." Not that it's such a big deal, I wouldn't want anyone to think I get all emotionally worked up about /. moderation or anything like that, but just wondering, in what way is this a troll? It seems like a legitimate and even thoughtful comment to me.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Speaking from the left...
> Why, oh why, is everything ludicrous attributed to right-wingers?
Gee, I sometimes feel the same way: why is everything ludicrous falsely attributed to left-wingers? I'd really, really like to see a national health care program in the U.S.A.; therefore, according to many noisy right-wingers, that gasbag Limbaugh comes to mind as an example, that inclination makes me approximately equivalent to Pol Pot.
> I am just about as far-right-wing as you can get, and I assure that
> my core beliefs do not condone censorship in any form.
Then, sir, sorry to disappoint you, but you are not as far-right as you can get. You want far-right? Look at Adolf Hitler. (And don't you dare give me that shit about "nazi" beng an acronym or "National Socialist." Pol Pot's government billed itself as "Democratic Kampuchea," but no sane person would blame either small-d or big-D democrats for the crimes of the Khmer Rouge.) Nor am I the farthest of far-leftists. You want far-left? Joseph Stalin comes to mind. The point being, both Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler were ruthless censors, whereas in contrast we two congenial, tolerant moderates are not.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
I think it was a simultaneous moderation race condition.. They happen from time to time; check out the Hall of Fame to see the fellow with a +6 comment! In the past, when 'the management' has seen fit to remove comments they're modded down to at least -5.
.sig: Now legally binding!
And to make it worse, tonight FOX channel 17, the local channel in the Grand Rapids area, is running a terrible story about this.
I'm at work, so I won't get a chance to watch this myself (at 10:00 pm -- anyone else in the area try to catch it), but the teasers on earlier today began with, "Are your children SAFE from PORN on the internet??" in this boomy-doomy voice. It was so depressing; the main topic was the same old "we need filters to protect the kids" argument. No hint that filters don't work as promised, no acknowledgement that you have to look for porn online to see it.
This is getting to be a major nuisance, the major media misinterpretations of internet events. We should organize people to write knowledgable letters to the stations before this kind of thing goes out -- perhaps this is a pertinent thing for local LUGs to pursue. Anyone else want to help?
This is not about the internet. This is not about pornography, it is not about copyright, it is not about piracy, it is not about cryptography. It's about information control.
:-)
Information is power. The internet has an unfettered flow of information. Therefore the internet is the ultimate powerbase. </i>
These two statements conflict with each other. If power is control of information, and the internet is the ultimate powerbase, then the internet does not have an unfettered (i.e. uncontrolled) flow of information. Conversely, if the internet has an unfettered flow of information there are no controls and therefore no power. You can't have both.
Too often these sorts of discussions devolve into who controls what people see, hear, and/or read. I feel that this is a naive - or at least unrealistic - way of looking at things. There is no cabal of fundamentalist religious militia wackos controling the flow of information (nor is there a pinko commy dope-smoking hacker cabal, nor a... you get the idea) I would even go further, that in a society as large and complex as ours, there can be no such single group that controls all information.
The reality is that the audience is in control. Its a pull model, not a push model. If the majority of the audience wants to listen to falwell sermons, watch pro wrestling, monster truck tractor pulls, etc. <b> and they are willing to pay for it </b> then that is what they will get.
If what the audience (i.e. the consumers of information) wants is blocked by censorware then ultimately the censorware will be removed, whether by first ammendment means, or financial means (i.e. "my isp, BibleThumpers.com, blocks foobar, and i like to read/listen to/watch foobar every morning while reading the comics and eating Dunkin' Donuts before leaving for work, so i'm going to switch to Beelzebub.com which i heard doesn't have filters") or some other means.
All that must be done is to educate people that this is going on. Crusading against it is futile. Only the people can do anything about it, and they simply need to be informed that it is happening. Clandestine, underhanded erosion of our rights should not be tolerated. Censoring should go on only with the full knowledge of the censorees. (is that a reall word?
note to slashdot: html extrans seems to be broken
You're missing it. what you have are ethics (the principles you use to guide your own actions). Morals really are the principles that a society generally accepts as standard behavior. Morals are kind of a contract between you and the other members of your society (i won't kill you and you won't kill me and we both benefit).
They definitely exist, whether you choose to acknowledge them or not. But cross them at your own peril.
The problem arises when a minority group claims that its principles are moral (i.e. they apply to all of society) when they aren't in fact shared by the majority. Abortion is an obvious example - the majority feel that abortion under some circumstances is ok (the set of circumstances varies of course).
This sort of thing (draping yourself in the mantle of morality) seems to happen a lot more now than in the past. I don't know why.
virtually, you can't get anyone to fight fair. part of them will switch their defences on right the moment you open your mouth (respectively when they start reading you) and not listen at all. the other part will be so self-righteous that they will listen politely to you and then will go on just as before. people who will listen and hear and understand will be so scarce that you can consider them nonexistent. and there will be even less of them with time, as more and more people choose to filter and narrow their minds. my best guess is that the amount of people who will accept a fair fight will remain constant - not as a percentage but as a number.
Political correctness is a scourge on humanity. On the other hand, in some settings I can understand arguments for it. Since my feelings about it are obviously conflicted, I'll refrain from attempting an incoherent rebuttal.
Instead how about a:
Ya, you may be right (no pun intended).
The world would be a better place if everybody was thick skinned and understood that you don't have to read books/surf sites/go to movies that you don't like.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
I would agree with the statement that the right wing doesn't have the monopoly on dumb ideas. What I think prompted the original poster's statements was the fact that the major contributing factor behind filtering software adoption seems to be the right wing christian groups.
This is not to say that all conservatives are christian, or believe that censorship is acceptable. Merely a recognition of the "enemy".
It's an observable condition that most (not all, but most) attempts to restrict free speech in recent memory have originated from right wing groups.
The fact that the generalization is made to include all right wingers is consistent with the current prevailing opinion that many people follow one of the two mainstream ideologies. Alas, what I'd give for a political system that included more than two parties (realistically that is).
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
Wait. Are you saying it's hypocritical to assert that other people should not be able to impose their views upon me? That it is hypocritical to expect people to observe basic First Amendment freedoms of (religious) belief and of the press?
You can argue all you want about what morality is. Lao Tzu says morality is one of the stages in the degradation of true understanding into ritual. As such, morality in-and-of itself is to be feared. I'd rather not have any.
There's no vaccine for quick-and-dirty.
But even in this definition, they use the word "idea" almost interchangeably: "Ideas can evolve in a way analogous to biological evolution. Some ideas survive better than others; ideas can mutate through, for example, misunderstandings; and two ideas can recombine to produce a new idea involving elements of each parent idea."
--
Every time you use the word "meme" in your post, I could substitute the word "idea" and it means exactly the same thing. The one paragraph where perhaps it is a little more awkward is:
Some of the most powerful memes can be found in things that can't be described as ideas, football (soccer to those in the US) is a meme that has a life of its own and has spread around the globe pretty much unhindered.
But even then, I could say something like "football is an idea whose time has come" and people know what I'm talking about.
--
But we've always had the concept of "the spread of ideas", or "the conflict of ideas".
I suppose you could say that the study of how ideas are spread could be new, but I still don't see the need for a jargony word. I guess it helps sell books, though. :)
--
Meme: Introduced in Richard Dawkins: The Selfish Gene ( in a cursory manner ), explored in depth in Daniel Dennett's (sp) book 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea'. Two books everyone really should read. For a simple analogy that should resonate with the audience here: Meme is similar to Idea just as cout is similar to printf. Yet cout is not used by programmers simply so they can feel cool...
Censorship is always worse than what it is trying to censor. In a free society there can be no censorship, period. No exceptions whatsoever.
So there should be no censorship even of nazis. That does not imply that I embrace their ideology, just that I dont think our supposedly free society should lower itself to such fascistic measures - not even when supposedly trying to fight fascism.
/Dervak
Maybe this is true of all people, but Americans always seem to need an enemy to be happy. When the enemy is truly evil, like in WW2, it brings out the best of us. But when there's no external enemy, like the situation today, many of us turn in on ourselves. During the '80's, as I recall, the "enemies" were the "abusers", and every other TV movie featured an average guy who either sexually abused his 4-year old daughter, or habitually beat up his wife (who was always brave and noble). Nowadays, large minorities see the enemy as the abortionists, or the internet purveyors of porn who are out to corrupt our children.
I will come out now and say that everything in this comment is idealistical and probably never going to be one of general approval. As far as censureship is concerned, one can never, ever, force someone to censure themselves. For example, if a browser comes with a filter, there should be an easy way to turn it on and off. There should never be involuntary blocking of sites.
I will say that I would love to be able to run a search engine on some arbitrary topic and not pull up a site with questionable relevance. But there has got to be a better way to keep kids (I assume that this filter business has to do with kids in cyberspace) out of these sex web sites. Is it possible just to limit the access children have to the Internet? Perhaps the internet providers have logins and passwords? Have the computer in a room where kids can be supervised while they are surfing?
No matter how many times I see it, I cannot believe that people think that they can force other people to be good, moral, ethical, etc. It is just not something that can be done.
Ciao.
nahtahoj
"Cultural, not religious differences, are more likely the root of this animosity, I'd expect." Memes apply just as well to religious differences and cultural differences. Both religions/cultures venerate bodies of information that are mutually incompatible and have been for 1500 years. I'm not trying to blame either side - just state a fact. Saying "they should be able to coexist" is a bit of a red herring. They don't because of the set of memes that have become attached to the teachings.
-- SIGFPE
> If you really want to get anywhere with many of these people, you really need to accentuate the false negatives, not
> the false positives.
I think maybe it is futile, in that "these people" are willfully dumb. The filter in my office keeps me from seeing the Sports Illustrated, swimsuit edition. It lets through the soc.culture.bondage FAQ and the Amok Sensurround Edition sampler. I am not a porno officionado; to me this is hardcore stuff. If I found my teenager going through that when he/she was supposed to be doing their homework, or pursuing a wholesome hobby, I think I would pull the plug on their computer for a week.
