Slashdot Mirror
Activists Use Wikipedia To Test Aussie Net Censors
pnorth writes "Editors at Wikipedia have removed a link to a blacklisted web site that sat uncontested for over 24 hours in the main body of the Australian regulator's own Wikipedia entry. The link, which directs readers to a site containing graphic imagery of aborted foetuses, was inserted into ACMA's Wikipedia entry by a campaigner against Internet filtering to determine whether Australia's communications regulator had a double-standard when it came to censoring web content. The very same link motivated the regulator to serve Aussie broadband forum Whirlpool's hosting company with a 'link deletion notice' and the threat of an $11,000 fine. Last night, the link became the subject of 'warring' between several Wikipedia administrators in the lead up to its removal, with administrators saying they didn't want to be used to prove a point."
>Last night, the link became the subject of "warring" between several Wikipedia administrators in the lead up to it's removal, with administrators saying they didn't want to be used to prove a point."
Petty drama, on MY Wikipedia?
As far as I understand, the site's hosted in the US. What can the Australian authority do about that?
I think speech should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have Nazi sympathizers and other hate mongers?
Disconnect and self-destruct, one bullet at a time.
Firehose story here
i was pretty sure that's what wikipedia is for
do not read this line twice.
Using wikipedia to prove this point might endanger their donations. Lack of donations equates to not as many expensive dinners out for the higher ups and that has to be avoided at all costs.
The link has not been removed. It is at the bottom of WikiPedia's ACAM article as "Prohibited link".
The story pretty much describes the opposite of what happened - the page was protected because a minority of users (many of them IP users without a login) kept on removing the link.
For those who are interested, the Sydney Morning herald reports that the full internet filter list has been leaked. It's pretty interesting - there's a lot of not-actually-illegal content on it (including a dentist's site?).
It's interesting to note that this is the minimum that will be blocked in Australia; the gov may (and will) add to this. This sounds like much more of a test of the censors than what TFA writes about...
"Einstein argued that [...] God is not capricious or arbitrary. No such faith comforts the software engineer." ~ Brooks
I think speech should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have breast feeding in public and demeaning of social groups?
Not very worse off at all.
But sadly there starts the slippery slope. If you give your government power over what speech is "hateful" or not, then it is they who decide just how hateful something must be.
Eventually, the more extreme politicians will have their say, and you'll soon find things that are not hateful on that list.
Then people become used to the idea of the list. Sooner or later someone comes along who wants to add their own little viewpoint in there without the "people" standing up and making a fuss. So the more extreme dissenters of government policy get quietly silenced. no one makes a fuss, after all, you've already banned the racists, homophobes and political extremists, so who will miss a few moaning greenpeacers or aclu-types. They could be dangerous, they stand up for terrorists after all. So dissent gets shut down and ever more extreme political power is yielded.
Do it all over society, as I believe is happening in the UK (protest is now illegal without permits, habeus corpus is suspended at will, it's illegal to say some things now), and you end up in a Police State.
I don't like the Neo Nazis. I'd rather they chose not to say what they say. But I will defend, to the death if needs must, their right to say it.
Someday, I might find myself the lone voice of dissension. I'd hope no matter what my views you'd stand up and support my right to say them.
Otherwise, one day *you* might be that lone voice...
The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
You might hope that Slashdot editors would CLICK ON THE FUCKING LINKS THEY POST and see the story is wrong at the time of being published. The current version of the page does indeed include the links, and it's been locked. Of course, the part of it being the subject of an edit war was true, and the linked Discussion page is a warzone.
I think speech should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have Nazi sympathizers and other hate mongers?
It is arguable that there are some materials so objectionable that ThePeople(tm) in a democracy could ask their governments to ban or restrict general access to them. But that is not the case here! This was meant to be a secret list, which means we have a (supposedly democratically elected) government acting without public oversight. This is to be tolerated only in the rarest cases when it strictly necessary (such as on some issues of national security). What the Australian government is proposing here is intolerable.
Hopefully the release of the list will serve to warn people about the potential scope of the secret list. And hopefully this will strengthen Sen. Xenophon's resolve (and perhaps pursuade some other cross benchers) to scuttle the enabling legislation in the Senate.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Such a banned list also inevitably leaks out, and provides a *huge* number of links to such sites, which is even more disturbing to me...
how much worse off would we be if we didn't have breast feeding in public
We would be very much worse off! The breastfeeding rate would fall. Child abuse in the form of bottle feeding would become rife, with obvious negative effects on future economic and sporting performance as well as the rise in criminal acitivity among abused children. In cases when mothers resisted such bottlefeeding abuse, we would have an increase in the number of hungry babies crying in public. Worse still some mothers might take their babies into public toilets to feed them, the psychopathological effects of which don't bear contemplating!
But yeah, you're right ;)
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
ppl have been having issues, so here's some mirrors:
"Einstein argued that [...] God is not capricious or arbitrary. No such faith comforts the software engineer." ~ Brooks
I think the internet should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have censorship groups and "think of the children" advocates?
