Internet Black Out
- Thread starter komodo
- Start date
Help Support Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum:
bum
Not entitled to an opinion
- Joined
- 19/2/09
- Messages
- 11,585
- Reaction score
- 911
Every aspect of everything you've read or seen on tv has been censored to some certain degree. Why should the internet be any different?
All of a sudden this consumer product is being elevated to some sort of unalienable right by some. Ridiculous rhetoric surrounding this issue.
All of a sudden this consumer product is being elevated to some sort of unalienable right by some. Ridiculous rhetoric surrounding this issue.
peas_and_corn
I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I cannot mash that
This sounds like it will be as effective as that email that implores people to not buy petrol on the 5th "to bring down the price of oil"
Snow
Beer me up, Scotty!
- Joined
- 20/12/02
- Messages
- 2,349
- Reaction score
- 154
Hang on, the internet is not necessarily a "consumer product". it is a communication tool. Just because we pay money to use it doesn't give the government the right to treat us like children and restrict its use just because some parents don't know how to set up safe filtering for their kids. A telephone might be classed as a "consumer product" - does that mean our phone calls should be edited?
- Snow
The real issue at hand, I believe, is that Australia's constitution does not protect one's free speech, and there is no bill of rights otherwise.
Australia is loosely bound by UN conventions to provide these sorts of rights, but nobody follows the rules.
I dont for one minute believe the internet is *not* regulated, but this particular implementation of restriction is a massive symbolic guesture of turning Australia into a nanny country. Australians, being physically isolated, appear to treat Australia as if we are a sterile petri dish, and will use whatever tools they can, often hysterically, to ensure the total eradication of anything which could 'contaminate' it's citizens. It may not matter to you much with general media, but when governments start actively choosing what you can and cannot look at to protect unfounded and hysterical beliefs, to a greater degree, without decent public forum, then you might as well throw away democracy and pick up the little red book.
P.S we'rent we all convicts, werent' we all the "contaminants" of society?
Australia is loosely bound by UN conventions to provide these sorts of rights, but nobody follows the rules.
I dont for one minute believe the internet is *not* regulated, but this particular implementation of restriction is a massive symbolic guesture of turning Australia into a nanny country. Australians, being physically isolated, appear to treat Australia as if we are a sterile petri dish, and will use whatever tools they can, often hysterically, to ensure the total eradication of anything which could 'contaminate' it's citizens. It may not matter to you much with general media, but when governments start actively choosing what you can and cannot look at to protect unfounded and hysterical beliefs, to a greater degree, without decent public forum, then you might as well throw away democracy and pick up the little red book.
P.S we'rent we all convicts, werent' we all the "contaminants" of society?
Snow
Beer me up, Scotty!
- Joined
- 20/12/02
- Messages
- 2,349
- Reaction score
- 154
I'm pretty sure I'm not a moron, so I guess I agree with you that the internet is loosely regulated to some degree. However, you were referring to censorship, not regulation. They are 2 separate issues. If I have Al Qaida's phone number, I'm allowed to call them as often as I like, but if I start talking about making a bomb to blow up a shopping mall, then I can be prosecuted for using a carrier service to commit a crime. Regulation, not censorship.
Cheers - Snow.
bum
Not entitled to an opinion
- Joined
- 19/2/09
- Messages
- 11,585
- Reaction score
- 911
The only thing stopping your little allegory from being pertinent is that it is highly improbable that you would have Albert Kaieda's home phone or any reason to talk to him (although I very strongly suspect that if you did a great many of parts of your life would be censored quite heavily before he even picked up at the other end). Although, this might actually make your case stronger since the project as proposed is going to do nothing at all and all these problems being projected are quite fanciful too.
I'm convinced.
(The more that I think about it your simile gets more and more ridiculous by the second. Your comparison based on levels of threat. There is a real threat with people communicating in the manner you describe and something should be done about it. How does that fit in with your stance of opposition to the proposition?)
I'm convinced.
(The more that I think about it your simile gets more and more ridiculous by the second. Your comparison based on levels of threat. There is a real threat with people communicating in the manner you describe and something should be done about it. How does that fit in with your stance of opposition to the proposition?)
Snow
Beer me up, Scotty!
- Joined
- 20/12/02
- Messages
- 2,349
- Reaction score
- 154
I agree the censorship project isn't really going to do much at all to alleviate illegal misuse of the internet. However your argument that because other parts of our lives are censored that it's ok for the Australian Government to enforce censorship of the internet, makes no sense to me. Regulation of the internet is necessary, but I think censorship of it is offensive.
By the way, my simile wasn't a comparison based on levels oth threat, it was a comparison based on the nature of use of a communication tool. i.e I should be able to use the tool as much as I want, but if I use it for illegal purposes, then I should get what I deserve.
Cheers - Snow.
jonocarroll
uıɐbɐ ʞunɹp ɯ,ı
Bum,
The problem with your comparison to TV/movies/books is that the process for them is transparent. The process proposed for the internet is not. The blacklist is intended to be secret. Mistakes happen (and have already happened during the trial), but due to the nature of the system the mistakes can never see the light of day.
In addition to this, the internet is very different to the other mediums. The number of books looking to be distributed in Australia is small. We have a (metaphorical, not literal) handful of TV channels. Compare this to the internet. Thousands of images and videos are going onto the internet every hour. It is both impossible to do this in a transparent manner that holds the government accountable, and it is impossible to do it in a manner that actually works!
Look at computer game ratings at the moment. Games are constantly being banned then having their ban revoked. Why is this? It's for a number of reasons - the government (and it's agencies) are fallible and make mistakes, and morality is not absolute - one mans ultraviolence is another mans art. But only a handful of games are being released. If the government agencies can't get such a small (number of products wise) media right, how the feck could it get the internet right?
The filter is a solution looking for a problem. It's not actually fixing anything! Consider:
- The use of offshore proxies can bypass the filter.
- The use of P2P can bypass the filter (and talks to block P2P are comparible to just banning the internet full-stop).
- People don't actually use HTTP://www.somethingdodgy.com to find their kiddy pron. It's not going to stop anyone (or at least, it's not going to stop the people we should really be worried about)
- It will give parents a false sense of security, making them think they don't need to worry about their children online
- It won't stop online predators
The filter will not stop kids being raped. The money spent on the filter would be far better spent on other things. Governments should be putting their time and resources into setting up treaties with other countries to better allow them to stop the producers of the filth that we are trying to hide. The money spent on this filter should be spent on federal police task forces to find people looking at these resources and prosecute them. Fix the problems. The filter is a head in the sand approach, that treats the symptoms, not the problem. All this talk of an internet filter, but nothing about world governments talking to Russia about extradition treaties for people hosting child porn content.
It also is looking to go well beyond the scope that I find acceptible. I have no objection to them blocking child porn (although I'd rather the resources spent on stopping the production of child porn). But what right do they have to block websites that talk about euthanasia? Or drug use? Both of these they intend to block. Where does it end? Will they block all foreign sites that talk about distilling alcohol? There is already a ban on R18+ content for computer games because of the perceived risk to children, so will similar levels be instituted for the internet?
The issue is far bigger than it seems. I urge people who support it to think a little deeper about it and not buy into the bullsh1t being fed to you by Conroy and the AFA.
The problem with your comparison to TV/movies/books is that the process for them is transparent. The process proposed for the internet is not. The blacklist is intended to be secret. Mistakes happen (and have already happened during the trial), but due to the nature of the system the mistakes can never see the light of day.
In addition to this, the internet is very different to the other mediums. The number of books looking to be distributed in Australia is small. We have a (metaphorical, not literal) handful of TV channels. Compare this to the internet. Thousands of images and videos are going onto the internet every hour. It is both impossible to do this in a transparent manner that holds the government accountable, and it is impossible to do it in a manner that actually works!
Look at computer game ratings at the moment. Games are constantly being banned then having their ban revoked. Why is this? It's for a number of reasons - the government (and it's agencies) are fallible and make mistakes, and morality is not absolute - one mans ultraviolence is another mans art. But only a handful of games are being released. If the government agencies can't get such a small (number of products wise) media right, how the feck could it get the internet right?
The filter is a solution looking for a problem. It's not actually fixing anything! Consider:
- The use of offshore proxies can bypass the filter.
- The use of P2P can bypass the filter (and talks to block P2P are comparible to just banning the internet full-stop).
- People don't actually use HTTP://www.somethingdodgy.com to find their kiddy pron. It's not going to stop anyone (or at least, it's not going to stop the people we should really be worried about)
- It will give parents a false sense of security, making them think they don't need to worry about their children online
- It won't stop online predators
The filter will not stop kids being raped. The money spent on the filter would be far better spent on other things. Governments should be putting their time and resources into setting up treaties with other countries to better allow them to stop the producers of the filth that we are trying to hide. The money spent on this filter should be spent on federal police task forces to find people looking at these resources and prosecute them. Fix the problems. The filter is a head in the sand approach, that treats the symptoms, not the problem. All this talk of an internet filter, but nothing about world governments talking to Russia about extradition treaties for people hosting child porn content.
It also is looking to go well beyond the scope that I find acceptible. I have no objection to them blocking child porn (although I'd rather the resources spent on stopping the production of child porn). But what right do they have to block websites that talk about euthanasia? Or drug use? Both of these they intend to block. Where does it end? Will they block all foreign sites that talk about distilling alcohol? There is already a ban on R18+ content for computer games because of the perceived risk to children, so will similar levels be instituted for the internet?
The issue is far bigger than it seems. I urge people who support it to think a little deeper about it and not buy into the bullsh1t being fed to you by Conroy and the AFA.
manticle
Standing up for the Aussie Bottler
Sorry Bum but that makes absolutely no sense at all. Basically what you've just said is that because there is regulation of some things to some extent, that therefore any and all regulation of any and all things is made permissible.
There's ridiculous rhetoric surrounding almost any issue and I grant that hysteria abounds in this one - not least from the 'stamp out kiddie porn' brigade.
The objections to the plan I have little doubt you're familiar with so I won't bore you by repeating the details again but just because we have MA ratings on some movies doesn't mean we should give carte blanche to small groups of people to filter our media and entertainment.
Peteoz77
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23/8/08
- Messages
- 524
- Reaction score
- 0
Here's a couple of things to think about.
If I am a deviant, or a perv, or a pedophile, what better way to keep my lust/sickness in check, than a web site that I can log into, seek my thrill, have a wank, and get back to real life. Come on, tell me that most of you wouldn't rather have a wank than go out trying to score.. It Sooo much easier, and a LOT less chance of getting in trouble.
Now, I'm not suggesting that pedophiles necessarily be given access to kiddie porn, but if they were given access, I wonder how many less kids would be getting raped?
Leave it out there.. it's going to be a LOT easier to find the offenders this way, and I doubt removing the sites will make ANY difference to the number of freaks out there looking for kids. If anything, they will be getting their jollies online rather than with the neighbourhood kids... and we will know who they are.
Or maybe not.. who knows? All I know is that I HATE .05% of the population making decisions on what I can or can't see or do.
If I am a deviant, or a perv, or a pedophile, what better way to keep my lust/sickness in check, than a web site that I can log into, seek my thrill, have a wank, and get back to real life. Come on, tell me that most of you wouldn't rather have a wank than go out trying to score.. It Sooo much easier, and a LOT less chance of getting in trouble.
Now, I'm not suggesting that pedophiles necessarily be given access to kiddie porn, but if they were given access, I wonder how many less kids would be getting raped?
Leave it out there.. it's going to be a LOT easier to find the offenders this way, and I doubt removing the sites will make ANY difference to the number of freaks out there looking for kids. If anything, they will be getting their jollies online rather than with the neighbourhood kids... and we will know who they are.
Or maybe not.. who knows? All I know is that I HATE .05% of the population making decisions on what I can or can't see or do.
Not really Pete you've gotta remember these freaks accessing kiddy porn are "sex addicts" and letting them access this stuff just feeds the desire. Having access to it makes it more "normal" therefore makes these freaks more likely to actually act on their desires with some poor youngster
manticle
Standing up for the Aussie Bottler
The only hole in the above plan is the kids that are raped and exploited in the putting together of kiddie porn. Allowing people access means it gets made which means all those little kiddie porn stars................etc etc etc.
The filter plan is unlikely to do much to prevent this which is why it's flawed and therefore not worth the money, time or impinging on the civil liberties of those who have nothing to do with kiddie porn but I don't think yours is a solution either.
jonocarroll
uıɐbɐ ʞunɹp ɯ,ı
I've added the black-out code to my personal website and my work site (heh - I'm the web admin, I'll do what I want). While I agree that this sort of thing does next-to-nothing in terms of actual leverage or change in policy, it does get the word out there that people are upset. If you go and talk to the 'man in the street' he won't know or care that there's a problem - the government has told him that there are sickos practically outside his window, and that the government is taking measures to stop them. Where's the problem?
Anyone who knows how the internet works (even generally) knows that this filter plan will fail miserably, but that's a minority of the population. Why do governments take knee-jerk reactions? Because they will satisfy the majority of voters.
The idea behind the black-out messages is that people will go to a webpage, and be stopped by the message (go to one that has the code loaded). They might just read about it and become informed of the matter. Better yet, they might form an opinion one way or the other about it that wasn't spoon fed to them by the policy makers.
As for 'let them have the pr0n' - while I agree that taking it away won't stop the problem, I am fully in agreement that offering an outlet for the sicko's to enjoy is a bad idea. I am very willing to believe that a lot of abnormal behaviour dysfunctions (mainly sexual, but where there's money, there's sex) can be traced back to availability on the internet and the idea that 'if it's on the internet, then other people enjoy it too, so I'm not alone'. There's also the problem of watching it leading to making it... I don't care if it's only a small percentage that make that leap, it should be stopped... and I don't even have kids yet.
There was a time where you could leave your front-door unlocked, and let the kids play in the front yard, or walk down to the shops. Do you know what has happened in terms of crime or violence or rape rate since then?... nothing, except public perception, thank you sensationalist media.
If parents want to make their kids safe online - watch your kids online. If you can't then install either a whitelist, or some accept/reject software. Easy, a lot lest costly to you and the public, and in no way causing an impact on the infrastructure of the greatest communication tool ever invented (farce-book not withstanding).
Anyone who knows how the internet works (even generally) knows that this filter plan will fail miserably, but that's a minority of the population. Why do governments take knee-jerk reactions? Because they will satisfy the majority of voters.
The idea behind the black-out messages is that people will go to a webpage, and be stopped by the message (go to one that has the code loaded). They might just read about it and become informed of the matter. Better yet, they might form an opinion one way or the other about it that wasn't spoon fed to them by the policy makers.
As for 'let them have the pr0n' - while I agree that taking it away won't stop the problem, I am fully in agreement that offering an outlet for the sicko's to enjoy is a bad idea. I am very willing to believe that a lot of abnormal behaviour dysfunctions (mainly sexual, but where there's money, there's sex) can be traced back to availability on the internet and the idea that 'if it's on the internet, then other people enjoy it too, so I'm not alone'. There's also the problem of watching it leading to making it... I don't care if it's only a small percentage that make that leap, it should be stopped... and I don't even have kids yet.
There was a time where you could leave your front-door unlocked, and let the kids play in the front yard, or walk down to the shops. Do you know what has happened in terms of crime or violence or rape rate since then?... nothing, except public perception, thank you sensationalist media.
If parents want to make their kids safe online - watch your kids online. If you can't then install either a whitelist, or some accept/reject software. Easy, a lot lest costly to you and the public, and in no way causing an impact on the infrastructure of the greatest communication tool ever invented (farce-book not withstanding).
jonocarroll
uıɐbɐ ʞunɹp ɯ,ı
Analogy:
If I am a crack-head, junkie, or a user, what better way to keep my addiction in check than a place to shoot up, get my high, and get back to real life. Come on, tell me that most of you wouldn't rather walk into a shooting gallery than go out trying to score.. It Sooo much easier, and a LOT less chance of getting in trouble.
Feeding an addiction is no way to stop it. How many junkies do you see 'getting back to real life'. How many do you see going from soft drugs to hard drugs?