It is transparently obvious to anybody with one half a brain that the concept of a content filter is illogical.
Bukvich
"Idea" and "meme" have the same meaning but different connotations. "Meme" is generally used to de-emphasize the importance of thinking and rationality. The hair style and pants/skirt length of teenagers are the classic examples of memes -- they are apparently random parameters of fashion whose spread can be easily seen. (Much to the dismay of the parents!)
I personally distrust this "m" word because it is so often used for anti-intellectual purposes. So for example, fashionable cultural studies types like to talk about memes because they don't believe in objective truth. In the extreme case, some of them argue that Newton's Laws are just an oppressive meme and ought to be replaced with something more liberating. Fortunately, most of them are (a little) more sensible than that.
The scientific weakness of this study of memes is that there is no rule for why they do or do not spread. Genes and natural selection are two great tastes that go well together, since creatures with bad genes die. But if a person has a really dumb idea and gets killed, (e.g., lies down in the middle of a two-way street) then whether it is imitated or not depends on whether they get on the evening news. And although we have made wonderful progress in the sciences in the last hundred years, the evening news is still beyond explanation.
In this article, you can see that the author has used the connotation of memes to imply that the opposition relies on a sort of brainwashing rather than a fair exchange of ideas. His intentions are good, but I think he should've left the memes out of it. The whole meme thing is why he says that "the battle over filters ... is just one of implanting the right ideas in enough people's minds." Or for example, his phrase "Memetic Warfare," doesn't pack as much punch translated into "War of Ideas." I guess the most accurate title he could have chosen is "Ideological Warfare." Anyway, you sure don't need to invoke memes to state his very legitimate complaint: the opposition is deliberately lying about the effectiveness of their so-called solution.
Anyway, if you actually want to read about the transmission of ideas, don't read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, since it's
Instead, read Bellwether by Connie Willis. It's a lot more fun, intelligent, and only costs half as much! And at least she can distinguish between ideas and fads.
The only way to combat misinformation is to trumpet the facts - over and over and over again - until the non-sheep of the world clue in to the fact that the 'decency' organizations are no more than propaganda machines. I have yet to understand why the fundamentalist right - and their allies, "People for a Decent " - are tolerated merely because they cloak themselves in "Christianity". It has long been clear that the majority of these sects are Christian in name only; any objective review of their literature reveals that they seek political domination, not spiritual enlightenment. The Federal Government, when they try to distribute misinformation, is attacked immediately by the media, academia and anyone with a web site and an ax to grind. If turn this type of attention on those who would attempt to control the flow of information in an attempt to force their view of the world down their throat, they will drown in their own lies. And why are these organizations allowed tax exemptions anyway?
It seems that most people do make the mistake of interpereting censorship issues like this based on the 'freedom of the press' sevtion of the First Amendment. And as the author of this article states, that doesn't apply.
However, the first amendment still applies: "Congress shall make no law respecting [the] right of the people peaceably to assemble." The two clauses work together: the press may publish in freedom, and the people may read in freedom. It's on this basis that censorware abrogates our freedoms: it keeps the people from assembling peaceably.
The scary thing is that, in their own twisted moron way, they are correct; intellectualism and fundamentalism are mutually exclusive. Their religion relies on an uninformed lay community. This wouldn't mean anything if it wasn't for their creed of proslytization. As Ambrose Bierce said "christians believe that their religion is the only fit and proper way for their neighbors to live".
What truly stuns me is the lack of backlash from traditional christian denominations. Catholicism and the major protestan churches are letting these people dictate morality to them, even though their interpretation of the bible contradicts theirs.
Filtering software is the latest and greatest means of enforcing these religous nutsoid's idea of 'decency'. And yet again they couch it in terms of religion, and since the traditional religions have forfeited any input into public morality to the fundamentalists many uninformed (just how they like it) consumers will think that the moral stance of these filtering products match their own traditional ideals. Encrypted block lists will ensure their continuing ignorance of the fact that they are being limited to Pat Robertson's idea of propriarty which is by no means the same as mainstream christanity's.
I'm with ya Signal, we must fight these screwheads before they ruin another generation.
-=RR=-
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
at this point in time, it's not so much about access to the information as it is the ability to find and process it. therein lies the true power.
And actually, we still don't have fast ethernet in the dorms.
I'm going to live forever or die trying.
All the guy said was that the library wasn't in the country called Holland. He never asserted that there was a country called Holland or that this supposed place was in Western Europe. It was You who made the confusion with the Netherlands.
btw. is it called "The Netherlands" in Dutch?
Do you call France "Francais"?
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I happen to like kittie porn... Does this mean that all my cats now have to wear clothes?
--
--
It's not the rambling I object to, so much as the mumbled incoherancies...
"However, one of the fundamental conservate tenets is freedom from government, which is diametrically opposed to supporting the denial of someone's freedom of speech."
That sounds more like a Libertarian viewpoint to me. I think we can all recall various Republican attempts to invade our bedrooms....
We are moving into an information based economy, and as many of the posters have mentioned information is power. The established media has realized this and wishes to retain their established position in this devloping market, and should censorware be installed by every ISP, library, home, school, and other point of access then any violence, shocking, disturbing, or interesting news would eventually be blocked requiring you to acquire the information from a more traditional source. Encylopedia publishers are probably for this since their products would again see an increased demand by schools and libraries since those valued sources of income are nolonger purchasing thier products in the quantities they once were since the internet acts as a giant encylopedia and/or library. This is based on my own observations, and I may/could/probably be wrong, But if I am would someone please correct me?
Did I miss something?
What on earth does "meme" mean??
Was there a slashdot article I missed explaining it, or are we just expected to know?
Devilled Eggs - A disturbing little creation of mine.
All information has to be opensourced. Your absolutely right, information is power and that is why there is such a struggle for it. As usual evil men/women trying to control the world. I think technology is going to be the catalyst in this revolution though, not the people.
The big corporations will not give up their turf without a fight, that is to be expected. But eventually every person (the average Joe) is going to have the information they want at their fingertips via the technology that is quickly changing our world. No one can stop this, not even Bill Gates!
I wouldn't worry about the likes of the RIAA, in a few years they will disapear completely...
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
www.npsis.com
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
While the idea of accentuating 'missed' porn sites would certainly keep current software from being completely successful, it would only encourage the censorware makers to be far less restrained when deciding what to block. If we don't point out false negatives, these software makers have no incentive to 'protect' valid sites from being added to the blacklists, so long as they stop 100% of the porn. Then we will be even worse off where than we are now, with far more false positives than the 5% that current software blocks.
They don't work, anyway. As a sysadmin I ocasionally check the logs for the filtering software (Of course, I go around it, don't tell my employer ;) Every time I've seen someone try to find a porn site- he finds it. Sure, he gets any amount of blocked sites but, eventually, he gets one or two non-blocked ones. Also we continually have to adjust the policies to get around the false positives...
Censored Internet Access in Utah Public Schools and Libraries
Instead try something like
The Alarming Incompetence found in all Internet Censorship Software in use by Utah Public Schools and Libraries
Maybe less wordy and extreme :)
This way, pro-censorship propagander can't directly quote your research paper without tipping people off that they're not being shown the full picture (thus losing the truth menome). I imagine you wanted the paper to sound neutral and objective, a fair enough decision at the time, but hindsight suggests the loss may have been more than the gain.
My second suggestion is to pick a statistically valid subset of the pages let through and analyse them for pages that shouldn't have been let through (rather than look at all 53 million). Once you've done that by the books you can then do the whole process again using David Burt's standards and count pages that include a link to a PGP FAQ etc to see how useful censorware is.
1 in a million sites incorrectly blocked and 999999 immoral [by David Burt] sites let through for every wholesome one.
I wouldn't worry about it except for the fact that it's spreading as rapidly as it is; Orwellian thought propaganda never had such a good friend as this little meme.
when books are outlawed only outlaws will read books.
...vividly encapsulates that post-Watergate/pre-punk/coked-up moment when you could trust no one, least of all yourself.
Yes, "Jaimie" -- the original poster -- tends to overuse the word "meme" -- and use it incorrectly to boot.
As another poster pointed out, the word does not mean just a "group of words" -- as Jaimie seems to think it does -- nor does it mean simply "idea" -- as, again, Jaimie seems to think it does.
Jaimie's intentions are honorable but he/she is sorely miseducated about the meaning of the word "meme" and, as a result, sounds like a bizarre (albeit significantly less annoying) version of JonKatz.
*sigh*
While I think the fight against censorware is laudable, I don't understand the point of research and whatnot on it... It's pretty simple really. The more information is available, the better everyone's going to be able to sift out the truth, and that includes defining their own values. It's either that, or we just give up on each other... For a rather early summation of this argument, check out John Milton's Areopagitica: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Nook/3802/areo.html -Infosquawk
OoO
Please do not publish outside of
Interesting idea. But rather than simply throwing in the towel, how about doing it in a more directed way. Surely censorware can be cracked. Rather than infantile stuff like DOS and defacing web pages, how about "liberating" those points of control by disabling the censorware? In the same way, RIAA, DMCA, and UCITA may need similar tactics. The spread of the deCSS code is a good start. (But we as a community must take care NEVER to pirate a DVD, or we lose our whole argument on this one.) By the same token, to counter UCITA we need to add some sort of shrinkwrap-like addition to the GPL, so that our software gets the same "protection" as Microsoft's, but our ethics can remain unchanged. I also suspect we may need a new set of protocols so we can go back underground now that the old ones have been co-opted by DotCom and the ilk. Some way to get below the radar screen and keep information moving. What's "AUP"?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
You should go check out pcp.lanl.gov/MEMES.html
Here is part of a paper I wrote awhile back on memes and how changes in communication technologies effects their behavior:
Like living systems, memes compete with one another as well as form symbiotic relationships known in Meme Theory as co-memes. Co-memes usually exist as part of larger system known as a meme-complex. (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMLEX.html) These meme-complexes form the world view of individuals, which in turn define their cultural belief system. Essentially memes are the building blocks of thought and of culture. If the mind is viewed in the terms of a computer, memes are the programs which define how the computer operates.
