the U.S. International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) invented a way to let people in China and Iran easily route around censorship by using a U.S.-based service to view banned sites such as BBC News, MIT and Amnesty International.
But an independent report released Monday reveals that the U.S. government also censors what Chinese and Iranian citizens can see online. Technology used by the IBB, which puts out the Voice of America broadcasts, prevents them from visiting Web addresses that include a peculiar list of verboten keywords. The list includes "ass" (which inadvertently bans usembassy.state.gov), "breast" (breastcancer.com), "hot" (hotmail.com and hotels.com), "pic" (epic.noaa.gov) and "teen" (teens.drugabuse.gov).
But it gets better...
Instead, the list unintentionally reveals its author's views of what's appropriate and inappropriate. The official naughty-keyword list displays a conservative bias that labels any Web address with "gay" in them as verboten--a decision that affects thousands of Web sites that deal with gay and lesbian issues, as well as DioceseOfGaylord.org, a Roman Catholic site.
More to the point, the U.S. government could have set a positive example to the world regarding acceptance of gays and lesbians--especially in Iran, which punishes homosexuality with death.
So oppressed homosexuals in Iran found themselves circumventing the Iranian government only to be thwarted by the US government. But that isn't even the best bit.
In an e-mail to the OpenNet Initiative on Monday morning, Berman defended the concept of filtering as a way to preserve bandwidth. "Since the U.S. taxpayers are financing this program...there are legitimate limits that may be imposed," his message said. "These limits are hardly restrictive in finding any and all human rights, pro-democracy, dissident and other sites, as well as intellectual, religious, governmental and commercial sites. The porn filtering is a trade-off we feel is a proper balance and that, as noted in your Web release, frees up bandwidth for other uses and users."
Yes, there are legitimate limits to what taxpayers should cough up for - and I think helping a foreign government keep its gay population from accessing the wider international community most definitely falls into that category!
Your post is wordy, but semantically empty. You didn't bother to try and find out and understand was falsifiability is (ironically given the context, Wikipedia has a decent article to help you out) - you just took a word and ran with it to spew ideology without substance or logic.
Without the basic foundation of rational argument, your post is semantically equivalent to "Capitalism YAY". You are expressing an opinion, just doing it in a pretentious way.
"Human nature" is an example of lazy thinking. You aren't trying to explain anything, you are just deferring explanation to a made-up entity. Its sociological creationism.
You: an objectivist would take note of criticism and check if said facts are objectively true, attempting to use dispassionate argument, logic (preferably pure logic), and nothing else.
Me: And after this process, the Objectivist always comes to confirm what Ayn Rand said.
You: And what is wrong with that ?
There is a little concept I'd like to introduce you to. Its called 'falsifiability' and if you want to throw around the language of science like you have been doing, its pretty damned important.
Your complete inability to figure this out for yourself honestly makes you the most stupid person I have seen post on Slashdot, including those from other Randroids.
Hilariously, you complain about me judging the speaker not the words, then in the next breath you call me a "loser" without a hint of irony. I really couldn't care less about the judgment of a person who has demonstrated through his words that he is too stupid to be capable of introspection. Fucktard.
Wales is the man who founded, and runs, Wikipedia. As leader of the community, he fills the top spots with those he considers like-minded: certainly not 'leftists'
Is this a joke ? Objectivism is a cult ? No objectivist has a low tolerance for criticism. Such an attitude would prohibit the formation of the correct objective opinion in the first place. On the contrary an objectivist would take note of criticism and check if said facts are objectively true, attempting to use dispassionate argument, logic (preferably pure logic), and nothing else.
And after this process, the Objectivist always comes to confirm what Ayn Rand said. Funny how that happens!
Of course the same cannot be said of the socialists fighting objectivism. Of course, without denying reality they'd have to answer the truth : that socialism has never failed to produce mass genocide, even in "moderate" quantities. That government-run health care necessitates government "death panels", who decide if life-saving treatment will be granted to a person or not. There is simply no other way to do it.
Your idea of rational debate is calling anyone making a decision about the distribution of healthcare part of a "death panel"? You know what the word "Hyperbole" means don't you?
Also, you ignore the fact that with private healthcare, your employer gets to determine whether or not you have healthcare by controlling your employment status. Is the board of directors a "death panel" then?