... aborted fetii...
Your speech is certainly free - very free. Hint: "Fetii" isn't a word. I think you mean foetuses (or fetuses, if you insist on using the bastardised version of the language that is American English).
That reminds me, who's up for veal?
Yay me!
You broke it.
I think the internet should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have censorship groups and "think of the children" advocates?
Well, Australia would have an R18+ video game classification, for one thing.
Homonyms are fun!
You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
Cool down a notch or two there. I'm in Canada, and Wikileaks isn't loading either. Slashdot effect or other server problems, I expect.
Censorship is one area where the behavior of Wikipedia as a whole is very predictable. Virgin Killer, AACS encryption key, Jyllands-Posten, etc... If you try to remove something controversial from Wikipedia and it gets publicized, it will get added back, usually with administrator support. If you make a really big fuss, the censorship effort will get its own article and it'll probably get mentioned in one of the articles about Wikipedia itself. WP:V + pro-free-speech admins = you're screwed.
You find photos of dead fetuses remotely pornographic? How?
Who decides what "hatemongering" is? As far as I have been able to tell, at least in the Western world, it currently works like this: Mock a Christian and it's comedy, mock a Muslim and it's free speech, mock a Jew and it's hate. So you think speech should be "free" and yet it should totally be confined to whatever speech the powers-that-be decide is offensive or isn't offensive to different racial or religious groups through obvious application of double standards? What's free about that?
The photos linked to in the article couldn't be really considered hate speech ... hate speech against whom? Not the fetuses, as the site is "pro-life". If publishing photos of dead fetuses is hate speech against pro-choicers then we may as well tear up free speech. (Technically the ACMA censors offensive images as well as hate speech, but still I don't consider the existance of such images offensive if they are not being waved in my face)
Troll? It's just a particularly tortuous Slashdot analogy. You see, the Yoda doll is the new internet blacklist, the grease is alleged child porn (allows you to accept the doll more easily), and 'you' represent the Australian public. The improbability of the whole process neatly mirrors the f**king impossibility of this scheme ever working in the real world.
I concur it was rather obvious but still, it could at least get an 'informative'.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Anti-abortionist protestors will frequently hold up graphic (bordering on pornographic) posters showing aborted fetii. This is done in full view of children.
Sorry, how can you possibly link an aborted fetus to pornography?
Either learn to make a proper counter argument, or stop using the "For the CHILDRENZ" argument. Both will help you look less like a fool here on slashdot.
Secondly, while I don't disagree that we wouldn't be worse off without the two sites you mentioned - I do STRONGLY disagree that sites that for example promote anti-abortion should be disallowed. (For the record I am pro-abortion). My point is if the law was passed to block child porn sites, okay, block child porn sites. Don't start using it to block anything you want on a secret list that you can't discuss.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
The irony is that many people will see the /. effect as censorship in action.
Users... the only thing keeping 1st level support from being the bottom feeders.
Dang. And I think this had a shot at being a new Slashdot meme.
Free speech meme, we hardly knew ye.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
mock a Muslim and it's intolerance
From my media-driven viewpoint, and as far as such groups can be generalised, Muslims are the first to jump on the "religious tolerance" bandwagon, which is odd for such an uncompromisingly intolerant religion.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
I have not, personally, checked any of these links out, but here y'go, folks. Visit at your own risk, and all like that: The ACMA blacklist March 19 2009 * http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Denmark:_3863_sites_on_censorship_list%2C_Feb_2008 * http://www.abortiontv.com/Pics/AbortionPictures6.htm Aug 6 2008 * http://tgpme.com/ * http://newthumbs.net/ * http://bbs12.mail15.su/ * http://cybermovs.narod.ru/ * http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.apps.seamonkey/browse_thread/thread/e8a2eb7b73335439 * http://hrdpdfl8.paginas.sapo.pt/2/main.html * http://imgsrc.ru/main/search_re.php?str=&tag=&butt=ya&where=ya&nopass=on&cat=24&page=5 * http://lolitacj.freepimphost.com/ * http://mclt-sites.net/latvian/main/?sid=1189 * http://myusenet.net/files/0/alt.binaries.pictures.wals/0/index96.htm * http://ourworldkids.info/ * http://rapidlibrary.com/index.php?q=girl+12+year+old+fuck+with+boy+13+year+old+in * http://tinygev.com/ * http://trueincest.com/ * http://www.crazydumper.com/go-young_russian_guy_drug_her_and_then_fuck_her-639842.html * http://fulltiltpoker.com/ * http://www.kackarhatila.com/custom/config/new/index.html * http://nasty-virgins.org/ * http://pretty-pretty.info/ * http://realcruelfamily.com/ * http://www.sexologic.com/hosted/media/...now-watch-while-we-fuck-your-girlfriend!,111.php * http://vi5search.com/ * http://www.wetdump.com/hosted/1036/slipped-some-pillz-in-her-drink-and-fucked-her-while-unconscious.html * http://top.angels-list.com/index.html?97 * http://forced-news.com/ * http://ganja.vipzax.com/ * http://shave.vipzax.com/ July 30 2008 * http://forced-news.com/ * http://sweets.maximimage.com/?ft=brightgirls.net * http://littlevirginstgp.com/ * http://cutiesveta.com/ * http://youngwetmodels.com/ * http://preteenmasha.com/ * http://forbi-dreams2.info/ July 28 2008 *
This seems to be a classic case of WP:POINT: do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Whatever the merits of of linking/delinking wikipedia is not the appropriate venue. The sole reason for including something in wikipedia should be its encylopedic value.