For a meme to be successful it must spread itself to as many individuals as possible. Unlike genes which can only be spread vertically (from parent to offspring) memes can also be transmitted horizontally (from individual to individual). Memes are most efficiently spread horizontally using communications technology; thus the ability of memes to spread themselves is inherently linked with advancements in communications technology.
The memes which encode a motivation for their own propagation are the most likely to be spread resulting in a kind of non-organic evolution of meme-complexes. This memetic evolutionary process is accelerated as communications technology increases the rate and capacity of meme transmission.
Prior to Gutenburg's invention of the printing press and movable type, most memes were spread by word of mouth. Memes encoded in book form were rare and largely under the control of religious leaders. After Gutenburg's advancements the memes formerly under the control of religious leaders could be spread much more freely. This resulted in an acceleration in the rate of memetic evolution as well as the release of formerly controlled meme-complexes into the general population leading to a revolution of 15th century Europe.
Like genes, mutations can also occur in memes. A classic example is the children's game known as Telephone: Someone starts with a phrase which is whispered to one person who then whispers it to the person next to them until the phrase has been passed through everyone in the room. As the meme is whispered from person to person it is mutated through poor communication, individuals intentionally altering it, or by a variety of other causes. By the time the final person repeats the original meme back it has been mutated so many times it is no longer recognizable to it's originator. Meme Theory defines this mutation phenomena as memetic drift. Meme-complexes which encode resistance to memetic drift tend to be the most successful.
The advancement of communications technology typically increases the rate of memetic drift while advancements in information storage technology generally slows the rate of memetic drift. In the case of Gutenburg's break-through in book production both of these technologies were advanced resulting in a mixed effect. The increase in communication caused by mass produced books allowed memes encoded in the bible to infect more people, but without the strict control imposed by religious leaders those memes were transmitted more frequently and extensively making them more prone to mutations. These mutations resulted in a fragmentation of the christian meme-complex. At the same time, new memes transmitted through books post-Gutenburg were less likely to mutate than if they were spread verbally because of the advancement mass-produced books created in information storage capacity. It is only those memes encoded in books prior to the Gutenburg press that were most prone to increased mutation.
Like the immune and self-defense systems of complex living organisms, successful meme-complexes have similar mechanisms for defending themselves against competing memes. This self-defense mechanism in meme-complexes is encoded as what Meme Theory calls an immuno-meme. The immuno-meme operates by encoding how the meme-complex should behave towards new memes encountered by the host. (Grant, 1990 ). Memeticist Glenn Grant defines some common immuno-memes in his Memetic Lexicon:
Conservatism: Automatically resist all new memes.
Orthodoxy: Automatically reject all new memes. Science: Test new memes for theoretical consistency and(where applicable) empirical repeatability; continually re-assess old memes; accept schemes only conditionally, pending future re-assessment.
An excellent example of an immuno-meme encoded in text is Revelation 22:18-19:
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
This warning from God serves as the primary immuno-meme to protect the christianity meme-complex from infection by other memes while encoded in book form. Unfortunately this immuno-meme only works on those who accept that the Christian Bible is the word of God. This has resulted in many new memes infecting the christian meme-complex.
Advances in communications technology have allowed many smaller meme-complexes to evolve into a cohesive larger meme-complex. The development of push media has been primarily responsible. Push media can be seen as communications technology which allows communications in one direction and restricts communication in the other direction. Newspapers and books can, to some extent, be seen as push media. However, the first true push media form of communication was the radio. The radio allowed broadcasters to transmit memes to new hosts without risking those hosts transmitting their memes back. It allowed memes to be spread into the general population from the broadcasters and limited the ability of those in the general population to infect the broadcasters with new memes.
The most revolutionary advancement in push media has been the development of television. Television has become the ultimate tool for memetic infection. Primarily this is because meme transmission through television reaches so many people but also because that transmission is largely under the control of one large meme-complex. Television is so effective as a meme infection tool because, like all push media technologies, it only sends memes one way. Like radio the meme-complex being attacked by a meme through television has very limited abilities to counter-attack.
This has resulted in a huge disparity in the spread of meme-complexes which do have access to television as a distribution medium and those that do not.
The evolutionary principle "survival of the fittest" dictates that meme-complexes which don't use television to spread will become infected and be assimilated into the meme-complex which does use television for meme distribution. Because nearly every aspect of TV is under the control of large corporations virtually all meme-complexes in America and around the world have been exposed to their memes, most have been infected. While this has generally accelerated the rate of memetic evolution world wide it has also led to the emergence of a large meme-complex system, Corporate Globalism. The primary method used by the Corporate Globalism meme-complex to infect hosts using push media (television and radio) has been through commercials.
The most important new communications technology to be developed since the printing-press is the internet. It combines all previous methods of communication into one medium. Video, audio, images, and text can all be transmitted over the internet. And unlike television and radio transmission is not one-directional, anyone with access to the internet has the ability to both send and receive memes. The internet also increase the ability to store and access information. Memes can be encoded in a web page and sit dormant for a virtually indefinite amount of time, waiting to be accessed by anyone who stumbles across them. The internet is the ultimate tool for memetic evolution.
Communications over the internet, unlike through television, are not controlled by the Corporate Globalism meme-complex. This has resulted in many new memes infecting hosts of the Corporate Globalism meme-complex. The improved communications ability provided by the internet has allowed separate meme-complexes competitive to the Corporate Globalism meme-complex to evolve into new and larger meme-complexes as well as infect many new hosts. As access to the internet becomes more common, and television merges into the internet, these trends will continue to accelerate resulting in a single new meme-complex system competitive to the Corporate Globalism meme-complex.
A distinct parallel can be found between the effects of Gutenburg's inventions and the internet. In Gutenburg's era, society was dominated by a meme-complex based on the control and regulation of information. Gutenburg's printing press took that control away from that dominate meme-complex system, the power to spread information from books was released from their control. In the same way the Corporate Globalism meme-complex is built on the control and regulation of memes through television. As the internet takes away the power from the dominate meme-complex and gives it to anyone with access to the internet a revolution similar to that of 15th century Europe is beginning to occur globally.
It's not just about pr0n though. It's the whole censorship thing. For instance, if you allow access to Altavista, kiddies can get access to banned literature. At least I'm guessing it's banned in the Holland Library. Next thing you know, it's showing up in a plain brown wrapper at the unsuspecting parents' house.
Open access can also lead to open research into crime. It's not all pipe bombs. You can actually get pictorial details of RAPE.
There are some arguments to be made in favour of the censorware. For instance, suppose your aging and unindoctrinated grandmother accidentally enters www.whitehouse.com thinking she's checking on the president's latest bout of good work... She's in for a surprise. With NetNanny, CyberSitter, SurfWatch, or CyberPatrol in place, she won't be shocked into cardiac arrrest. (And if she does survive, she'll NEVER get rid of the annoying pop-up windows that show up when you try to close the browser.)
Personally, I'm against censorware in general, but there are arguments to be made for it. Perhaps what's needed is a new dot-xxx domain for outright pron sites... But then who'll decide what is or isn't classified as such...?
- - - -
Duh... I keep forgetting that most changes are brought about small groups of well organized people. I guess its just the fud of the way the era has been packaged. I think there might be a lesson for us here.
This just goes to show you how people bend numbers and statistics to show what they want you to see. For some reason, though, I don't understand how you can impose your morals (i.e., the stuff that librarian guy is doing) on everyone else. Just because you think the Offspring is an immoral band and their web page isn't appropriate doesn't mean I feel the same way. Also, cryptographic software needs to be censored? That makes no sense either. Since, last time I looked, PGP FAQs didn't have any porn or inappropriate language. I betcha more people would read them if they did. Anyway, this is always going to happen, and should just be expected. Long gone is the idea of "If you don't like it, don't look..." We are now in the age of "If I don't like it, you can't do it." "Back off your rules, back off your jive.. Cause I'm sick of not living, to stay alive..." -- Offspring, "All I want"
>What makes you say this? From what I know of the two religions (I'm neither, thanks) they should be
>able to coexist peacefully without too much trouble if both sides are willing to live up to the teachings.
He means logically incompatible. Each of those religions forms a logically consistent belief system (more or less). No teaching directly contradicts any other teaching in the religion. However the two religions contradict each other on certain points, so logically you could not simultaneously believe in both.
The scientific weakness of this study of memes is that there is no rule for why they do or do not spread. Genes and natural selection are two great tastes that go well together, since creatures with bad genes die. But if a person has a really dumb idea and gets killed, (e.g., lies down in the middle of a two-way street) then whether it is imitated or not depends on whether they get on the evening news.
All you're showing here is that memes and memetic evolution are orthogonal to genes and genetic evolution. It's true though that the mechanism behind memetic selection is not as well defined as that for genetic selection.
We can only pray & hope that our principles are just enough. Ultimately, it requires a final leap of faith in which you say that you do beleive there is a Platonic ideal, and you do beleive in our ability to determine the outcome. Perhaps this leap is dangerous, but where would we be without it?
I think what is important is that we always remember to allow for thought and dissent (the human spirit, if you beleive Orwell) in our views. It should be a fundamental tenet of any such deterministic model that discussion, free will, and even dissent are valid and encourageable. Trusting anything else is akin to letting the pigs run Animal Farm -- since they are, after all, smarter!
Some may interpret these as sacriligious, challenging God. (These people would also be likening Him to a pig, but nevermind). I am, as it happens, religious. I have a question for these people: But should not the appeals of the Divine, be able stand on their own to legs? (without *petty* human attempts to *unfairly* and *criminally* bias discussion. Criminal, I say, as ANY attempt to bias discussion must necessarily be).
Reminds me of John the Baptist's rather famous laissez-faire comments...
