Censoring the Internet: A Collection of Essential Links - Page 2
Join the #1 Art Workshop - LevelUpJoin Premium Art Workshop

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 31 to 59 of 59

Thread: Censoring the Internet: A Collection of Essential Links

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    285
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 90 Times in 33 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Duq View Post
    Thats not censorship, that is policy. Its simply not a service they want to provide. Anyone who makes an account on youtube for uploading vids had to agree with this policy.
    It's a policy of censorship; porn is as easy to censor as anything else that they deem "not a service they want to provide."

    You're not addressing my point, just arguing semantics.

    edit: in case I'm not being clear, here is the definition of censorship from thefreedictionary.com:

    "...to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable."

    Last edited by Atlantis; August 18th, 2008 at 08:58 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  2. #32
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    193
    Thanked 324 Times in 155 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    It still has nothing to do with censorship.

    Toys ur Us doesnt sell porn dvd's, but they do sell dvd's. Nothing gets censored here, porn is simply not a product they want to offer to their customers.

    Same for youtube. They want to cater a specific market, and porn simply isnt the product they want to sell to their customers.

    If a company chooses to not distribute certain information because it simply doesnt stroke with their mission, it has nothing to do with censorship. They are not offering the information, so they cant censor it.

    Ofcourse you can say they are applying moral censor to their policy. But alot of stores, websites, information outlets in the world dont provide porn. Are they all morally censoring? Just look at CA, porn spam gets removed, why? Because it clogs up the forum, and the members in general dont need it. It is not removed because CA want to surpress us with their morales and protect us from porn.

    There is a big difference between forcefully withdrawn information, and looking for information in the wrong place.

    edit: What you made clear with that statement about Youtube. Is that you dont know what internet censorship is. Internet censorship is not websites moderating their own content. Its goverments, ISPs preventing access to an open unmoderated network. What websites do with their own content completly falls beyond the scope of Internet censorship.


    edit: back to topic

    Internet cant be censored, its technically not possible. Two reasons for it.

    - 99% of the physical internet is controlled by the private sector
    - Anyone can set up an ISP. In my old town I had an ISP that was run by two guys from the local university that only supplied internet to our building.

    Last edited by Duq; August 18th, 2008 at 10:02 AM.
    "Master storytellers never explain. They do the hard, painfully creative thing-- they dramatize"

    Sketchbook
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Duq For This Useful Post:


  4. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    285
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 90 Times in 33 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    You're getting distracted with semantics again, Duq. Let's go back to the beginning: 0Kelvin said that Internet censorship was impossible in part because any website that was censored (or deemed a service not provided by the ISP) could simply re-post their message on Youtube, thus defeating the censorship. "If you can't censor Youtube, what's the point?" were his words. My reply about porn being censored on Youtube was meant to illustrate that Youtube can and does filter content, and could just as easily filter out the aforementioned website's message as it could pornography if it chose to. Filtering out content is censorship by definition; any dictionary will back me up on this.

    And here you come in telling me that pornography isn't being censored on Youtube. Yes it is. Try posting some there and see what happens if you don't believe me. Borderline videos (not quite porn but still sexually explicit) even come with warnings and a requirement for the viewer to verify their age in order to view, so don't feed me that bullshit that 'they're not applying a moral filter.' Toys-R-Us is a total non-sequitur here.

    edit: in regards to your edit:

    Quote Originally Posted by Duq View Post
    Internet cant be censored, its technically not possible. Two reasons for it.

    - 99% of the physical internet is controlled by the private sector
    75% of statistics are pulled from asses, so I'm going to have to ask you to source that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Duq View Post

    - Anyone can set up an ISP. In my old town I had an ISP that was run by two guys from the local university that only supplied internet to our building.
    I have no idea if it is possible to set up a totally independent ISP that avoids plugging in at some point to a major hub (though I doubt it), but I am fairly certain that most people lack the technical knowledge and equipment necessary for doing so. For the majority of people, then, your point is irrelevant. It's like saying you could never stop air-traffic because some people could still build their own planes; sure it's true, but most of us can't.

