The Shortest Internet Censorship Debate Ever 169
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! (Score:5, Funny)
Hurrah for Po(rn)land!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
(Ariel Castro, the Cleveland basement kidnapper, recently admitted [cleveland.com] to an "addiction to porn", whatever that is)
So what. Correlation does not imply causation as I'm sure J Edgar Hoover, John Wayne & Kirk Franklin would agree.
HOWTO debate censorship. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
These debates happen often enough you'd think someone would formally study which arguments are most effective— I don't mean a pile of informal advice, but actual measurements of argument success.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If only for the odd sideways-scrolling :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I get that a lot. You can make the browser window less wide and get the mobile layout (more readable,a ccording to some), or just use the .txt link: http://rys.io/en/109.txt [rys.io] http://rys.io/en/94.txt [rys.io]
Add a "print" link, one column layout, white background with black text. It looks great, the effects and all are really nice, but reading such a long article without knowing about this trick will not promote the message, and that's what it's all about!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
> HOWTO debate censorship.
tl;dr Direct elected politicians to here [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:1)
Well that didn't paste right. Try this [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:1)
I only wish I had mod points today. For both points really:)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with it? Renders fine in Opera; it's easy to read and the links work.
Re: (Score:2)
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 [rys.io]
"You forgot Poland" just might take on a new meaning.
Can someone please re-post that page in a format that does not absolutely fucking suck?
Copy the text, paste it in your text editor or Word or whatever - et voilà!
They remember the good ol' days... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
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 ce
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It's just because they can't remember the lyrics.
Similarly, Polish plumbers forget to tighten fittings and Polish builders forget what a a right angle is.
Re: (Score:2)
and Polish builders forget what a a right angle is.
They must be leftists.
Re: (Score:2)
Polish plumbers forget to tighten fittings
Sometimes, perhaps yes. Still better than English plumbers who won't turn up for 3 weeks, will then arrive late, curse about not having the right tools (seriously how does that even work for a professional plumber), go out for a fag and then bugger off never to be seen again. No problem with forgetting to tighten fittings becaus they never get that far.
Laws to block legal music? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that Larry Flint of Hustler fame successfully argued that the "indecent" magazine Hustler was part of the press and protected by the first amendment.
The problem with the American Bill of Rights, too many Americans, especially politicians and the judiciary, willing to interpret it in weird ways such as speech doesn't include "indecent" speech.
Well, (Score:1)
Innocence of children? (Score:2)
"We won't block legal content" (Score:5, Insightful)
No the shortest debate are these 4 words: (Score:3)
Only cowards use censorship
Re: (Score:2)
The best internet filter (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
I'd +1 except for the last few days attempts at 'spending' mod points haven't had any effect for me -- anyone else experiencing this problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
2) Google for e.g. adult stories [google.co.uk]
3) start reading e.g. this (NSFW !!!!) [literotica.com] and with the search, you find much more.
Reading is good for a kid! Pity that these things tend to be not exactly Shakespeare.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah that certainly works. Unless you decide to leave him alone at home, then he won't be that reluctant, will he? I say this as somebody who has the computer in an open room. Just as a little experiment, install some sort of monitoring software, leave him alone and see what he visits. And then proceed to do nothing about it because you shouldn't be having such software there in the first place, except now you know whether or not what you have been trying works or not.
For what it is worth, I think this is o
Re: (Score:2)
I've invented the best, most effective and cost effective internet content filter ever devised.
We had an even better one when I was a kid. Most of didn't have internat access at all. Still didn't stop some chap selling CDs full of internet porn at school.
Seriously though, your kid is choking it to porn, probably internet porn. He's using his computer and porn acquired elsewhere. If he doesn't have one then he's snatching moments to tug it when you're not in the way and that shared family keyboard is now sup
There is a REAL effective filter (Score:2)
If you REALLY want to filter YOUR computers internet connection there is a very simple and totally effective approach.
A white list.
Blocking content you don't like on the internet is a never ending task but you CAN produce a SHORT list of approved sites for you or those who can't yet escape your clutches to visit. Because I have found that those kids who grew up in censored households were the ones to go most off the rails when they finally moved out. No greater slut then the preachers daughter.
I am remin
No problem. (Score:2)
If such filters were very accurate, it would be great.
Only if it was opt-in of course.
Filter all articles and sites related to [Microsoft|Linux|Apple]
Filter content of [repidlicans|democrats], [gristians|atheists|muslims|Buddhists|other].
Internet would entirely consist of unicorns and kittens!
Comercial about censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Might want to flip that around, so the proponent of censorship is the one getting the mic ripped away from them. It's more likely to get the pro-censorship people riled up about being censored and perhaps they'll get the irony of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or how about whilst the first is midway through the second pulls out some wire cutters and snips the first's cable.
Then maybe saying something like "Alas per $first, he never read Ha
Re: (Score:2)
The caption will read "when asked, The Government implied this person may be a terrorist, or perhaps a paedophile, then again they might just be feeling depressed and suicidal."