There are four sorts of people in the world: fools, lunatics, idiots and morons. - Umberto Eco, Foucaut's pendulum.
If people didn't post those things, we would be no worse off. But the issue isn't about whether they are posted. It isn't even about what is posted. The real issue is that a government can make decisions about what gets blocked, with no transparency, no review, and no acceptance of responsibility. This is the most extreme danger, because it gives a government so much arbitrary power that cannot be challenged.
So they say this is about protecting children. Yet the mechanism they use goes beyond that ... far, far beyond that. So clearly, "protecting children" is a mere excuse. This is about government trying to take control over people ... adult people.
A proper system would provide for a means of review, including by anyone that chooses to be a reviewer. Clearly, anyone choosing to review this better not be squeamish. There also needs to be a process to challenge this. Anyone reviewing, or impacted, must have a means to have each entry reviewed, with a public openness of the challenge process.
A proper system for protecting children would be focused on children. For example, parents could be required to restrict children to a special internet connection reserved for children, while as adults, they personally can choose to bypass that protection. Mandating these filters for schools is understandable. But for every adult, too? Something is very rotten down under.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Given that I only hear about Neo-Nazis when their freedom of speech is curtailed, censoring them is almost counter-productive. Crackpots love to be censored - it's free publicity, and their flaky ideas are not tested in any public arenas.
'Last night, the link became the subject of "warring" between several Wikipedia administrators in the lead up to it's removal, with administrators saying they didn't want to be used to prove a point.'
That seriously sounds like that what German people said when the Nazis deported the Jews.
"I don't want to get involved."
aka
"It's their internet censorship, not ours".
This attitude fails to see that once this censorship has established itself in other countries it will eventually come closer to being a global issue more and more.
There is no point in having freedom and no censorship in your country when all others around you are already gagged and have censored content. The internet community has eventually to realize that they are sitting in the same boat.
Spelling errors were made for your amusement only...
How is plurals of "babby" formed?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The Islam accepts Judaism and Christianity as valid religions.
Wrong. Islam teaches that Judaism and Christianity were valid religions, ie: Islam, but their versions of the Koran (having once been identical to the Muslim Koran) have been corrupted. The central claim of Christianity, that Jesus rose from the dead, is specifically refuted, as is the claim of Judaism to be the inheritors of the promise to Abraham, Islam claiming that inheritance passed to Ishmael rather than Isaac. Without these claims, Judaism and Christianity essentially do not exist and certainly aren't valid. That is why Islam teaches that a person converting to Islam from any other religion is acceptable, but converting from Islam to any other religion, including Judaism and Christianity, is a punishable offence.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
It doesn't matter if the woman's breasts are perfect (a rarity on a real woman's real breasts and usually a sign of a boob job) or, as you put it, "flabby, dangly, purple-veined monstrosities." Either way, the woman has the right to feed her baby anywhere she happens to be. If that means giving her baby a bottle of milk or a breast filled with milk, it doesn't matter. If your eyes are so fragile that you will suffer irreparable damage seeing a small portion of a real woman's breast being used to feed a baby, then there's a really simple solution: Look away! No one is forcing you to stare at the woman feeding her child.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I think that's ridiculous also. A woman can wear a string bikini with only the barest square of cloth covering her nipple and she's ok. But should that tiny square move over an inch or so and suddenly it is the end of the civilized world and children in a five mile radius are scarred for life. I was watching a "History of Sex" program on the History Channel one day and they mentioned that it was once thought that the mere sight of a woman's leg would drive a man into a fit of uncontrollable lust. In fact, men were thought to be so weak that a table's leg would remind them of a woman's leg and they would go into fits. Table skirts were invented to hide the table legs and protect men from the embarrassment of being caught humping a table leg. (Seriously, were men back then that weak-willed?!!)
I think if women were allowed to go topless whereever men are allowed to go topless: In the short term, there would be a lot of stupid, drooling teenagers and heart attacks among religious conservatives. In the long term, the female breast would become like a woman's leg. An object of attraction, but not considered solely a "sex object."
Certainly, tiny wardrobe malfunctions shouldn't cause national uproar and millions of dollars in fines.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.