He who fights and runs away,
NO! My .SIG IS NOT WHAT JOHN SAID! (I was thinking of the idea "if it is of God, it will succeed. If not, not" Of course, the jury's still out on that one...)
He who fights and runs away,
No, not really. (What did you think I was going to say? ;-). Besides, you're the one makeing appeals to "[oh] my god" ;-)
I think you missed my point -- I'm really trying to point something out to the fanatics out there, although that may be a lost cause. My point is that the "word of God", (or gods, if you beleive in certain forms of Hinduism, I think) should not *have* to enter into a discussion. If God's so great do his arguments really need censorship to help him allong?
**Appeals of the divine? These are human issues.
And there are some who beleive that the arguments of their particular divinity enter into *every* question of life, even the "human" ones.
I admit, in retrospect, that my rhetoric was strong, but I was really just trying, in a rather akward way, to make a point which is not so far off from your own: Intolerance (religious or otherwise) is *BAD*.
Really, don't just grep for "Criminal" and "Divine" (wit' the capital 'D'), think about the thrust of my argument!
________________________________
He who fights and runs away,
I don't believe that it's solely a matter of control. On a lot of levels, control may be the issue. Parents want control over what their children see, librarians want control over what is viewed in the library, the government wants control over what the public is made aware of, etcetera. This desire for ultimate control comes from the urge for safety. Parents want their children to be safe, librarians want to keep their libraries safe, the government wants to keep the internet safe for the people to look at without finding information that is deemed unsafe by them. How is it determined what's safe and what's not? They were told by somebody else.
Control might not be nearly as much of an issue if the people who were in control were educated as to exactly what they were controlling, and this is where memetics figures into it. We live in a society were a large amount of information is spread through non-specific idiot-proof memes, like "our software makes a mistake only one-in-a-million times" rather than accurate analyzations of research and study. Broad sweeping statements that appeal to the ignorance of the masses are easier to swallow than cold hard facts, so people end up spreading their ignorance on the subject like some sort of chain letter.
We need to find a better way to educate people as to what's really going on. Find a way to actually let the accept the facts, rather than what their next-door neighbor told them in passing.
As a result, cultural barriers collapsed, people started judging by ideas instead of the color of your skin or your age...
When you judge a person by their ideas, you are comparing your ideas to your own. This isn't an inherantly bad thing, that's why these message boards exist. For the comparison, discussion, and evolution of the ideas inside of our heads. The problem is when people make irrational judgements about other people's ideas, and are unwilling to let the ideas in their own head change as new information is presented to them.
Essentially what I'm saying is that the urge for control would be much less a problem if the people who were attempting to gain that control were really educated as to what's going on. I'm not entirely sure how to do that, but just using broad memes with opposite opinions seems equally ignorant. Maybe our entire culture needs to revamp the way we learn things and distribute information?
sircase
Memetics are fun.
Aaah! Your big ideas scare me...
Hide me from the rain.
What are we protecting children from? Sex?
You really think kids don't get into sex? What is bad about sex, anyways? No. Not the right approach. Censorship just stuffs the problems under the carpet where adults can preted they don't see them. I agree 100% that kiddie porn and snuff movies etc should be banned and fought against. No question.
However. Where do you draw the line? This vilification of sex is just rediculous. Rape isn't caused by porn. Its caused by sad, sick, repressed individuals. Banning porn isn't going to change that. A kid who knows about sex isn't going to go out and impregnate the girl next door, the one that isn't educated about the facts of life will, tho. Its not like they both don't realise they have a schlong down there.
For all its libertarianism, the US is the most prude and sexually repressed country I have been in. As if hiding sex will make it go away. And in the meantime, the US porn industry cranks out new flicks for the 'perverted' masses so they can wind up their faltering imagination and break out of the repression. Sad fact that the more you try and hide something and keep away from your kids, the more appealing it becomes. Hitler wasn't allowed to play with war toys.
So have sex. Enjoy it. Bathe topless or nude on public beaches. It's natural. And quit trying to make eroticism into a crime. Spend more time with your kids, educating and protecting them, rather than trying to allieve your personal guilt that you can't by stiftling them.
Children need danger and excitement, and by hiding everything that might harm them, you force them to find new ways to get the kick. What better way to lose them or warp them? No, instead why not let them face the danger and exitement that you know and can be prepared for, and help them and protect them?
The dutch have a very different system, not without problems, but they are far ahead of us in some ways. Maybe we should quit hiding up our arses and cut the liberty and personal freedom crap and start working on it?
*sigh*
No chance.
Those who strive to change the world
According to their desire
Cannot succeed.
Huh? Why wasn't I told about this private resolution? From my sister, I get lots of jokes forwarded to me, which I'd seen 4-5 years earlier. From my parents, I get them sending me links about how catholicism is the religion, as the attempt to win me back into the fold. My uncle got a computer, likely as a result of seeing the news specials about how one could get lots of porn, and occaisionally forwards me a joke that my sister forwarded me a year ago.
Perhaps it is just the rest of my family who are mutants. Perhaps the actual Joe Sixpack and his family are logging onto the internet, and are inexhaustively searching for new ideas to discuss/think about, instead of logging onto coke.com to view the latest and greatest coke commercial.
Personally, I think that the average person is ruled by apathy and a sense of "protect the children." Thinking is hard work, and after coming home from a 9-5 job, most just want to "unwind." To the average person, the internet is just a new version of the newspaper and tv.
The only boundary that I think the internet might help expand for some, is their ideas about sexuality. This might happen because suddenly text and pictures which one would have had to buy at an adult book store, and hide in your sock drawer are suddenly easy to get to (and yes, not all of it (nor even most) is educational, but there is educational material out there).
However, because of the way they get access to such information (so that's what the clitoris is, thanks southpark), it might actually narrow what they are willing to discuss in public/private with their partner. They might go to sexuality.org and find out how to possibly please their spouse/SO better, but they might not use it. After all, this knowledge was found on a website which has dirty pictures, and all human sexuality is bad. While the reader can have easy access to such information, many are going to still feel like they are sneaking around. Doing something bad.
Why do they feel they are doing something bad? Because Joe and Jane Sixpack have fallen victim to the meme that some information is bad. And with the Sixpack's browsing habits, they are unlikely to come across a meme which doesn't think that some information should be taboo. And even if they did, would the new meme actually be strong enough to replace something that's been around for 10+ years?
No, instead the computer with internet access is now just a different TV, where people only visit msnbc.com, and the new idea is still something frowned upon, and everyone is a big time victim of NIMBY syndrome (Not In My Back Yard).
Perhaps this might change with the children, if they start looking around for stuff to read while still young and curious, but then we come across to the censors who will pull any tricks they can in their war to "save the children."
Because the average american doesn't care if you take away a freedom, so long as it's not one that they use. Most people don't look at porn on public library computers, so they don't care.
Sadly enough, I was like this too. I remember being in highschool, and the school was imposing a rule against wearing hats, or jackets because they might be "gang symbols" gangs? in the suburbs? what the fuck ever. Anyways, I didn't sign the petition against this rule, I figured why bother? Neither I, nor any of my friends, wore jackets nor hats, so it didn't effect me.
I might have grown up a bit since then, but I think a lot of the people who live in the u.s. think like I thought in highschool. Which explains the general atrophy of freedoms.
These arguments are based on protecting the children, right? So the solution is obvious: 1) In the children's section of the library, install filters on the browsers. Filter away. 2) In the grownup's section of the library, keep kids away from the unfiltered browsers. Simple, really
Would it be unreasonable to bring a libel lawsuit to bear on David Burt, for his damage to you? That could get your meme out; as opposed to you asking each 'family' group who doesn't want to have their most convincing numbers attacked.
Furthermore, these 'family' groups attributing totally ficticious statements to your name. Doesn't that violate fair use? I mean, satire publications (dead tree and web) are routinely brought into court, where their rights are held up <i>on the basis that they are presenting satire, not fact.</i> Attempting to pass fiction off as fact would be libel. And that's ammo.
"Resnet. Because you can't masturbate in the public clusters."
The posters had a screenshot of a newsreader showing a list of some of the nastier pron newsgroups....
Everyone hears about the $600 hammer (The versions I've heard have all ben $600, not $400, but it doesn't matter), and $1000 toilet seats. Those stories all miss the rest of the picture: when a detailed study is done the govermetn did not pay too much.
That hammer was missing from a tool kit used in explosive enviroments. Therefore the hammer had to not react with the chemicals used, and it could not cause a spark when used! Normal iron doesn't qualify, and the metal they used really is exepnsive enough to justify the hammer being sold for $600. You cannot go to your local hardware store and buy this hammer off the shelf. You might find one that can order one, but you too will pay $600 for it. (probably more, after inflation)
Likewise the $1000 toilet seat is not a normal $20 hardware store model. It was destined to go in the space shuttle, and had to deal with zero g. Those with dirty minds might enjoy figguring out all the things that can go wrong, but I prefer not to go down that path.
I'll agree that goverment spends too much money, but the problem is too many programs, not waste in the accual spending. Many CEOs have discovered that after laying off 1000 people in a year they have exactly the same number of people on the payroll - they didn't cut any projects, and the projects needed to be staffed, so they had to hire that many back. The goverment needs to cut some projects. However now you get into old people who say "Yeah, cut welfare as I don't use it, but keep the FDA so that the medican I need is safe." To which the kid who made a mistake and now has to raise a kid without a good education responds "Cut that FDA, medican is safe enoguh and I don't use any, but keep welfare because I'll need it for anouther year before I can make it on my own." And so on.
This whole meme flap is just silly. The gist of it, that the objective of the battle is to infect enough minds with the idea by voting day, is quite correct. But really the whole issue boils down to a lot of technologically unsophisticated people (the majority of the voters) being caught in a tug of war between the right-wingers and the people who oppose them. It all boils down to who can put more wool over whose eyes, and who can be the most convincing. That's it. There are no ideas wandering around infecting minds or any such nonsense. It's all just a battle of propaganda.
To answer another post, yeah, using "meme" instead of "idea" is just a way to sound l33t.
That's not new, and it's not very different from an idea.
