Slashdot Mirror
Google, Yahoo and Others Fight the Aussie Filter
TheFrunj writes "In the wake of an attack on Australian Government websites comes a statement from a joint group of companies banding together to oppose Senator Conroy's infamous Internet Filter. AtomicMPC has posted the statement up on their site: 'We, the Australian Library and Information Association, Google, Inspire Foundation and Yahoo! agree that Australia needs to take effective action to ensure that internet users, and particularly children, have a safe experience online.' Backed by the weight of the Inspire Foundation, Google and Yahoo, this is a good sign for the local and international community that will hopefully spark some positive reaction."
[gay-sex-access.com]? leeson and A8d Michael Smith shitheads. *BSD
You haven't been to Australia lately have you?
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
I have read the many responses that object to content filtering but I fear many forget that:
- you can not know what complete responsibility you have for another human being until you have your own children
- pedophiles etc have an addiction and/or psychological problem and they do not reason the same way as a sane person
- you can't let the very people who profit from attracting people to sites to self regulate, that is where the government has to step in
Parents are not internet experts. They do not have the skills to implement content filtering. The experts are the internet companies; but they have a vested interest in not filtering. So that leaves government and the content filtering software companies (but parents don't have the skills to select which program to buy - we just have to do our best).
Filtering is an imperfect science. A progressive percentage reduction in accessibility is how you break down the grouping the internet has given to otherwise isolated cases of pedophiles etc. There will be sites blocked which should not. Considering how little of the complete internet is actually viewed by any individual, I can't imagine how you would know the difference - it certainly wasn't there a mere 15 or so years ago. Companies web sites will change how they operate and check their site availability in advance - not unlike registering a business. Businesses have to manage these sorts of hurdles all the time - it is a risk of business and hence the source of return.
It is correct for governments to classify the content of material at the internet companies and ISPs. Magazines are controlled this way - the creator (hence profit maker) and distribution chain (the other profit makers) had to meet Australian standards. The most obvious example is 'sealed section' magazines and their location within newsagencies. The internet companies are not fighting for your freedom; they want to avoid the restriction that was placed on print media.
The other complaint about the Australian system is that the black list is confidential. I feel this is wrong, but thinking about it - how else could it work? Making the list public defeats the purpose. I know people, as I, believe there should be freedoms. But there is certainly material that definitely should not be available to children and, on an internet scale, a huge number of adults.
Probably the biggest problem was that the Governments reacted too slowly and it is painful to fix the problem now. But it was done for TV and print. The fact of the matter is that the amount of unrestricted extreme material has exploded since the internet.