Objectivism is the denial of personal viewpoints, to the advantage of one absolute truth, totally and utterly independant of an individual viewpoint.
A reality which the Objectivist claims to perceive himself, thus presenting a viewpoint. Your philosophy is laughably easy to debunk.
Now obviously the very basis of science is that objectivism is true, and that objective reality can be measured (also called empirism).
Science would be observing lower healthcare costs and longer live in countries with "death panels", whereas your philosophy sweeps such facts under the carpet
But you're simply a totalitarian semi-collectivist "liberal" with a bone to pick, aren't you ? Ayn Rand was more than willing to entertain, analyse and debate criticisms on any point. She was, however, not prepared to accept the criticism that reality didn't exist. She was gladly willing to even entertain the notion that all real-world measurements were flawed, however she was not prepared to accept that communism (sorry "socialism") was never correctly implemented, and therefore was correct despite all objective history making such a viewpoint laughable.
Ayn Rand could accept criticism? Bullshit. She was convinced she was right and exlcuded people from her cult when they dissented, even when they dissented within the framework of right-wing radical capitalism.
Of course, idiots denying objective reality and historical data to push communism can count Obama amongst them these days. Of course, unless they find a way to make God (/nature/reality/... whatever tickles your fancy) one of them, their policies will keep failing, and they will keep blaming others. The Jews, infidels, capitalists,... all are guilty of the failures of communism, except of course... communism itself.
Your *snigger* objective reality doesn't differentiate between Obama and Stalin? I wonder how a Ukrainian reader would feel about such a statement.
An objectivist with a low tolerance for criticism is quite simple an idiot that's bound to be wrong. Such objectivists would count people like Osama Bin Laden, and the Taliban ("muslim students") amongst their members.
You've just, without a hint of self-awareness, demonstrated the exact same thick-headed exclusion of all outside viewpoints I have been complaining about. Thankyou for being yourself, and demonstrating my point for me:)
Well, you've gone and changed what you are saying so much there is little point responding to your pathetic rantings. Fact is, you had a go at me for seeing the state of things and not acting, and then when I explicitly asked you what you've done to change things, you were all over the place. Maybe you will be able to hold a better argument when you move out of your mother's house.
There is a very good reason much remains to be covered; Wikipedia is not about knowledge it is about territory. Biographies of obscure people are not good territory, as they are not visited often or linked to very much. Pages about world leaders, or major current events, are prime real estate and people will fight tooth and nail for domination of them. As other posters have stated; its pure chimpanzee social dynamics.
Wales is himself, a professed objectivist, and Wikipedia is his society. Ayn Rand fanboys should take note.
Underneath the exterior, its a complete hash of bickering, factionalism, vicious territorial disputes and power struggles. Its policed by a secretive clique that tolerates neither criticism nor dissent. Were it a real life territory of any kind, it would be a hell hole. What is now done with harsh words and moderator privileges would be done with truncheons and bullets. There would be a cult of personality surrounding Wales himself, backed by force, and no personal freedom.
This is how your world would turn out, Randroids. It doesn't matter one iota what you say, or even what you believe, about liberty; the simple fact that you believe you have access to a perfect, immutable truth means your world would be doomed to look like this - because people disagree with you and you think such disagreement is evil.
Wales is a right-wing libertarian, so you fail hilariously at the first hurdle. What is going on here is an example of what libertarians would really be like in power; they only speak of liberty so long as everybody agrees with them. They make the motions of such in public but form secret societies to subvert it. Enjoy your utopia asshole, and be thankful it only exists online.
Why wouldn't an Objectivist have a low tolerance for criticism? Objectivism is the view that there is a single, objective, unquestionable reality - with the implication that the Objectivist him or herself perceives this reality. If you hold such a view, those that disagree with you must seem like dangerous lunatics or liars. It isn't a philosophy that tolerates criticism, as its founder repeatedly demonstrated during her lifetime.
This kind of reality control, and us-and-them mentality, was not invented by Ayn Rand though. Its the common M.O. of most cults.
You are asking me to sacrifice my freedom, perhaps my life, to improve society. Yet you will not do the same. You want to benefit from social change whilst externalizing the entire cost upon me and anybody else you care to goad into action.
Why would I let you do that to me? How can you seriously expect me to march, to chain myself to the railings, and to do all the other things whilst you sit in safety and comfort?
I have been saying for some time, the historical significance of Wikipedia will be as an extremely well documented social experiment, rather than as an encyclopedia.
It was a genuine attempt to create a new way of gathering and ordering human knowledge, but ultimately it failed to overcome the problems in the society that it occupied. Petty politics and corruption ate away at the original vision. I am not intellectually lazy enough to just shrug and say 'human nature' - I think there is more to it than that.
Wikipedia, like the rest of the Internet, might appear to be a new cultural space but the fact remains that everyone who contributed to it still occupies a real world cultural space. Real life Democrats are wikipedian democrats. Real life creationists are wikipedian creationists. Technology itself doesn't let you outrun who you are, so ultimately the same conflicts that make real life debate and conflict suck made Wikipedia suck as well.
I'm hoping, for the sake of the web and for the sake of Wikipedia itself (a victim of its own dominance; everyone wants access to the first hit on a Google search of their pet topic) that something else displaces it. Having a single, flawed, starting point for finding out information on the Internet (as many people do with Wikipedia) reduces its utility for research.
I have plenty of conviction. I also understand the extensive power of the state and the weakness of the population. Sometimes you have to recognise that a fight is unwinnable, and find a way to avoid it.
Really? And what positive steps have you taken to oppose your government? Protests don't do shit. Anything that has any chance of making headway is treated as criminal activity and punished accordingly.
I guess you are a 'you first' kind of revolutionary. How can I accept a lecture from you about civic duty in modern society when you aren't posting from a prison cell?
I get out of bed in the morning for my family, my friends, for whatever fulfilling work I can find. Unfortunately, because somehow people have decided the things I enjoy doing make money, I also prop up this creaking, decadent system as a side effect.
I can't change society, but I can change myself. I want to disconnect from all these things I despise, and so I am working towards more financial independence, and hoping to be able to live at least partially off-grid in the future. Somehow, though, even if I can provide my own power and food I think this crappy society will still bother me.
I am assuming they were activists rather than terrorists, because the government has provided no evidence they were terrorist. You see, unlike the people here so quick to jump on animal rights activists and brand them terrorists, I believe in this old fashioned concept of "Innocent until proven guilty". Maybe thats just me though.
(Firstly, this post was direct at me and I don't consider it flambait, so I can't see why moderators do)
No, I don't write to my MP, because unless the envelope is stuffed full of £50 notes they will ignore me (or, at the very most, send me a letter full of promises and platitudes so they don't lose my vote, and then ignore me)
I am registered to vote, but I consider it largely a futile ritual. My vote has never had any chance of changing the balance of power because I've always lived in safe seats.
no2id is a worthy cause but a hopeless one. The interests which run government require that government exercise control and therefore no2id is running up against money and will fail.
I don't know where you get the idea I'm a Mail reader from. Completely the opposite in fact.
Its the fucking Internet. Specifically, its fucking Slashdot. Who the hell cares what I write here or on any other forum? I certainly don't have any delusions, I just like to be able to put my anger into words sometimes, purely for the sake of doing so.
The cultural discourse is still dominated by big media. There may be debate on the Internet, but its framed and stuffed with catchphrases by traditional media, and is done so in order to further the interests of traditional media and, more to the point, the money behind it.
Slashdot Mirror
If this system is run by the US government, will they apply their own censorship?
http://news.cnet.com/2010-1028_3-5204405.html
But it gets better...
So oppressed homosexuals in Iran found themselves circumventing the Iranian government only to be thwarted by the US government. But that isn't even the best bit.
Yes, there are legitimate limits to what taxpayers should cough up for - and I think helping a foreign government keep its gay population from accessing the wider international community most definitely falls into that category!
Your post is wordy, but semantically empty. You didn't bother to try and find out and understand was falsifiability is (ironically given the context, Wikipedia has a decent article to help you out) - you just took a word and ran with it to spew ideology without substance or logic.
Without the basic foundation of rational argument, your post is semantically equivalent to "Capitalism YAY". You are expressing an opinion, just doing it in a pretentious way.
"Human nature" is an example of lazy thinking. You aren't trying to explain anything, you are just deferring explanation to a made-up entity. Its sociological creationism.
Lets Review
You: an objectivist would take note of criticism and check if said facts are objectively true, attempting to use dispassionate argument, logic (preferably pure logic), and nothing else.
Me: And after this process, the Objectivist always comes to confirm what Ayn Rand said.
You: And what is wrong with that ?
There is a little concept I'd like to introduce you to. Its called 'falsifiability' and if you want to throw around the language of science like you have been doing, its pretty damned important.
Your complete inability to figure this out for yourself honestly makes you the most stupid person I have seen post on Slashdot, including those from other Randroids.
Why think up a rational argument when you can just call someone a stoner?
A government is just a form of monopoly. Why should a corporate monopoly be exempt from the same criticism as a government monopoly?
Hilariously, you complain about me judging the speaker not the words, then in the next breath you call me a "loser" without a hint of irony. I really couldn't care less about the judgment of a person who has demonstrated through his words that he is too stupid to be capable of introspection. Fucktard.
Wales is the man who founded, and runs, Wikipedia. As leader of the community, he fills the top spots with those he considers like-minded: certainly not 'leftists'
And after this process, the Objectivist always comes to confirm what Ayn Rand said. Funny how that happens!
Your idea of rational debate is calling anyone making a decision about the distribution of healthcare part of a "death panel"? You know what the word "Hyperbole" means don't you?
Also, you ignore the fact that with private healthcare, your employer gets to determine whether or not you have healthcare by controlling your employment status. Is the board of directors a "death panel" then?
A reality which the Objectivist claims to perceive himself, thus presenting a viewpoint. Your philosophy is laughably easy to debunk.
Science would be observing lower healthcare costs and longer live in countries with "death panels", whereas your philosophy sweeps such facts under the carpet
Ayn Rand could accept criticism? Bullshit. She was convinced she was right and exlcuded people from her cult when they dissented, even when they dissented within the framework of right-wing radical capitalism.
Your *snigger* objective reality doesn't differentiate between Obama and Stalin? I wonder how a Ukrainian reader would feel about such a statement.
You've just, without a hint of self-awareness, demonstrated the exact same thick-headed exclusion of all outside viewpoints I have been complaining about. Thankyou for being yourself, and demonstrating my point for me :)
Well, you've gone and changed what you are saying so much there is little point responding to your pathetic rantings. Fact is, you had a go at me for seeing the state of things and not acting, and then when I explicitly asked you what you've done to change things, you were all over the place. Maybe you will be able to hold a better argument when you move out of your mother's house.
There is a very good reason much remains to be covered; Wikipedia is not about knowledge it is about territory. Biographies of obscure people are not good territory, as they are not visited often or linked to very much. Pages about world leaders, or major current events, are prime real estate and people will fight tooth and nail for domination of them. As other posters have stated; its pure chimpanzee social dynamics.
Wales is himself, a professed objectivist, and Wikipedia is his society. Ayn Rand fanboys should take note.
Underneath the exterior, its a complete hash of bickering, factionalism, vicious territorial disputes and power struggles. Its policed by a secretive clique that tolerates neither criticism nor dissent. Were it a real life territory of any kind, it would be a hell hole. What is now done with harsh words and moderator privileges would be done with truncheons and bullets. There would be a cult of personality surrounding Wales himself, backed by force, and no personal freedom.
This is how your world would turn out, Randroids. It doesn't matter one iota what you say, or even what you believe, about liberty; the simple fact that you believe you have access to a perfect, immutable truth means your world would be doomed to look like this - because people disagree with you and you think such disagreement is evil.
That is indeed shocking behaviour from a site that professes to 'assume good faith'
Wales is a right-wing libertarian, so you fail hilariously at the first hurdle. What is going on here is an example of what libertarians would really be like in power; they only speak of liberty so long as everybody agrees with them. They make the motions of such in public but form secret societies to subvert it. Enjoy your utopia asshole, and be thankful it only exists online.
Why wouldn't an Objectivist have a low tolerance for criticism? Objectivism is the view that there is a single, objective, unquestionable reality - with the implication that the Objectivist him or herself perceives this reality. If you hold such a view, those that disagree with you must seem like dangerous lunatics or liars. It isn't a philosophy that tolerates criticism, as its founder repeatedly demonstrated during her lifetime.
This kind of reality control, and us-and-them mentality, was not invented by Ayn Rand though. Its the common M.O. of most cults.
I don't take orders from the like of you. I don't see why I should not shut up just because I am not 'active' enough for your liking. Go to hell.
Debunking homosexuality? You mean claiming it doesn't exist?
Apply some rudimentary game theory, please.
You are asking me to sacrifice my freedom, perhaps my life, to improve society. Yet you will not do the same. You want to benefit from social change whilst externalizing the entire cost upon me and anybody else you care to goad into action.
Why would I let you do that to me? How can you seriously expect me to march, to chain myself to the railings, and to do all the other things whilst you sit in safety and comfort?
Like I said, you are a 'you first' revolutionary.
I have been saying for some time, the historical significance of Wikipedia will be as an extremely well documented social experiment, rather than as an encyclopedia.
It was a genuine attempt to create a new way of gathering and ordering human knowledge, but ultimately it failed to overcome the problems in the society that it occupied. Petty politics and corruption ate away at the original vision. I am not intellectually lazy enough to just shrug and say 'human nature' - I think there is more to it than that.
Wikipedia, like the rest of the Internet, might appear to be a new cultural space but the fact remains that everyone who contributed to it still occupies a real world cultural space. Real life Democrats are wikipedian democrats. Real life creationists are wikipedian creationists. Technology itself doesn't let you outrun who you are, so ultimately the same conflicts that make real life debate and conflict suck made Wikipedia suck as well.
I'm hoping, for the sake of the web and for the sake of Wikipedia itself (a victim of its own dominance; everyone wants access to the first hit on a Google search of their pet topic) that something else displaces it. Having a single, flawed, starting point for finding out information on the Internet (as many people do with Wikipedia) reduces its utility for research.
I have plenty of conviction. I also understand the extensive power of the state and the weakness of the population. Sometimes you have to recognise that a fight is unwinnable, and find a way to avoid it.
Really? And what positive steps have you taken to oppose your government? Protests don't do shit. Anything that has any chance of making headway is treated as criminal activity and punished accordingly.
I guess you are a 'you first' kind of revolutionary. How can I accept a lecture from you about civic duty in modern society when you aren't posting from a prison cell?
I get out of bed in the morning for my family, my friends, for whatever fulfilling work I can find. Unfortunately, because somehow people have decided the things I enjoy doing make money, I also prop up this creaking, decadent system as a side effect.
I can't change society, but I can change myself. I want to disconnect from all these things I despise, and so I am working towards more financial independence, and hoping to be able to live at least partially off-grid in the future. Somehow, though, even if I can provide my own power and food I think this crappy society will still bother me.
I am assuming they were activists rather than terrorists, because the government has provided no evidence they were terrorist. You see, unlike the people here so quick to jump on animal rights activists and brand them terrorists, I believe in this old fashioned concept of "Innocent until proven guilty". Maybe thats just me though.
When did pushing poo through a letter box being compared to blowing people up on public transport become "Interesting"?
(Firstly, this post was direct at me and I don't consider it flambait, so I can't see why moderators do)
No, I don't write to my MP, because unless the envelope is stuffed full of £50 notes they will ignore me (or, at the very most, send me a letter full of promises and platitudes so they don't lose my vote, and then ignore me)
I am registered to vote, but I consider it largely a futile ritual. My vote has never had any chance of changing the balance of power because I've always lived in safe seats.
no2id is a worthy cause but a hopeless one. The interests which run government require that government exercise control and therefore no2id is running up against money and will fail.
I don't know where you get the idea I'm a Mail reader from. Completely the opposite in fact.
Its the fucking Internet. Specifically, its fucking Slashdot. Who the hell cares what I write here or on any other forum? I certainly don't have any delusions, I just like to be able to put my anger into words sometimes, purely for the sake of doing so.
The cultural discourse is still dominated by big media. There may be debate on the Internet, but its framed and stuffed with catchphrases by traditional media, and is done so in order to further the interests of traditional media and, more to the point, the money behind it.