However, it is an idea put forth by my favorite movie: Pump Up The Volume. The truth is like a virus, because it spreads...
"I like the idea that a voice can just go somewhere uninvited and just kind of hang out like a dirty thought in a nice clean mind.Maybe a thought is like a virus. You know, it can just kill all the healthy thoughts and just take over. That would be serious."
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Civil disobedience only works when the "general populace" can see this taking place, and demand action...
If the flow of information is controlled, no-one will ever know that you were "civially disobedient", and the security police will drag you off never to be heard from again...
This sig left unintentionally blank.
An 'intranet' is a network between computers within the same organization, internet a network between organizations. The way you can manage and publish for the two are vastly different.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
None of this "meme" stuff - at least in this article - is new. All of it was common knowlege 50 years the first time an adman came up with the words "4 out of 5 dentists agree."
Memes as a metaphor for human cultural behaviour is interesting, and possibly useful, but not to be taken too seriously. The art and science of good PR incorporates most of the real insights I've seen coming out of memeologists.
As for attacking censorware, let me express my support, my thanks and my encouragement. A good lie can go around the world while the truth is still getting out of bed, so those who have the truth on their side still have to work extra hard despite what ought to be an advantage.
Geez, I thought I had seen the last of David Burt -- I was a long-time member of a library mailing list (web4lib), the very same place David Burt first started rearing his ugly head. David took it upon himself to promote censorware as the One True Way to save "children" (although he made no allowances for adult-access only library terminals) from the scourge of Internet porn. I had to leave the list because it had basically turned into David Burt's soapbox, even though just about everyone else there couldn't stand him either.
David Burt should turn in his MLS degree -- he doesn't deserve to have the title "Librarian" being as he is dedicated to the blocking of information.
adr
What a load of BS.
See, that's what I was talking about in a lower-numbered thread. Censorship is OK to some people, as long as they disapprove of the groups being censored... much as AC wants to censor the Christians he disagrees with by marginalizing them and their beliefs.
Once again, I assert that the right-wing and Christians hold no monopoly on fanatacism and hypocrisy.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I have repeatedly found that you can't get action you want to prevent a disaster until after it's happened the first time. Perhaps we have to take a break from fighting the memes and initiate a bunch of legal-system DDoS attacks?
I'm no lawyer, but can't most of these wrongly blocked sites sue for defamation/libel?
There's damage to the reputation (calling them a pr0n/hate/criminal site when they aren't) and probably monetary damages as well (by blocking access to their web site).
One or two class-action lawsuits would probably make these filter programs go away, or at least wise-up and be more careful about what they filter.
I can just see the filter companies filing countersuits though... "Our blocklists are encrypted. If they know that they are on our blocklists then that encryption must have been bypassed, in violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act." Ugh!!!
We're allready there. Do it their way or don't do it. Of course your thoughts are owned by someone. But that's not you.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
In the short term, your proposal is likely to be successful. However, arguing this point shoots past the real problem entirely.
If vendors of censorware programs receive negative press because they've failed to block some material that "should" be blocked, then they're going to do the logical, responsible thing (from their business's point of view): they're going to expand their filters so that they block more material.
And the censorware advocates will argue that blocking some of it is better than blocking none of it.
The only way to effectively defeat the censorware movement is by raising awareness of how efforts to "protect" children are in fact cutting off their access to legitimate--perhaps even essential--information resources.
Meme is also an example of a meme =)
Until the term was coined, idea was one of the words used to characterize the concept of a meme. However, ideas are also used to describe the solutions to problems, far fetched concepts, and other things. In a way, the word is an overloaded operator, and to encapsulate a specific concept into a precise term with a defined context, we use the word meme.
The idea(more overuse of the word) that thoughts can infect and spread virally is associated with memes.
In the same way, in the near future, we may need another term to denote free software vs open source free software vs open source non-free software. Or maybe not.
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
"The first thing he did was ignore all the bad blocks we'd found that he thought were perfectly appropriate. "
I find this quote quite chilling although accurate. Why do these people feel they have a right to decide what is appropriate, and why doesn't anyone stop them from enforcing it on others?
How did these people get so bold?
--- If you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question.
...is often what's good for the meme.
Will the "fight fair" meme become popular in the long run? I hope so. But the way I see it, that will only happen if it is more successful at reproducing than its alternative: "fight dirty." In the long run, it doesn't matter what's right, or what's good, or what benefits us humans the most. The memes just spread because they're good at spreading.
So to some extent it does matter what benefits us humans most. Because with very few exceptions, memes need humans in order to spread. Lethal memes, like lethal viruses, kill off their hosts. If you kill your host, who's going to replicate you? This of course does not entirely eliminate deleterious memes. Lethal ones will continue to appear, but they will rise to prominence quickly, and fade even faster as their hosts die out. F'rinstance, the heaven's Gate cult. Not a lot of people propagating that meme anymore. Over the long term, memes that are neutral wrt their hosts - or even beneficial - will tend to persist longer than their deleterious counterparts.
It's useful because it associates ideas explicitly with their evolution as reproducing entities in the human brain environment. You could just substitute a cumbersome phrase such as "ideas which are encapsulated units and are understood to proliferate differentially due to their having "hooks" that facilitate this", but "meme" is a lot shorter. So I don't think it's fair to say that it's to be an 3l33t d4rw1n br41n h4x0r. I don't know that I agree that the 1/million is really a meme though, it seems more like this is just an epiphenomenon of the censorship meme.
Yet again a highly readable article from Jamie. I'm really enjoying this new aspect of /. There is an interesting perspective on memes from Susan Blackmore in Skeptic Vol.5 No.2 entitled "The Power of the Meme Meme", pg.43 1997 which might be interesting for those into this stuff.
--Crush
When I first began the discussion, I was not even really sure that memetics was the right thing to call this popularly-held concept of what we are talking about here: censorship and the filtering of ideas, knowledge, and programming.
Now I am not so sure.
We have not discussed censorship very much (if you would like to start a thread, be my guest) but we have discussed the power of the word and the responsibility to it we must have (or not have), and we have realized that the power of the meme comes with both was is transmitted and what is not.
The power is both in the transmission as well as the restriction of the idea. The barring, filtering, or censuring of the idea is as powerful as is the sharing.
We have steadily realised that it is possible to kill a meme but it is not easy -- and in just the same way that a man's singleminded desire to become immortal through his memory can backfire and result in a self-destruct, the attempt to kill a meme -- idea, image, or the PoMo text -- can result in a more virulent idea altogether!
-- memoid
Remember, "It's for the children" and "If it saves just one life".
It doesn't use the term "meme" because it was published in 1943.
The hacker ethic is antitheical to this New World Order of information control... this is the
:)
real war - it's not one of politics or <b>mimes</b>.</em>
Damn straight, those mimes are even more annoying than politicians.
That's a nice manafesto you've got going, but I'm left wondering which "hacker ethic" you're referring to. Is it the free sharing of information, or the "liberation" of secret or proprietary information?
Of course, after this DeCSS fiasco, I'm no so sure there's much of a difference anymore. When a collection of facts can become property, when encryption can destroy fair use rights, and when stupid ideas like UCITA are passed unaminously because politicians are in the pockets of big corporations, a great deal of civil disobedience may be the only option. I'm just afaid it will lead the world into something like some cyberpunk novel, where you're either a corporate shill or a criminal.
Remember, it's not the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press that applies to the states here, it's the Fourteenth amendment's guarantee of (substantive) due process in abridging liberty. While the freedom to publish ideas is certainly incorporated into that protected "liberty", there's no reason why the freedom to read those ideas should not also be incorporated.
And if it weren't for the Slaughterhouse Cases back in 1873, we could try to get them under the "privileges and immunities" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also. Bloody conservative reconstructionist court.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Nice Libertarian, *ahem*, analysis there, Jim. Wow, would I have loved to be hearing things like that years ago, when I first set out to oppose censorware. ...
You were, Seth, and one needn't be a libertarian (or a Libertarian) to follow the money (thanks for the links). Years ago, silly me, I had hoped that in the diversity of censorware offerings there'd be one -- just one -- "filtering software company" that:
1. Tried to be at least somewhat-honest about the impossibility of doing their task perfectly, and
2. Marketed to misguided parents, instead of to misguided governments.
Obviously, my hopes were not fulfilled, I was not 100% supportive of your ideas (funny how calling other people "stupid" makes 'em tend to behave that way) and you were right (how many times must it be said?) that ALL censorware companies are 100% venal. As for anyone from my part of the idea-spectrum advocating TAX money to put this crap in libraries (or anywhere else) I don't recall it ever happening. Indeed, I recall (over and over) quite the opposite. Just because idiocy & evil can't be stopped doesn't change my position regarding unwilling subsidies for them out of either of our pockets.
Anyway, at this point the government's appointed regulators of speech are too busy chasing ad puffery ("Better Ingredients, Better Pizza" is now dangerous speech!) to bother with the outright LIES exposed by the Censorware Project. I quit politics, so I won't even try to dole out blame for this unsavory turn of events -- people can (follow that money) figure it out for themselves. Let's not make this another flamewar, I think (for once) that we vehemently agree.
JMR
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
(Jamie won't be surprised to see me saying this, but) folks, follow the MONEY!!
These people can't sell their crappy software to "families," because it DOESN'T work. (They even have to lie when they say that URLs are checked by a human, among their other lies, I'd link to the report, but it appears censorware.org is slashdotted.) The FRC's point, their battle to win since they've lost out in the "real" marketplace is to sell this crap to politicians! You know, the creatures "stupid" enough to buy $400+ hammers and toilet seats because it's YOUR money but THEIR buddies skimming the loot!
This is all about spending your tax dollars to LIMIT content and information in libraries, and the dishonesty of Burt & company is astounding. There is a big danger with secret blacklists that the content censored will be political content, thus feeding back into the infinite corruption-loop. These are tax-&-spend CENSORS who want to electronically "burn" books with OUR money! It's entirely unacceptable from either an economic or first amendment POV, and must be stopped.