Write your congressman (Score:2)
We need to Polish our laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Honestly, with this latest policy one has to wonder what in the world the UK is cumming to.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to Polish our laws.
Just remember what they say about turd.
Shouldn't have filters anyway (Score:2)
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
Think of The Children (Score:3)
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.
seeing a pattern? (Score:2)
Child porn is a problem, so lets block all porn.
Meth is a problem, so lets put Pseudoephedrine behind the counter.
Irresponsible people with pit bulls are a problem, so lets ban all "dangerous" breeds.
Evil people killing others with guns is a problem, so lets ban all guns.
Over-consumption of energy drinks is a problem, so lets ban energy drinks.
none of the above "solutions" actually solves the problem, it just infringes on the rights of the people.
Re:And this is a good thing how? (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing is, we are all in favor of some sort of censorship aren't we?
Nope.
Why exactly should we want any censorship?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Why should anybody read past it? Censorship is obscene, in all cases. There is nothing to debate. Nobody has a right to control what I see and hear. That is up to me and me alone. Too simple..
Re: (Score:2)
Warnings on some types of sites are nice, hopefully volunteerly perhaps with a some social pressure.
Most porn sites seem to have a front page that states that there is porn here, enter at your own risk.
Even the radio (CBC) will often preface certain stories with a warning about disturbing content.
Makes it easier to make an informed choice.
Re:And this is a good thing how? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
If the country where the child porn originates is a country where the law, the enforcement of the law or the law enforcement agencies are such that prosecution of the scumbags who create this filth isn't going to happen (e.g. Russia where the criminals responsible for child porn, cybercrime, spam, phishing scams etc etc are part of criminal gangs who have ties all the way to Putin himself) then we here in the west should be using political, diplomatic, trade and other pressure to get things changed.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't trust other people to think for themselves
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of this subject, that phrase caught my eye. No, I don't trust other people to think for themselves.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
I'll offer a devil's advocate counter-point. What you see here is a discussion nobody could have quietly in a room in real life. The internet's lack of regulation means people don't need to skirt around common courtesy when they disagree, and those offering retorts are free to reply in any way they wish. Unfortunately in this case there's little productive argument going on, but consider the recent furore over Linus' rants on LKML - they can have utility and might even be healthier than standard social norm
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And this is a good thing how? (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know this seems off topic, but bear with me....This morning I listened to an NPR article on the Zimmerman case. The focus was why all the support groups that seemed connected before the verdict have now splintered. The general feeling was "We need to do something about race and civil rights", and my questions to the radio was "what? Pass another law?" There are times when we, as a Society, need to step back from the emotional response and look at the bigger picture of cause and effect.
Trying to propos
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Whenever you have an urge to ban or restrict something, apply the following line of reasoning.
Freedom is inherently good. Therefore, you should start with a proposition that nothing whatsoever should be banned. It doesn't matter if it's personally extremely disgusting or disturbing to you.
Then assess the actual damage that is caused by the activity in question. Don't trust your gut feel - apply logic. Preferably, look up actual stats, if they exist.
Is it harmful to someone, somewhere? If no, then you should
Re: (Score:2)
The discomfort also likely lies in a base emotional desire that is, by definition, beyond reason. People, like cablepokerface, that argue for X at the expense of Y because X is so very bad nothing else can matter are doing so often based on feelings.
And we are human so it should come as no surprise that that is a factor. And it is not a bad thing. However when X is indeed bad but there are very good reasons why we can't solve X without damaging Y (Or other things.) and reason has left the building we ten
Re: (Score:2)
Thou doth protest too much.
Re: (Score:2)
You're reply is the reason any debate on this subject is impossible, apparently. I'm a father of two (soon to be three), I'm an active web developer and proponent of liberties for all. Right now the internet is often a unregulated wild west with the people enforcing law having too little knowledge or power.
This is your 2nd reply. You pulled the children card early as well as the idea that you are for liberty with one hand while taking away liberty with the other.
I'm not gonna expect a mea culpa from someone like you. You have far too much invested in your argument at this point. However you really are all about turning the argument around. Trying to attack me for showing what you did? No sir, not on my watch.
Re: (Score:2)
Mea culpa is not an apology. An apology is an admission of wrongdoing. Mea culpa is an admission of being wrong.
To expand that, say we are walking both along the street together. And I am feeling like a dick so I trip you and make you fall down. I a) was wrong for hurting you, and b) I purposely did that to you. I would owe you an apology because not only was I wrong for hurting you but I did so knowing full well what would happen by the results of my actions.
To put that yet another way, that is why we
Re: (Score:2)
It also tends to ignore how effective y would be at stopping x. The people advocating y may want it for entirely different reasons. Politics typically dosn't follow any logic,
Is there something whic
Re: (Score:1)
And your reply doesn't present a single refutation of an argument. First you appeal to yourself as an authority given by your "good standing" as a parent and profession, then you appeal to the tone of the retort and not the message.
The internet can be a wild west, as it already is. Viewing any exchange of information as an illegal activity sets a dangerous precedent, one that isn't worth the potential benefits of "protecting" children or "society" it might offer. The problem you mention is indeed a challeng
Re: (Score:1)
And your reply doesn't present a single refutation of an argument. First you appeal to yourself as an authority given by your "good standing" as a parent and profession, then you appeal to the tone of the retort and not the message.
I did that more because I was (indirectly) accused, It wasn't a reply on his content. And yes I appealed to the tone, for me it's pretty much a basis for any normal talk.
The UK already blocks more than just child porn with its "just for child porn, honest!" cleanfeed system.
I'm terrified actually, for this over-use/misuse.
Congratulations on your soon-to-be new arrival.
Thank you very much indeed. It's a girl, another one to worry about. :)
Re:And this is a good thing how? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:And this is a good thing how? (Score:4, Informative)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Depends where you are in the world - in the UK child porn is already blocked, for instance.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Buddy, child prn existed way way before the internet and even if somehow you manage to eradicate it entirely from the internet, child prn will continue to exist in the world.
No doubt it did exist, but I never saw any CP, even though I browsed porn mag shops on a few occasions, and I would not have known where to begin to find it if I'd wanted it. OTOH, I am sure I could soon find it on the Web today if I wanted, and in fact I have seen side-adverts on other sites that look suspiciously like links to CP.
As for "continuing to exist", most crimes continue to exist despite laws against them, but laws reduce their occurence. Eg theft levels would be >1000 times higher if it
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:And this is a good thing how? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm afraid that all ideas do _not_ deserve equal review or attention,
Probably true, although that argument has been misused in the past to dismiss the other's point of view from that start.
...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.
What time is wasted having that discussion? I agree with you that the extremity is a terrible thought, but you're suggesting that _any_ filtering immediately equals the thought police. Are you sure there isn't a grey area?
Re: And this is a good thing how? (Score:2)
I think his point was that once the technology is in place, it can and will be used to censor free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
That's correct. Treat the speech itself as a criminal act if necessary (such as a call to violence or a physical threat, or a lie.) But don't censor the content carriers or the book printer. Try or censure the author of the content.
Re: (Score:2)
> What time is wasted having that discussion?
The time that could be spent digging into the already existing problems, such as the already present censorship and monitoring done without notification by security agencies, businesses monitoring and censoring their own employees' private lives, and the encroachment of "big data" into personal lives. Spending excess time on ideas that have already been demonstrated as impractical, expensive, and certain to be abused for other purposes lends them credence.
Undemocratic! (Score:1)
Nobody is forcing you to look at child porn or so called hate speech - If something offends you, you are free to avoid or ignore it. But forcing everyone else to follow your standards is strictly undemocratic.
Re:And this is a good thing how? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:And this is a good thing how? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
And you don't care what else gets blocked along with it
Terrified actually.
and then you'd drive your Neo-Nazis underground like Germany has
Valid point.
Apologizing for any sort of censorship is naive.
I'm just not sure. But at least we're discussing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Apologizing for any sort of censorship is naive.
I'm just not sure. But at least we're discussing it.
I'm tired of discussing it. All of what I've said above has been said to fucking death, and all of what you've said, too. Unless you have something novel to say, there is no value whatsoever in having the discussion.
Re: (Score:1)
Unless you have something novel to say
Little chance of that, I must admit. Still, maybe the whole UK thing added something new to the table. Apparently, if we don't present alternatives beyond "Not gonna happen", it's going to happen anyway.
Re: (Score:1)
Apologizing for any sort of censorship is naive.
I'm just not sure. But at least we're discussing it.
I'm tired of discussing it.
Then don't.
All of what I've said above has been said to fucking death, and all of what you've said, too.
New people are born all the time. Not everyone was around for the discussions you are so sick of. The fact that you are burnt out shouldn't stifle debate among those that want it.
Unless you have something novel to say, there is no value whatsoever in having the discussion.
Every interesting debate I know of is at least thousands of years old. Nothing you have ever thought has been novel. Get over yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
New people are born all the time. Not everyone was around for the discussions you are so sick of.
They could literally read old slashdot threads and find the same arguments. Let's tell a new story.
Re: (Score:2)
Any Polish neo-nazi should be charged with treason.
Re: (Score:2)
Does that include *.mod.uk? How about anywhere which allows user comments, including slashdot?
Re: And this is a good thing how? (Score:2)
Laws are already in place to cover valid threats. There was an article on Slashdot a week or two back talking about a foolish kid getting arrested under one of these laws. There's no need for censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
I want sites blocked telling people actively to be violent.
But no-one likes a passive aggressive!
Re: (Score:1)
Why do ideas scare you
Of course they don't. How did you figure?
If you don't think society in general can be trusted with information
I am not worried about most people. Most people never need worry. Luckily.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you really trying to argue some anti-corporate spin into the same sentence with pro-censorship? My head is spinning.
The
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Reailty check (Score:4, Informative)
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?
Re:Reailty check (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I'd have a hard time naming an MP (or wannabe MP) who could be called anything else