    Last edited by Atlantis; August 18th, 2008 at 10:24 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  5. #34
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    193
    Thanked 324 Times in 155 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I think the censorship thing is just a dead end, I can keep on hitting you in the head with the difference of Internet censorship and Moral censorship.

    75% of statistics are pulled from asses, so I'm going to have to ask you to source that.
    This one is simple. Although I cant show you one document that proves it. But its common IT Knowledge. The physical internet is all the pc's, servers, cables connected together. Cables are in general owned by the private sector, basically all the datacenters are owned by the private sector, basically all the clients that connect to the internet are owned by the private sector. The real stats would prolly show its 99.999999999%

    Its important to understand noone owns the internet, they just add their own small piece to it. Websites is just small fry, and goverments basically only supply that. Youtube prolly hosts more information then all the goverment sites put together. Simply because they host huge amounts of movies, and goverment sites are basically just websites with text and images. Its not a proven fact, because it is almost impossible to make a solid comparison. But its a standard percentage in the datacommunication world, based on logic thought and some knowledge about the internet on a hardware level.

    The internet firewall from china for example is not because the Chinese goverment has physical control over the internet, they just passed a law forcing those that have the control to build the wall.

    I have no idea if it is possible to set up a totally independent ISP that avoids plugging in at some point to a major hub (though I doubt it), but I am fairly certain that most people lack the technical knowledge and equipment necessary for doing so. For the majority of people, then, your point is irrelevant. It's like saying you could never stop air-traffic because some people could still build their own planes; sure it's true, but most of us can't.
    Its easy. Rent the landline from the telecom corp, set up a server that distributes the information to all the clients and done, it justs costs loads of money so there is no use doing it for yourself. But if you can supply a street or a building, its doable. The reason why large ISP's are doing well is because they are cheap. But if they censor the internet, it will just take a few months before a ton of small ISP's show up, and supply full internet.

    I dont know if you experienced the beginning of internet. But internet started with loads of small ISP's that just kept merging.

    Last edited by Duq; August 18th, 2008 at 11:29 AM.
    "Master storytellers never explain. They do the hard, painfully creative thing-- they dramatize"

    Sketchbook
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  6. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    285
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 90 Times in 33 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Duq View Post
    I think the censorship thing is just a dead end, I can keep on hitting you in the head with the difference of Internet censorship and Moral censorship.
    I'm thinking "censorship" must mean something different in your native language than it does in English. In English, it's just the excision or suppression of information deemed undesirable; the reason is utterly irrelevant. Thus, there is no difference between "Internet censorship" and "moral censorship" - morality is only justification for censorship and the Internet is only a location for it to take place (figuratively). I would be curious to hear your definition of each, though, if you can nail them down.

    But I agree that it's a meaningless argument.

    Again, I hope you're right about the Internet being impossible to control, but from my understanding of the subject, that seems to be a bit of an optimistic view of it. I'm not an expert on the subject, but the experts of whose opinions I'm aware do not appear to be of the view that there's nothing to worry about. I guess we'll just have to see.

    edit: Duq, you may find this article enlightening:

    http://computer.howstuffworks.com/in...censorship.htm

    You'll notice that it conforms to the definition of censorship that I do (the correct one ).

    Last edited by Atlantis; August 18th, 2008 at 11:54 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  7. #36
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    193
    Thanked 324 Times in 155 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I'm thinking "censorship" must mean something different in your native language than it does in English. In English, it's just the excision or suppression of information deemed undesirable; the reason is utterly irrelevant. Thus, there is no difference between "Internet censorship" and "moral censorship." I would be curious to hear your definition of each, though, if you can nail them down.
    Well the meaning is the same thing. Its just the context you are placing it in.
    A very simple way to explain it would be.

    Internet censorship: China preventing the chinese acces to a free and public information sharing network.

    Moral censorship: Youtube removing porn because they dont want to be associated with that.

    The first one is preventing the people from reading information to keep them surpressed. The second one is not supplying that information because its not what that company does.

    Again, I hope you're right about the Internet being impossible to control, but from my understanding of the subject, that seems to be a bit of an optimistic view of it. I'm not an expert on the subject, but the experts of whose opinions I'm aware do not appear to be of the view that there's nothing to worry about. I guess we'll just have to see.
    Its just how it is designed. Internet works because it is decentralized and dynamic. Sure it can be centralized, but the base will never change. Ofcourse there are things to worry about, but those worries should be directed to the lawgivers and how they deal with it. The internet on its own is simply impossible to control, but you can control the people that are connected to it.

    Last edited by Duq; August 18th, 2008 at 12:19 PM.
    "Master storytellers never explain. They do the hard, painfully creative thing-- they dramatize"

    Sketchbook
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  8. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    285
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 90 Times in 33 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Duq View Post
    Well the meaning is the same thing. Its just the context you are placing it in.

    The first one is preventing the people from reading information to keep them surpressed. The second one is not supplying that information because its not what that company does.
    Ah, thanks. I'd still argue that, in the context of the point I was making towards 0Kelvin, this distinction is irrelevant; the line between 'suppression for the purpose of suppressing the population' and 'suppression because we don't want to be associated with it' is very thin (enough to be nonexistent, in my thinking). Perhaps in the grim, dark future, Youtube will decide that it doesn't want to be associated with material the government deems objectionable. That was all my point was.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  9. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,994
    Thanks
    91
    Thanked 241 Times in 65 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    In 2012, Yeti will phase out man, making the internet obsolete. Loch Nessy will reveal that he did, in fact, fake the moon landing footage. Greys will continue to probe your butthole for human information. Oh wait... Humans will be phased out by Yeti .... FBI...censoring this .....post... lasers!!!

    Discuss, defend, dismiss, and debate...


    Trés Cuté Sketch Group
    magicgoo bluemech cwn annwn light dished
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  10. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    285
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 90 Times in 33 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by magicgoo View Post
    In 2012, Yeti will phase out man, making the internet obsolete. Loch Nessy will reveal that he did, in fact, fake the moon landing footage. Greys will continue to probe your butthole for human information. Oh wait... Humans will be phased out by Yeti .... FBI...censoring this .....post... lasers!!!

    Discuss, defend, dismiss, and debate...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  11. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    2,250
    Thanks
    239
    Thanked 319 Times in 109 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Atlantis View Post
    I'm thinking "censorship" must mean something different in your native language than it does in English. In English, it's just the excision or suppression of information deemed undesirable; the reason is utterly irrelevant.
    The difference isn't the reason for the censorship, it's the method. We're talking about the suppression of information through legislation. That's the difference and it's a huge one. Youtube's not wanting to host porn has nothing to do with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Atlantis
    Perhaps in the grim, dark future, Youtube will decide that it doesn't want to be associated with material the government deems objectionable. That was all my point was.
    I used Youtube as an example. Youtube is only one head of the hydra. If not Youtube then Vimeo, or Break.com, or DailyMotion, or YouPorn, or GodTube, or The Pirate Bay's sure-to-come video sharing site.



    Eric

    www.WhereIsMyEyeball.com My portfolio! Go check it out!
    Sketchbook
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  12. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    the Netherlands - Rotterdam
    Posts
    1,715
    Thanks
    157
    Thanked 209 Times in 127 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I'm thinking "censorship" must mean something different in your native language than it does in English. In English, it's just the excision or suppression of information deemed undesirable; the reason is utterly irrelevant.
    erhm no, it means exactly the same. All duq is saying that someone who owns a car-company isn't going to sell vegetables to you, and that has nothing to do with censorship.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  13. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,652
    Thanks
    2,127
    Thanked 2,318 Times in 906 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    the only form of censorship I've seen on youtube is when they've limited view counts or marked them down so the video doesn't get popular enough to get any recognition. I believe they admitted to this a few times, but apparently youtube was working with china in censoring out videos. I'd give links but I dont wanna look for them.

    the porn isn't allowed... youtube has a set of rules and I'm pretty sure they want it to be somewhat family friendly.