JMR
PS, Jamie, it would not have been a low blow to describe Burt's "retirement" here, also.
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
The answer to this is trivial. Take the battle into their own meme-space.
Listen to me brothers, this person is doing Satan's evil work! He takes the results of hard, clean labor and twists it for his own evil ends. Take that site which discusses PGP cryptology. Now don't you think Satan may want to prevent people of good faith from communicating out of the sight of his minions? (The Lord always sees what Satan's little helpers are up to, of course.) What other sites does Satan want banned... sites that we might also find objectionable until the Lord gives us the sight to see the real reason why they strike fear into Satan's dark soul?
And what about these people who claim to be doing the Lord's work while speaking with forked tongues? Brothers and sisters, have you ever heard of *anyone* being lead to the truth by a lie? These people might not even realize how they are doing the work of the Great Deceiver in these petty lies, but we all know how the road to Hell is paved by good intentions... and how easy it is to find ourself on that dark road if we don't commit to a life of integrity in the service of our Lord.
Brothers, let me close with a single observation. These filters have blocked the Good Book. Oh, that block was removed once the error was pointed out, but it took a lot of hard effort to find that error. Who gains by the widespread adoption of software that blocks the Bible, even "in error"?
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
These kinds of battles, ideaological ones, can never be fair. We live in a world that is measured in "mindshare" so when it comes down to a battle of ideas on what is "right" and what is "wrong" fairness doesn't begin to be included into the equation. Those who are waging the battle, fighting the ideaological wars, don't want to get bogged down in complicated ideas like fairness. They want only one thing: The win. We need to remember that history is written by the victors. When, and if, censorware and censorship in general get worked out to any kind of conclusion the side that has won is going to be saying what they will about the side that loss. For the good or ill what is considered fair will take place at that point and not before.
Here's an idea, why doesn't someone put up an explicitly illustrated bible web page, and wait unitl it gets blocked by the censorware. Then you can make then out to be godless commies, or something.
Here's a few freebies, you'll have to find the pics, though:
How beautiful your sandaled feet, O prince's daughter! Your graceful legs are like jewels, the work of a craftsman's hands.
2
Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine. Your waist is a mound of wheat encircled by lilies.
3
Your breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle.
4
Your neck is like an ivory tower. Your eyes are the pools of Heshbon by the gate of Bath Rabbim. Your nose is like the tower of Lebanon looking toward Damascus.
5
Your head crowns you like Mount Carmel. Your hair is like royal tapestry; the king is held captive by its tresses.
6
How beautiful you are and how pleasing, O love, with your delights!
7
Your stature is like that of the palm, and your breasts like clusters of fruit.
8
I said, "I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its fruit." May your breasts be like the clusters of the vine, the fragrance of your breath like apples,
9
and your mouth like the best wine. May the wine go straight to my lover, flowing gently over lips and teeth. [1]
10
I belong to my lover, and his desire is for me.
and for the pervs out there:
Judges 19:24-29 "Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light. And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place. And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel."
Thanks mostly to the XXX-rated Bible.
George
Maybe it's a case of o/~onward Christian moderator, marching as to waro/~ after all he's just simplifying what the article is pointing out, that the Christian Right are the dishonest, corrupt bad guys in this case... hey, I got moderated down once for saying much the same thing.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
I accept the above as proven fact, and this makes the fundies a dangerous cult in which men are the true gods of the cult. One day, those men may say "kill the heathens" to the followers of the cult, and if the followers are as sheeplike as they seem, they'll do it.
Because of this, I'm not sure exactly what creating propaganda which works on them will do. Sure, the followers might catch on to "Filterware isn't about protecting the children. It's a scam that can never work. The companies that write it and sell it are lying to you" However, the leadership will come back with "We say that isn't so, if you doubt us, you are doubting God's word. Dare you risk eternal damnation?"
You see at this point I don't see the fundies, I mean the followers, as much more than glazed-eyes zombie cultists. I don't think they think for themselves, and I don't think they want to.
In my opinion, we can't convince the fundies of anything, we have to hope that there are more normal people out there than cultists, or everything is lost anyway and it's time to move to a bunker. So, in my opinion, pointing out that the Offspring's site is blocked might be helpful to getting normal people (you know the one's who send their kids out "trick or treating" on Halloween because they don't think it is some kind of Satanic ritual. Note the large selection of Halloween costumes in Walmart near Halloween, I think it's safe to say that the majority of people are still letting their kids get dressed up.) see that this is the behaviour of the extreme, radical, "Carrie's Mom," Right. Actually, it would be really great if we could find sites about the Beetles or the Rolling Stones that are blocked... since we are trying to convince older people (a.k.a. voters, older people are more reliable voters.) that these people are nuts. People tend to get emotionally attached to the bands they listened to in there youth, but are not necessarily up to speed on more modern music... and may even ascribe sinsiter influences to it..
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Catholics who think about religion as a political issue care about only one issue, abortion, really. This type will ask "Is Wildmon anti-abortion?" "Yes." "Then he must be OK." (Ok, I'll admit not all politically active Catholics are like that, but most of the ones I know are willing to ally with the fundamentalists primarily because of this one issue. It's rare I can feel pride in my priests any more, though I did recently when one of them spoke out against all the Halloween bashing that goes on amongst fundamentalists. That sort of thing doesn't happen as often as it should, though.) Catholics who don't follow the church on abortion or other issues don't have a voice, politically, inside the Catholic Church, so they won't influence the decisions of the Catholic Church.
So, I believe that in supporting these people, the Catholic Church is participating in its own destruction but I doubt very much I could convince my priest of that.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
I have no problem with morality, I believe in morality, and will indeed attempt to convince people that my morality is correct.
And according to my morality, these people are evil. According to my morality, these people are trying to take away people's free will (dare I say God-given free will?) and replace it with fear of a government imposed set of rules that have everything to do with giving the FRC power and nothing to do with morality.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
I first came across meme in Richard Dawkins "The Selfish Gene", where he equates the meme with the gene (they rhyme so it must be good :-).
The gene can be made up of many building blocks in different forms, the meme can be a single idea or often a collection of ideas and the way in which those ideas develop.
Powerful Memes can be concepts like "free speach" or equally things like racism and supposed racial superiority, they cover a broader space than the english word idea. A meme seeks to breed and multiply and adapt to its surroundings.
Some of the most powerful memes can be found in things that can't be described as ideas, football (soccer to those in the US) is a meme that has a life of its own and has spread around the globe pretty much unhindered.
An idea can be a meme or could be a part of a meme, but a meme doesn't have to be an idea.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
"Jamie needs to stop mocking the voters in his town and start listening to them."
I have to agree here. You can't tell someone they're an idiot for what they believe and then expect them to listen to you while you try to persaude them that they are wrong.
I had to wince when I saw Jamie on TV8 (WOODTV, a local station). I'm anti-filter and yet Jamie seemed like a radical loonie from the clips that TV8 showed. I thought when I saw it, "he's not doing any good for the cause".
I understand Jamie's passion for the cause. I just hope he can tone it down to a level that might work in Holland MI. Don't slap the people you need to reach out to.
And being a Holland-er all my life I can say that words like "memes" scare a lot of Holland folk. Words like "protect your children" don't.
If you really want to get anywhere with many of these people, you really need to accentuate the false negatives, not the false positives. Most of these censor types will excuse false negatives just as that guy did. Either they'll figure out some reason why it is ok, or imply that it is worth it to mistakenly block a few sites to "save the children". Since most people only half listen to the real arguments, they'll just come away confused.
Instead, accentuate examples of offensive porn that wasn't blocked. Do this even if you don't think porn is bad. The reason is that it undercuts their whole argument. If you can show that censorware will never effectively block porn in the real world, there ceases to be any purpose for censorware and you don't even have to get into an argument about what is "offensive", and whether people have the right to look at offensive stuff. It will be hard for censorware types to respond to this other than to say "the next version will work". Harp on this enough, and people will start to realize that it will never work.
Besides, "Censorware allows your children to see porn!" is a much catchier headline then "Censorware keeps your children from seeing 'The offspring'". It'll make the evening news much more often.
So if I were you, I'd start searching that mass of unblocked data for porn sites. If you can show that a significant percentage of porn is not blocked, you'll win the argument.
The cake is a pie
Essentially what I'm saying is that the urge for control would be much less a problem if the people who were attempting to gain that control were really educated as to what's going on.
It's possible, though, that if these people knew what was really going on, they'd gain a sense of personal responsibility, and they'd lose the urge to gain control of other people. So essentially what I'm saying is, if they weren't ignorant, they wouldn't be the people they are in the first place.
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
Sure, we've known ideas spread and change for eons longer than we've known about evolution. Dawkins used the term 'meme' much in the same way he used the term 'animal-space' in his later books; it was a convenient vehicle to make people think of a particular aspect of the thing. 'Animal-space' means an organized three-dimensional set of all lifeforms, and implies that one can draw a straight line between any two and predict by the length of the line how many mutations and how much time is needed for the transition. While 'meme' can be used interchangably with idea, he specifically used it to imply that it was the basic unit of cultural evolution, and the same set of laws that apply to physical evolution apply in the cultural sphere.
Again, merely splitting hairs over a connotation of the same thing, but, eh! Why the heck not!
.sig: Now legally binding!
The hair style and pants/skirt length of teenagers are the classic examples of memes -- they are apparently random parameters of fashion whose spread can be easily seen.
Thank you. That actually makes some amount of sense. You couldn't easily describe that phenomenon using "idea" or "concept".
Based on this, I agree that the author of the story's use of "meme" is gratuitous. "Memetic Warfare"? I think the other term for that is "propaganda". But that's far less l33t. :)
--
Just in passing, on the topic of money, I should note for the thread that Censorware Project (I was a cofounder, have since left) has never gotten a cent from anyone.
Following the library money:
Pro-filter group takes big money lead
Pro-filter factions win money battle
"Thanks to $35,000 gift from AFA, groups pushing for Internet filters have advantage"
I had to take an ethics class in college, and there I learned that morals regard what is (absolutely) right and wrong, and ethics regard a proper code of conduct in a given field (e.g. medical ethics, business ethics). However I think that "ethics" and "morals" as we define them often get confused, and I'm not sure that either my definition or yours is the "correct" one. This seems like one of those cases where everyone's definitions are a little different. I know what you mean, however, and I think you're right, mostly, although I don't think I'd call the common social contract "morals". But it's really just splitting hairs at that point.
Which words refer to what aside, as long as we agree that there are separate entities thus:
- Things that society in general agrees are right and wrong
- Things that you personally think are right and wrong
They definitely exist, whether you choose to acknowledge them or not. But cross them at your own peril.
No kidding :)
The problem arises when a minority group claims that its principles are moral (i.e. they apply to all of society) when they aren't in fact shared by the majority. Abortion is an obvious example - the majority feel that abortion under some circumstances is ok (the set of circumstances varies of course).
This sort of thing (draping yourself in the mantle of morality) seems to happen a lot more now than in the past. I don't know why.
From what I can tell of history, people have always done this. There's just more people now. :) It sort of became more visible in the 90's because of the rise of the Christian Right (at least in America, which is where I'm assuming you are, though I probably shouldn't). The "family values" meme started infecting everyone, and they're still using it to bash people over the head with. (The difference between Democrats and Republicans: Democrats want the government to run everything except morality, and the Republicans want the government to run nothing except morality.)
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
> See, that's what I was talking about in a
> lower-numbered thread. Censorship is OK to some
> people, as long as they disapprove of the groups
> being censored... much as AC wants to censor the
> Christians he disagrees with by marginalizing
> them and their beliefs.
How interesting. However I would say that there
is quite a large difference between voicing an
opionion like "they are irrational" and actually
trying to stop people from being able to access
their material.
One is speach, the other is censorship. Contrary
speach is not censorship.
Personally, I think the people who wish to have
censored internet access in libraries should open
their own, privatly run, libraries and offer
censored terminals. Then they get what they
want, without bothering the public at large.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
1) Quit using the word meme. It's stupid, and already covered (based on context) by many other words. It should be thrown into that pile of words like "Enterprise", "Intranet" and "think out of the box" that noone should use. Sorry, personal rant.
2) Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. I remember when Time proved that 99.4% of the 'net was used for pr0n based on a report out of CMU. Statistics will always be used for and against you. Probably the best thing you can do is stand up and refute the statement, especially if someone uses it in your presence.
-- Ever notice that fast-burning fuse looks exactly the same as slow-burning fuse? I didn't... (Edgar Montrose)
I choose to be an optimist about the marketplace of ideas. I believe that truthful memes will proliferate in the long run, because enough people's brains select for truth. Tnen you are kinda missing the point about memes. If people selected for truth then the whole meme idea would be completely uninteresting because at the end of the day ideas would have no internal dynamics of their own as truth would always win out. What makes memes interesting is that ideas have all sorts of different ways of surviving regardless of their truth value. Islam and Christianity are mutually incompatible and have been around for at least 1500 years - a pretty 'long run' wouldn't you say?
-- SIGFPE
Or don't, and regain the element of surprise. You see, you WILL raise your children, and they WILL acquire your memes, regardless of what laws and rules are imposed on your family by the misguided others. Sure, those others are annoying, but ultimately, your children listen to YOU. So be a good parent, and infect them with your memes. Then make sure they're a little more successful than you, so they pass your memes on to their children. This is happening now, and it has been happening for thousands of years. The idea that information should be suppressed, filtered, hidden, is inherently a dying meme. (It's a little like a genetic predisposition to be homosexual. If there is such a thing, and there might be, it faces hardcoded barriers to reproducing itself. You are free to feel however you want to about that.)
Nevertheless, it's a slowly dying meme, even now. Even with technology advances like the Internet making it more difficult to suppress information, there's still just as many people who WANT to, and will attempt to come up with technology weapons to use against the Internet. Blocking software is one example and there will be others. Fight carefully, fight by educating your children (this is the sort of war you are morally obliged to send your children into), fight with better memes. Critically examine what you read, even here. Critically examine my words. The truth is that we will be a happier species if our ideas are not suppressed, and we are naturally predisposed toward truthful memes.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
The original idea of a meme was an idea that propagates itself in the manner of a gene or a virus.
It was a pretty fuzzy concept when it was originated but it was a way of describing some things that happen in the real world - i.e.
Stories like alligators in the sewers seem to go on forever, passed from person to person.
Some complex 'memes' such as the Mormon religion have a belief that the members should work to gain converts. A lot of people laugh at the ernestness of some young Mormon missionaries, but the growth of the church seems to prove that this is a 'meme' with high survival and growth characteristics.
The only intellectual benefit in calling something a 'meme' is that you can study how the idea survives and propagates without having to pay attention to the actual content of the idea.
The fact that people tend to spread lies that they want to believe is not very surprising, but in the context of the article mixing lies, memes and censorship is simply confusing.
If you give a man a hammer, pretty soon every problem starts looking like a nail.
When you are dancing with wolves, never limp
The fight will never be fair because if it was, they would lose:
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide that the right balance is between being effective and being honest. "
Stephen Schneider
Environmental activist, in Discover, Oct. '89
"There are lies, damed lies, and statistics."
Mark Twain
The public library is such a crappy place to whack off to pr0n anyway. How many people are actually doing this, beside Pee Wee Herman fans?
Here's a thought I just had, make of what y'all will. How old are the people organizing all the censorship initiatives? I just longing for the "Sixties" and the whole free speech movement at the time--I ain't old enough to remember it, but it sure reads like a good time don't it. Anyway, I got to wondering: Where did all the hippies who engineered all the progressive movements back then disappear to? Have they transformed into these pro censorship types? If not, why aren't those guys flat out horrified by this whole thing and taking action? For that matter where did the pro censorship movement materialize from. Are these people who came of age in the aftermath of that period? Do they even fall into one age group? I'm just trying to figure out where these people got on the whole decency kick. Are they people who are now afraid of the changes they wrought in the first place, or are they people who grew after the change nostalic for the old--and largely imaginary world? The reason I'm asking these questions is that somewhere along the way a meme kinda crept into out collective consciousness: The idea that the world is a dangerous place. With that one idea, censorship in the name of protecting children becomes not only permissible, but mandatory. I'm just trying to figure out when it happened.
Now in terms of relevance to the whole geek/tech side of this community, the debate about censorship vs openess has a direct connection. The protocols which power the interconnectivity we enjoy are products of the memes of the late sixties and seventies. The TCP/IP protocols were designed to be transparent, open, and are not owened by anyone. They were developed out of a consensus. Same thing with Unix and the whole open source movment--which has been around a whole lot longer than Linux. You wonder perhaps what protocols and standards are going to come out of this era? Look at the society the techs live in. Right now, it looks as though we're headed for a closed two-tier where creativity and imagination are attacked. Doesn't bode well.
Reminds me of the little section in Neal Stephenson's Zodiac (What? You still haven't read it?) where Sangamon mentions pH differences and calls it "More than twice what they're licensed for" when he knows that it's really more than 100,000 times what the guilty party is licensed for (pH scale is exponential). Why? People think about it if you say "more than twice" but dismiss you as a flake if you say "over 100,000 times more". There's a point where any discussion of quantities becomes fuzzy because we don't quite have a good picture of what the numbers mean. Even if a million dollars doesn't go as far as it used to, it still has that mystique attached to it of being a 'millionaire'.
In the same vein, I suppose, one can dismiss 'one in a million' but one has to think about 'one in twenty'. To quote The Tick, "I just can't get my mind around it!"
--
The Future: Some assembly required; batteries not included.
Is it possible to tack an EULA onto a published study, along the lines of:
The results and data of this research may only be published with the written permission of the author...
I mean, we all agree that these sort of licenses are detestable. However, there seems to be a sizeable overlap between the group of people who think that those agreements are just fine and the group of people who think that blocking software is peachy keen. In other words, the idiots who would want to misuse the data would be the same ones most likely to follow the "contract" not to.
I just don't wanna be controlled - that's all I want. - The Offspring
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
What really, _really_ gets me pissed off is that when the report was released, the censors censored out the report, filing it into every category: sex, hate speech, etc.
If you're incapable of tolerating *criticism* this immediately indicates that there is something seriously wrong.
While I don't support censorship of any sort (quite different from forcing people to read everything) I would at least be more accepting of censors who welcomed input as to what is and is not acceptable, and who corrected their errors in a responsible fashion.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I'm afraid that's exactly what has to happen - that is the *meaning* of the word morality. Just read any philosohical book on ethics. There's no such thing as morality that only applies to a small group of people - it applies to everyone (under morally similar conditions), or it's not morality at all. Just think about it for one second - take some commonly accepted moral rules:
- It's wrong to kill someone for fun
- It's wrong to steal from a baby
- It's wrong to eat people
Obviously these apply to everyone. Saying "It would be wrong for me to kill someone for fun, but not if you did it" is just ridiculous. The same goes for any other moral principle. I believe that it would be morally wrong for me to choose to eat meat, because of the animal suffering and violence involved. That *automatically* implies, by definition of morality, that it is wrong for everyone else to choose to eat meat. For people for whom it doesn't, they must be confusing morality with something less strong, like just personal taste. There's no getting away from it.I don't agree with compulsory censorware, but your argument is completely illogical - unfortunately it's quite a common mistake.
Your moral principle is that "You shouldn't impose your moral principles on other people." But don't you see - imposing that moral principle on others is totally hypocritical!!
Female Prison Rape in NY
> Besides, "Censorware allows your children to see porn!" is a much catchier headline then "Censorware keeps
your children from seeing 'The offspring'". It'll make the evening news much more often.
I've quoted it here because to me, this is all about propagability of memes. Some people evaluate memes based on truth values, but most don't. Truth is not a predictor of propagability of memes, and in order to win this battle, we need memes that can propagate as well among the fundie crowd as they do among the Slashdot crowd. .
Let's consider the memeset of our "enemy" here, and that Offspring lyric that got posted. Our enemy probably knows "The Offspring" as "that band that sings about beating people up and being a rowdy teenager". Blocking Offspring isn't a bug to these people, it's an accidental feature.
Those Offspring lyrics - put yourself in the brain of a stereotypical fundie and read the lyrics: "When will the world listen to reason / I have a feeling it'll be a long time / When will the truth come into season / I have a feeling it'll be a long time.."
Now, since you're a fundie, and you know that Offspring isn't "Christian Rock", you can only assume that they're not talking about "the world waking up to the realization that Christ is the One True Savior". In fact, you probably suspect that they're trying to get your kids to "wake up" and snap out of their fundie-raised upbringing. What we /.ers think of as "think for yourself" is - in the hardcore fundie mentality, "the sin of pride", a rebellion against God's divine authority that puts man at the center of their universe, not God - oh, the horror!
Do I agree with that logic? Not on your life. But $10 worth of hot grits down Jerry Falwell's pants says that the people who want blocking software do. And THEY'RE the ones propagating the memes right now, which is why we're losing this war.
We need to stop pretending that our opposition cares about the First Amendment. We know damn well they don't. Stop pretending that our audience cares about the First Amendment. They're too ignorant to care about things when the meme of "saving the chiiilllldrun is worthwhile at any cost" shows up. From a memetic warfare standpoint, the logical alternative is to take the battle to a level the sheeple can understand, and that means to start scaring them into submission the same way our opponents have been doing, and that means a memeset that propagates among fundies.
An audience of people who stand up and say "I used your filtering software last year and read about donkeys fucking little girls! You said you made your filters better, but I can still see that goddamn link!" is an audience ready to get my proposed meme:
Filterware isn't about protecting the children. It's a scam that can never work. The companies that write it and sell it are lying to you.
Unlike "You're blocking good sites too", where our idea of "good" is just as bad as pr0n to our enemies, this is a useful meme.
Consider: It appeals on the gut level - to paranoia, by accusing "big business" of running a scam on "the little guy", and describes a world in which Godless Amoral Corporations are trying to pull the wool over Your Preshus Chilldrun's eyes by hawking snake oil that can never work. They're not really for Jesus, they're just trying to make a buck in His name. (The fact that this is true isn't relevant -- it's that it's easily believed to be true that counts.)
More importantly - this meme gives its holder a sense of superiority. "I know censorware doesn't work. I know it's a crock. I know something other people don't know, which makes me better than other people!".
Finally - it doesn't conflict with their existing memeset. Our whining about the First Amendment makes us feel superior, because most of us realize that there are principles at stake beyond religious bickering. But it conflicts directly with the "God Uber Alles" meme that so heavily infects the fundie set. To these people, a theocracy is a Good Thing, and the First Amendment is a threat. But even the most diehard theocrat can see that "Being a Sucker" is a bad thing.
To summarize -- if you wanna do memetic warfare, pick memes that are easily reproduced. Pick memes that make their holders happy by reinforcing their propagators' self-esteem. And make sure you pick a meme that doesn't require modification to the existing memes held by your target audience.
It's what they've done to us so successfully with "We're for God, the children, and apple pie. They're for porn and using the first amendment as a lame excuse." When we whine about the First Amendment - it's taken for whining, because our argument says "there are things more important than your religious beliefs" - our meme conflicts with theirs and gets thrown out.
My proposed "You're being sold snake oil. Don't be a sucker" meme is every bit as true as our arguement about the First Amendment, but unlike the constitutional argument, it doesn't conflict with their existing complex of religious memes. You can go on thumping the bible and beatin' up faggutz and lezzbein' femminizt radikulz or whatever the hell else it is that hardcore fundies get off on - but you can do it without censorware.
Because You're Not A Sucker. And Censorware is for Suckers. Because it doesn't work. Because it never will work. And because it's all a scam being run by people who are invoking the name of God to make a quick buck. May they burn in hell, Amen.
Jamie and his group seem caught up on technicalities and words which most people don't understand. That is not a good way to sway the public to one's viewpoint.
Many parents believe the internet contains threats to their children. These parents feel the library should be a safe place. They will vote to protect their children. The instinct to protect one's offspring is far more powerful than the love of liberty (short sighted as that may be).
The only way the anti-censoreware movement will succeed is to address the fears of these parents/voters. They can scream censorhip until they are blue in the face. It seems they will.
Jamie needs to stop mocking the voters in his town and start listening to them. They will vote and they will make the decision, unless Jamie persuades them to do otherwise.
Memes are terribly hard to shove back in the wrapper after someone takes them out exposes them to the meme collecting sheeple who get sucked in by the meme de jour.
Memes that tend to corkscrew into the brain of J.Random Citizen faster than anything usually include references to children, family, religion, morals (not ethics), sex and violence.
Actual numbers are inconsequential as long as the writer can show that they are in the majority and on the same side of the issue as the readers (or rather convincing the reader that they would be a foul beast for disagreeing with the author.) What kind of monster would allow harm to befall children? These memes are replicated in churches, schools, television, newspaper and anywhere that two or more people get together to try and shock each other with horror stories from the trenches.
J.Random Public doesn't want to be confused by the facts. They don't want someone telling them that politicians trying to peddle their own agenda duped them. They want to feel good about their actions and this only serve to reinforce the meme. The more the spread it and get approval and agreement from other citizens, the more justified they feel in holding this meme, nurturing it, cuddling it, stroking its fur, naming it George. They'll only discard it if enough people whom they respect laugh at them and tell them what fools they were for buying the meme in the first place.
The only answer I can think of is for us to go out and laugh at anyone we hear propagating these inaccuracies. Memes don't just die, they must be terminated with extreme prejudice.
-chaosgrrl
When you can't find your jello don't come screaming at me to remove the weasle from your headgear.
I say we throw in the towel on the concept of promoting change from within the system and focus on civil disobedience. The hacker ethic is antitheical to this New World Order of information control... this is the real war - it's not one of politics or mimes.. it's about the right to the truth.. the freedom of information, and the right to be left alone.
I agree with you on this, however it goes even deeper than that. It's about free thought, and freewill. The first thing each of us needs to focus on is achieving personal awareness, free thought, and free will - i.e. liberty - the ability to get up each morning (or night), do what you believe in all day (or night), and go to bed at night (or morning) knowing you did what you believed in.
The second thing to do is to help other people do what they believe in. Of course this is a personal thing, and if you try to change people's views too much from the direction they are naturally inclined, what you get is divided loyalties. The last thing you want in a tense situation is people questioning their loyalties. So with five billion people on the earth, and the mass of communications, the goal should be to connect people who naturally believe in freewill and liberty. After this happens, the "system" will never be able to get these people back on their side, so the only option they'll have is to try to keep our ideas from spreading to the sheep.
This is the information age. The greatest tool of the status quo is ignorance of any other way of going about things. So they will continue to try to keep their ideas flowing to those people who they think they can control. But awareness is usually a one way journey - once you've seen it, you won't just give in to ignorance.
But anyhow.....
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
What's wrong with the word that has meant the same thing since English began: idea?
Is it just to be extra l33t, or is there some hidden meaning that has escaped me?
--
This is not about the internet. This is not about pornography, it is not about copyright, it is not about piracy, it is not about cryptography. It's about information control.
Information is power. The internet has an unfettered flow of information. Therefore the internet is the ultimate powerbase. The people who control it effectively do what they've been doing for the past two thousand years: they control you, your reality, your neighbors, everything. The worst part is, because you don't know what is and is not truly going on, you don't even know this is occuring.
We got a fleeting glance of the empowerment this medium can provide when the ISP boom occurred alittle over a year ago - and before the letters "AUP" came into being. This was a time when everybody was getting online and seeing that the world is very different depending on who you talk to...
As a result, cultural barriers collapsed, people started judging by ideas instead of the color of your skin or your age, and a private revolution took off in the homes of the average joe.
This is going to come to a screeching halt. It MUST come to a halt for society to preserve it's integrity - the RIAA, the DMCA, piracy, privacy and democracy are all intertwined. This is the ultimate battle, and right now they have 40 frags, and the home team is -1.
I say we throw in the towel on the concept of promoting change from within the system and focus on civil disobedience. The hacker ethic is antitheical to this New World Order of information control... this is the real war - it's not one of politics or mimes.. it's about the right to the truth.. the freedom of information, and the right to be left alone.
Is it just me, or is the number of self-appointed groups crusading to promote "decency" on the rise? "American Decency Association?" Some would claim that title is a joke. Still others would claim it's an oxymoron. It's hard to tell. Their home page is pretty typical; Bible verses mixed with warnings about pornography addiction and the other evils of the Internet. Yawn. (No, I have no problem with the Bible, and I have no problem with people and/or families basing their morality on it. What I do have a problem with is groups that point their fingers at my family and say, "All right, now we'll set your moral standards for you.")
Why isn't there more vocal opposition to groups like this? Sure, on Slashdot, they get raked over the coals, but you would expect it: the average Slashdot reader is a little bit more concerned about his or her freedom than the average person on the street. But this ought to be bigger than Slashdot and a few other forums. I don't care if you're the most rabid of the rabid religious fundamentalists or the most die-hard of the die-hard atheists. If you value personal freedom, then you must be morally opposed to a single group attempting to establish their moral standard as the compulsory baseline for everyone! This certainly includes filtering; by definition filtering consists of a single person or group of people unilaterally deciding that a particular site is inappropriate for everybody.
So start letting people know that you're not going to accept this. Start letting people know that you are more than capable of deciding what you and your children can and cannot see. Start letting people know that it is you, not some fundamentalist group with a three-letter acronym name, that is ultimately responsible for raising your children. Because I'll tell you what folks: what we really need to be protected from are the folks who think they know better than anybody else what's best for us. So to the ADA, the FRC, the CC, and any other "moral watchdog" organization, I say "Thanks, but no thanks." This is something that families can handle by themselves.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground