Slashdot Mirror
The Shortest Internet Censorship Debate Ever
rysiek writes "When a politician starts talking about defending the innocence of children, there's bound to be a great policy initiative ahead. That's how British PM David Cameron introduced the British porn block. That's also how the Polish Minister of Justice started his remarks yesterday morning on how good an idea it is and that it should be introduced in Poland. This started the shortest Internet censorship debate ever, as in the evening of the same day the Polish Prime Minister and the Minister of Administration and Digitization denounced any such ideas: 'We shall not block access to legal content regardless of whether or not it appeases us aesthetically or ethically.'
There had been several full-blown Internet censorship debates in Poland during the last four years. Apparently the arguments against it were not lost on at least some of Polish politicians."
Hurrah for Po(rn)land!
Lest someone not chase the links down, there's a useful 'HOWTO: EFFECTIVELY ARGUE AGAINST INTERNET CENSORSHIP IDEAS linked-to in the TFL at http://rys.io/en/94 "You forgot Poland" just might take on a new meaning.
I used to listen to polish punk that had all the words bleeped out.
I'm curious, was that because there were national or regional laws imposing it, was it because there was a market for it, or was it because a large retailer demanded it?
In the United States, albums with explicit content are often available in both censored and uncensored forms. The reason for this is a little but of all three reasons. There arent laws against selling explicit music, but there are laws against broadcasting explicit music in some cases. Additionally, some parents will buy their children censored versions of albums but not uncensored. Finally, some large retail chains voluntarily will not sell explicit content (presumably to win over the parents of the previous set.)
"His name was James Damore."
... "We'll just make the content we don't like illegal"?
The thing is, we are all in favor of some sort of censorship aren't we?
Nope.
Why exactly should we want any censorship?
Only cowards use censorship
I've invented the best, most effective and cost effective internet content filter ever devised. Concerned as any parent is about what my son could be doing on the internet I set about thinking of a system where I could prevent him from getting interested in Midget porn or gaining the skills to build a meth lab in my basement. After many weeks of planning and development I finally implemented my system and it has worked flawlessly ever since. How does my flawless system work? I placed the computer in the living room and then faced the monitor towards the open room. Amazingly, he seems reluctant to go to sites that I'd disapprove of now. It's great what actual parenting can do...
I'd rather have the maker of the picture/video prosecuted. The damage is already done and I'm not buying into any "market dynamics" that claim the demand for CP is the cause for the production of it.
Your demands actually tell a lot about you. You don't trust other people to think for themselves and you rather cover up crimes than prosecute. And when the censorship exists, the likes of you will certainly block more to cover up their own fuckups. ANYONE demanding censorship has in the back of his head the demand to cover up faults of his own.
Go fuck yourself, Mr. Wannabe Dictator.
I'm afraid that all ideas do _not_ deserve equal review or attention, when the issues are so clear. Such censorship is expensive, ineffective for its most vaunted goals, and immediately prone to _enormous_ abuse to track or censor political and social speech. Wasting time in the middle debating subtleties lends legitimacy to very dangerous practices, such as deep packet inspection used to monitor speech and writing wholesale and aggregating the data into very dangerous histories on individuals and groups.
implying that 'it's so absurd we shouldn't be discussing it'.
Sounds good to me.
The thing is, we are all in favor of some sort of censorship aren't we?
No.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Internet companies had years to get their acts together and offer a workable filtering solutions for the masses.
There already exist solutions for this type of garbage, even if they're not offered by ISPs. And really, none of this censorship nonsense is even necessary.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I want to make a commercial about censorship and it sould go like this: There is a debate between two people arguing about censorship. The first is arguing for censorship about saving children blah blah. When its time for the detractor, he says one word and gets his mic cable audibly removed. You see him talking, but no words. Thin in a large caption "It will Happen" across the screen before a fade out. Done.
Bye!
The thing is, we are all in favor of some sort of censorship aren't we?
No.
I want child-porn blocked. For everyone.
And you don't care what else gets blocked along with it. And you're also a hypocrite, because you said "This discussion should be had extensively and without prejudice. Without sentiments like 'will someone pleeease think of the children'.
I want sites blocked telling people actively to be violent. The whole thing is, what are exactly the limits there, how do we establish those boundaries? And enforce them?
Well, you could ban such sites, and then you'd drive your Neo-Nazis underground like Germany has. Then you can pretend you've stamped them out, like they do. Or, you know, you could let people say crazy shit on the internet so that it's easy to find the crazy people.
Outright dismissing any sort of censorship is naive.
Apologizing for any sort of censorship is naive.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
How on earth is it an ISPs responsibility or even prerogative to decide what content to deliver and which one not to?
How the fuck do you dare to push the responsibility for your children on someone else? Did the nanny state reach that level already that people feel entitled to someone else taking care of their responsibilities?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
OK, so you're just the usual well-meaning, emotionally-involved, naive idiot who doesn't see the consequences of global censorship. Just as bad.
Right now the internet is often a unregulated wild west
Just like the air. Imagine that: When two people meet and talk stuff, the air faithfully conveys acoustic signals between them! Completely regardless of the contents! If one of them says "let's kill my neighbor", the air does nothing! Surely this situation can't be tolerated anymore?
Ezekiel 23:20
What has the IT industry mainly been doing to address this real problem?
Problem? What problem? The problem of a communication network working as desiged?
All the major search engines are guilty with this regard.
Guilty of what? Are you saying that the major search engines are hiding these results from the police? And if not, the police can simply lift their fat lazy asses and act on the things that everybody else sees.
Ezekiel 23:20
It's gone already, I request courtesy, but don't require it. I have a strong feeling however to be polite to anyone, even in disagreement, even in anonymity. I generally distrust someone (mildly) who doesn't share that 'nerve' somewhere.
I'm an active web developer and proponent of liberties for all.
Then why don't you use an ISP that offers filtering and ask them to turn it on for you?
That way everyone gets their liberties and you get your filtered Internet. Why should an entire nation be bound to your desires simply because you can't be bothered to switch ISP?
Okay, I'll play ball. Different AC.
This should be an indicator that you are proposing something that steps on the rights of others, yes. Regretfully their reaction tends to be the standard rules of engagement these days; don't stand up for the rights of others except when they are rights you appreciate, and then overreact in ways that don't inspire common dialogue. End result: steady decline of rights for everyone, because most of us are happy to allow rights we don't personally exercise to be tread upon if it's accompanied by the right special interest poison pill.
I have two adorable nieces. Their father was part of a security detail in rehabilitating a pedophile. But I'm also a technology guy. No amount of love for those girls changes the fact that holistically censoring child porn is a pipe dream. If you need an example of the type of infrastructure and policies needed to support this model, please take a good look at what China is doing, and the other social problems that accompany that kind of infrastructure. (this is not a smoke screen for the bad crap we do that China doesn't)
At the end of the day, it's a variant of AB fallacy. "x is bad. (law/policy) y helps stops x. Therefore y is good." Doesn't factor in what we're sacrificing for y and whether that is good, and is often accompanied by two collieries: "people who disagree with y are bad" or "people who disagree with y support x".
Very insightful. So far, the debate has been enriching for me that I actually truly regret proposing that child porn should be blocked for everyone. It might actually be a bad idea. But, for the life of me, I can't put my finger on why exactly.
Besides not being 100% reliable I don't think the government should be filtering any media (books, Internet, radio, TV). I don't want an elected body to force their morals on me and my family. Every household should be able to enforce their own standards. I would have no problem if the government forced the ISPs to provide a filter that people could opt in to which allowed them to customize exactly the content that was prevented from being shown. It would have to be completely open and transparent. So if someone clicked on the option to prevent sexually explicit material then they would be able to see a list of sites that would be forbidden and a list of keywords that would cause pages from downloading. Maybe even going so far as to allowing each household (user?) to white list sites and keywords.
That being said I do believe that some material should not be available but I think the best way to stop it is have people report it to the police when it is found. Then have the authorities target the creators and distributors of such content.
The danger to free speech is too great by placing filters in place.
The world is a dangerous place. You must protect your own children from those dangers while preparing them to deal with them as they attain independence. Don't expect us to do your parenting for you.
Have gnu, will travel.
But the original point was that I was hoping that blocking the child pornography would affect the demand. Or maybe even nullify the supply.
That's exactly the problem with your 'solution'. It's based on hope, not rational argument or observation. There is no reason to think that blocking CP will affect the demand. On the other hand, there is every reason to think that blocking CP (or anything) will push the material to an obscure corner of the net without any social or judicial oversight. Pedophiles don't rely on google image search to find their fix.
You approve of the IDEA of censorship. What you forget is that there has to be someone in charge of it. And once you put someone in charge, they get to use their discretion. In practice, also known as gritty real life, mission creep sets in, definitions get changed, or politicians deem something to have (or not have) happened.