    'If you don't make mistakes, you're not working on hard enough problems.And that's a big mistake.'
    www.DaveRapoza.com - Step by Steps, Videos, PSD Downloads, and tons of other crap
    SketchBook
    My Twitter Account
    Schoolism Alien Video Tutorial!
    -HAHAHA B.B.F.F. Forever...-
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  14. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    56
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 65 Times in 3 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Funny how a thread founded upon a conspiracy theory has gone right to porn. You dirty-minded lot.

    I'm not inclined to get sucked into the argument, but I just wanted to bring your attention to the fact that, whereas various supposedly "uncensored" web services from the "free world" are "working with" the Chinese government to control the information that can be readily accessed by the Chinese people, censorship of the internet has in fact already become a global problem; Google, Yahoo, Youtube and the rest are not crusaders of liberty aiming their broadband cannons at Iron Curtains and the infamous walls of Berlin and China. They are businesses keen to make money, and when an opportunity arises for business with a nation that is both wealthy and authoritarian, they have no principles beyond those of the "free market" - which means in the case of China at least a very unfree internet.

    My point is that none of your assumptions of what is or is not possible have any solidity; every condition upon which your conclusions have been reached is in fact a transient condition. "Eternal vigilance," etc., etc.

    In closing, I'd just to add that it's both ironic and insightful that China has censored all traffic to any websites associated with the world's largest collection of Marxist articles and information.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to A. Sobriquet For This Useful Post:


  16. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    285
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 90 Times in 33 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 0kelvin View Post
    The difference isn't the reason for the censorship, it's the method. We're talking about the suppression of information through legislation. That's the difference and it's a huge one. Youtube's not wanting to host porn has nothing to do with that.
    Perhaps not, but until 2007, there was legislation mandating sites to require age-verification before viewing pornographic content (U.S.C. Title 18, Section 2257 ) - a practice Youtube still carries on in borderline cases.

    I'm not sure why you say the addition of legislation into the equation makes a huge difference; the result is entirely the same, and as media centers conglomerate (as they're prone to), one company's policies can easily become a law unto themselves, as it were - the company's policies can become very far reaching.

    Or hey, forget porn. Take copyrighted material - Youtube filters it out due a legal requirement to do so.

    I think my point is pretty clear and we're quibbling over irrelevant details.

    Quote Originally Posted by 0kelvin View Post
    I used Youtube as an example. Youtube is only one head of the hydra. If not Youtube then Vimeo, or Break.com, or DailyMotion, or YouPorn, or GodTube, or The Pirate Bay's sure-to-come video sharing site.
    Heh, ThePirateBay might not be the best example, given that the only reason they haven't been permanently shut down is that they're not actually hosting copyrighted materials on their servers.

    A.Sobriquet put my point into clearer words than I did: "none of your assumptions of what is or is not possible have any solidity; every condition upon which your conclusions have been reached is in fact a transient condition."

    So back again to the founder of Creative Commons saying that Wesley Clark told him an i9/11 event and an iPATRIOT act are coming. Those transient conditions that you're supposing will forever insure free-speech on the net may not last.

    Quote Originally Posted by D.Labruyere View Post
    erhm no, it means exactly the same. All duq is saying that someone who owns a car-company isn't going to sell vegetables to you, and that has nothing to do with censorship.
    Do they just not sell vegetables, or do they actively track down all references to vegetables in their dealership and expurgate them? Fuck it, I'm a native English speaker and majored in English for years; I know what the word means.

    Last edited by Atlantis; August 19th, 2008 at 01:22 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  17. #45
    chriskot's Avatar
    chriskot is offline non-dishwasher safe, keep away from open flame Level 7 Gladiator: Samnite
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    799
    Thanks
    121
    Thanked 688 Times in 203 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Atlantis View Post
    Do they just not sell vegetables, or do they actively track down all references to vegetables in their dealership and expurgate them? Fuck it, I'm a native English speaker and majored in English for years; I know what the word means.
    If you work at a car dealership and you try to sell vegetables alongside the vehicles, your boss will tell you to stop. They don't get rid of all reference to vegetables, they just get rid of the vegetables. Similarly, YouTube doesn't track down and delete all references to porn, just pornography itself. I'd say that D. Labruyere and duq are right.

    ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆
    SKETCHBOOK | BLOG
    ☆★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  18. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    285
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 90 Times in 33 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Jesus Christ. This has to be the stupidest argument I've ever been in.

    Ok, one last time.

    Main Entry: Censor
    Function: transitive verb

    : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>

    From Merriam-Webster.

    The vegetables at the car dealership is a very poor example and only tenuously related to my point about Youtube and porn (which is an excellent example of censorship), but the meaning still applies at a basic level. But arguing over the vegetables at the car dealership is pointless as it is not an example of my choosing but of Duq's, and thus disproving it does not negate my original point in any way.

    In regards to Youtube, they've decide that they don't want porn or copyright infringements hosted on their site, they therefore object to the presence of those and proceed to remove them. The removal of that which has been deemed objectionable is termed censorship.

    That's the meaning of the word, and all the illiterate know-it-alls in the world piling on to tell me I'm using it incorrectly do not change it. Please reference a dictionary before you tell someone that they are misusing a word.

    Last edited by Atlantis; August 19th, 2008 at 05:32 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  19. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SWE
    Posts
    2,536
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 1,309 Times in 389 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Removing porn spam = Filtering

    Removing artistic nudity / porn posts = Censoring

    Same word, but the latter has a negative connotation (fuzzy moral ties)? It's probably subjective which word you choose to use.... which end of the stick you're on so to speak.


    Back to OP, First video has brief cheap tit shot halfway into the video. Alex Jones talks with his entire face.

    On topic, remember that by 2012 a lot of young people who've grown up with the internet will be older and have a job. It's a different demographic to sell to, and I don't think it'll be easy to sell a downgraded product so blatantly. They'll have to attach lots of superficial bling... the game dev model of attraction.

    Jamen jag tror att han skäms, och har gömt sig. Vårt universum det är en av dom otaliga spermasatser som Herren i sin självhärliga ensamhet har runkat fram för å besudla intet.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Prometheus|ANJ For This Useful Post:


  21. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    56
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 65 Times in 3 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by chriskot View Post
    If you work at a car dealership and you try to sell vegetables alongside the vehicles, your boss will tell you to stop...
    Considering the rising costs of produce at market, this might actually be a successful form of promotion. Buy a new car and get onions for 20 cents a pound, as they ought to be. Go see Cal, etc., etc.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  22. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    2,250
    Thanks
    239
    Thanked 319 Times in 109 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Atlantis, there's really no need for the name calling.

    I'm not going to debate semantics. Dueling dictionaries is the absolute worst form of internet debate ever.



    Eric

    www.WhereIsMyEyeball.com My portfolio! Go check it out!
    Sketchbook
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  23. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 0kelvin For This Useful Post:


  24. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    285
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 90 Times in 33 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Oh call the wambulance. That was the tamest name-calling in the history of Internet drama. Next I'll be calling you all whippersnappers or something. All I'm saying is know what a word means before you accuse of someone of misusing it.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  25. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Kansas city, MO
    Posts
    1,167
    Thanks
    1,423
    Thanked 867 Times in 333 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Control of information is an essential element to control the masses. The most influential cable companies have been losing it's audience for quite some time now since the internet became public. I see they are looking to regain that control.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  26. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    547
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 28 Times in 23 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    lol oh the internet. I can press a button and what comes from my perspective of life is sent to you. Everyone states their cans and cants. walks their walks and talks their talks. All threwout history flapping our jaws trying to make some sort of impact on the constant caos. The constituion was written by a major group of these jaw flappers. Yet by the end they wernt looking at all the perspectives they forced on them self they came together with disagreements and in the end threw community agreed upon something to establish a freedom in the caos. Yet look at the jaws snaping back and forth. Your all torn apart throwing perspectives at eachother trying to prove something to one another. This coming from artists who take in the daily hardships and filter it threw into a creation of something that displays this emotion. There is a whole group of artists here and our solution is to copy and past back and forth. Well i got a better idea. Why dont we all come together and Make a peice about this issue. Why dont we use this here system that we have the ability to use right now to show what were afraid could happen. Start working together to make a statement. Ever seince i was born ive been told you gotta work hard so you can get this and this. Well thats why everyones always being hurt. Lets quit thinking about ourselves but start thinking about eachother. Lets use some revolutionary thought here and come up with some remedys.

    Website: Ravenseyestudios

    Sketchbook: Link

    Deviant art:
    Link
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  27. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ravenseye For This Useful Post:


  28. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    70
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    my god

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  29. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,888
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked 3,153 Times in 1,067 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Duq View Post
    Internet censorship: China preventing the chinese acces to a free and public information sharing network.

    Moral censorship: Youtube removing porn because they dont want to be associated with that.
    Well what happens if Youtube decides it want to be associated with free and public information? What happens if a company does not post negative information about their product on their website? What happens when a politician lies on their site?

    Moral censorship is only censorship a society agrees with and could easily become the big bad kind. Its similar to letting a government violate your rights just a little bit.

    The internet should be a place of total freedom. Yes bad things will be put online but bad things are a part of life. That is something that most governmental censoring agencies and society do not understand. You take the bad with the good and move on.

    "Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to s.ketch For This Useful Post:


  31. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    right behind you...
    Posts
    348
    Thanks
    273
    Thanked 63 Times in 46 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BuckWeisel View Post
    The internet should be a place of total freedom. Yes bad things will be put online but bad things are a part of life. That is something that most governmental censoring agencies and society do not understand. You take the bad with the good and move on.
    Oh i think these entities understand. Whoever argued that the internet is controlled mostly by the private sector and meant it as some sort of consolation for those of us that are actually concerned with internet censorship, i thought that argument was rather ineffective.

    Our government is practically owned by the private sector as well and it's been one big clusterfuck that gets stickier and stickier everyday. Many of these giant companies that have shaped our foreign and domestic policies, pushed us into wars with other nations, manipulated information, flat out lied , distract public attention from pertinent issues that actuall affect everyone, inflated our financial market, and then crashed it only to extort more money from us under the threat of complete economic meltdown (with the governments assistance), as we bombard our children with visions of vile people like Paris Hilton, and shitty music, shitty Reality TV, and lots of plastic shit that nobody fucking needs. The people who run things are the attitudes and personalities that shape too many of our policies and degrade the cause of the human spirit. if you think that they're going to pass up the opportunity to screw the common man over to make assloads of money because 'it would be too hard to do' then maybe you should reconsider, read some other literature or something, because there are a lot of shitty people out there who work hard to screw people out of money because it's effective and they benefit.

    The companies, lobbyists, and governmental figures that make these things happen know that you can't fool all the people all the time but fooling alot of the people some of the time is very lucrative. Sure they can't censor the whole internet, and regulate it with an iron fist, but legislation like the Patriot Act, and the FISA bill have has already been used to target, intimidate and accost peaceful protesters, and other non-criminal parties. And legislation that gives people cause to be afraid of finding information and spreading it, is nothing short of subversive, and evil.

    The powers that be are moving toward a grim totalitarian scenario where individuals can be 'legally' spied upon, threatened according to their views and opinions, charged as terrorists, and held without habeas corpus; and to say that they wouldn't try to seize control (even if it's not absolute) and hold serious influence over our globe spanning information network is a ridiculous statement with no historical leg to stand on. I mean really, the fasci-capitalist machine has done so much to enslave and exploit all of us up to this point, has brought us to the bring of nuclear holocaust and you think they'll suddenly decide that having controlling interests on our greatest human resource to date isn't in the best interests of their family of companies? If you have control over the information available to people you can more easily control them by limiting their access to it.
    History has shown that those with lots of money and influence usually try to keep it that way even if it's costly to do so and a few heads have to be broken in the process. Because if everybody has a reasonable amount of money those who have more have relatively less influence over everyone else. This is all a power game.

    I mean fuck, since i was five i've been fed alot of rhetoric in favor of renewable energy, i'm sure many of us have, mine was through the benefit of conscientious family members, friends and many other progressive people but you never heard about it on TV even though it's a matter of global importance. Twenty years after the fact we're more dependent on fossil fuels than ever. We've known there was a growing problem and It's the same private sector that we 'don't have to worry about' that has been keeping the renewable energy revolution from happening all this while, their argument being that converting to renewable energy would be difficult and costly on the scale of our country. This is absolute malarky since by mere fact that you're building renewable energy sources, the incurred cost will quickly be paid back in improved efficiency.

    But now that the main resource of the energy industry is beginning to lessen as the rest of the world steadily modernizes, these groups have suddenly become proponents of clean energy and are putting more of their crap adverts on the tube, talking of how environmentally conscious they are, and how progressive and humanitarian they are. It's such fucking bullshit and people buy into it.

    The internet is still a place where they haven't dug in a deep hold(or at least as deep a hold) , despite what you think, i believe it's safe to say they are going to do their best and more people should be concerned with the possibilities of what could happen rather than dismiss them based on their perceived unlikeliness, especially considering nothing has been done to prevent thus far or retract the controlling efforts that have been made, because even if it's unlikely, recent events have made such a scenario far more likely than only a few years ago, and it doesn't have to be abrupt, it can continue as it has if it's not checked.

    As artists, who generally hold views more outside the status quo we should be the most outraged at this so it really upsets me to see fellow artist just sort of shrug at the problem and say, well that hasn't happened yet, so why would it? People need to see to it that there isn't the possibility for such manipulation, to not allow infractions against our civil liberties under ANY circumstances, because the ideological foundation of what america claims to be demands it, and because these rights are supposed to be inalienable. No exceptions. But shrug away just like most everyone else, it's alot easier than organizing and doing something about it. Yuck.

    Limiting the number of views on youtube videos is a more subtle version of censorship than barring access to it outright, but it is a more insidious method of censorship and should be called into question, because if there isn't that dialogue, then the problem will only grow larger.

    The government needs access to everything in your email account and your browsing activities to keep you safe from 'the bad dark people' (You know, like Martin Luther King Jr.) but has no interests in controlling your access to the information available to you? Yeah right.

    "Today, a young man on acid, realised that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves... here's Tom with the weather." - Bill Hicks
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  32. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Athens, Greece
    Posts
    211
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 42 Times in 25 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I'm not a big fan of the "history repeats itself" appeal, but it has to be portrayed here.

    It's a real fact, that hackers are usually just a bit smarter than corporate programmers. Or should I say, many times, they are the same person... It's plain and simple, and someone has mentioned it up in the thread. If it is man made, it can be broken. Meaning, that in the perfectly logical language of the machine, it is imposible to create a system, that can not be destroyed.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  33. #57
    Arshes Nei's Avatar
    Arshes Nei is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Torrance, CA
    Posts
    6,802
    Thanks
    2,278
    Thanked 4,259 Times in 2,074 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BuckWeisel View Post
    You take the bad with the good and move on.
    It's supposed to be "You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have the Facts of Life"

    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by Arshes Nei; November 3rd, 2008 at 06:22 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  34. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,888
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked 3,153 Times in 1,067 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arshes Nei View Post
    It's supposed to be "You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have the Facts of Life"
    I'm confused as to what you are referring to with that image. When I said take the good with the bad, I was talking about content not accepting censorship.

    "Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  35. #59
    Arshes Nei's Avatar
    Arshes Nei is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Torrance, CA
    Posts
    6,802
    Thanks
    2,278
    Thanked 4,259 Times in 2,074 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BuckWeisel View Post
    I'm confused as to what you are referring to with that image. When I said take the good with the bad, I was talking about content not accepting censorship.
    The image was a funny find one day at work when the Websense filter went haywire and ended up blocking out any government sites.

    Your statement about the good and the bad, started to borrow a lot from a Pop Culture sitcom so I was just musing at your reply. It wasn't a debate on your statement.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •