Internet Black Out

[bum]

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.

That might be because that isn't my position. My position is that the informations you receive from other sources are controlled in far more insidious ways but you don't seem to care about that. But possibly reduce your access to porn slightly? Holy ******* shit! It's WWIII!

The problem with your comparison to TV/movies/books is that the process for them is transparent.

No it isn't. There is no information made public about submissions to the OFLC. What is transparent about it? Let's pretend the OFLC isn't completely worthless for a second, though. You agree that there is content on the internet that should not be - correct? Following the model you suggest is "transparent" then every website should seek approval and not be made available to the public until approval has been granted? Dodgy, dodgy rhetoric - self-defeating, in fact.

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.

I would have thought that was more reason for such a filter - not an argument against it.

Look at computer game ratings at the moment. Games are constantly being banned then having their ban revoked. Why is this?

Because they, for whatever reason, don't pass the standards imposed on the medium and then they are edited by the publishers and are granted approval for release.

But only a handful of games are being released.

wtf? Seriously. So seriously that I am going to write it all out the long way. In caps. WHAT THE ****? I think the most games ever knocked back in a single calendar year has been 4 and that was a big jump. 3 of those were later given approval for release with minor edits.

The filter is a solution looking for a problem. It's not actually fixing anything!

I'm not pro filter. I'm just anti shitty rhetoric.

I have no objection to them blocking child porn (although I'd rather the resources spent on stopping the production of child porn).

Yeah, the sooner they close down those big kiddy porn producing movie studios the better!

But what right do they have to block websites that talk about euthanasia? Or drug use? Both of these they intend to block.

And both of these are equally illegal in this country. You can't pick and choose which laws you wish enforced and which you don't.

[EDIT: torpos]

 

[jonocarroll]

And both of these are equally illegal in this country. You can't pick and choose which laws you wish enforced and which you don't.

While I'm mostly in agreement with you, I'll tackle this last point.

While the practice of euthanasia and drug use are both illegal in this country, discussion of them is not, and should never be. Yes, there's a fine line between discussion and encouragement, and that's where some of the most useless part of this debate is focussed (arguing over the minor points when the general concept is flawed at its core).

 

[bum]

Your point is completely reasonable, however, when the blacklist was first leaked (I understand that is not set in stone) the euthanasia pages all contained "how to" sections. This is illegal. I'm sure we've all seen discussion of drugs that go beyond the pros and cons and in many cases this is also illegal.

I happen to be pro-euthanasia but that is beside the point.

 

[manticle]

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?

Not really a good analogy and shooting galleries have been suggested as a way to minimise the harm created by illegal drug use*. The problem with allowing access to this particular addiction is that there is a very obvious exploitation of people. While undoubtedly along the chain of events that leads to a needle in an arm, someone probably got very exploited, it's less glaringly obvious than children being 'insert nasty image of what happens in KP here'.

*Whether you personally agree with the introduction of shooting galleries/legalised injecting house etc is immaterial currently: they are a far cry from providing allowing or encouraging KP.

 

[jonocarroll]

Your point is completely reasonable, however, when the blacklist was first leaked (I understand that is not set in stone) the euthanasia pages all contained "how to" sections. This is illegal. I'm sure we've all seen discussion of drugs that go beyond the pros and cons and in many cases this is also illegal.

The blacklist would have to be the biggest face-palm of the entire debate, and I actually agree with Sen. Conroy that it shouldn't enter the discussion at this point. A blacklist was supposedly used to test the filter (the poor running of the testing aside). That was never intended to be an interim, temporary, or draft blacklist. The plan from the government was to use the censorship board to create a blacklist via a submission process followed by a review process. All of the 'a florist got on the blacklist' crap is totally moot.

BUT... the arguments over the implementation of the scheme are secondary to the arguments over the scheme itself. I said it last time this discussion came up and I'll say it again - even with a PERFET blacklist policy, the scheme is terrible. Arguing over the blacklist implementation itself is tiresome and pointless.

 

[bum]

I can't help but feel that you're arguing against one word of my post rather than that post's obvious intention.

 

[jonocarroll]

Arguing over the blacklist implementation itself is tiresome and pointless.

Heh. Now that I read that again, all I can think of is that I should have used two different words;

Shallow and pedantic.

 

[jonocarroll]

I can't help but feel that you're arguing against one word of my post rather than that post's obvious intention.

I don't think I am. I am trying to avoid a debate about content. The entire discussion is pointless unless it focuses on the scheme itself, not the implementation or some other minor detail. Whatever the filter is 'aimed' to 'block' is unimportant at this stage. It is a poor way to do it, and a waste of resources to try.

Edit: Replace the intended question/theme of this thread with 'the government is trying to block XYZ with the filter scheme. Good idea or not?' I can tell you right now that irrespective of what XYZ might be, it is a bad idea.

 

[manticle]

And both of these are equally illegal in this country. You can't pick and choose which laws you wish enforced and which you don't.

Maybe but you can protest against the ones you don't believe are justified. Legislation gets altered. Laws get changed - precisely because someone, somewhere opposes them and makes a point. Nothing in law is an almighty, absolute principle so it follows that not all objections to them need to be purely noble either. The basic objection to this filter is that it's unlikely to do what it sets out to do.

With or without rhetoric and hysteria, that's surely worth addressing? We should at least start with that and then move onto the 'omg it will cripple the Australian stock market and make the world explode and blacklist play school on youtube' rubbish.

 

[bum]

Whatever the filter is 'aimed' to 'block' is unimportant at this stage.

Its very function is irrelevant?

As I already said, I'm not pro filter so I'm not disagreeing with the other points, per se.

 

[jonocarroll]

Its very function is irrelevant?

The way it's set out at the moment - in that the filter will use ISP-level filtering of http/ip addresses to 'block' whatever it is 'aimed' at 'blocking' - is inherently flawed, and cannot achieve whatever goals you wish to define it to have. Therefore, debating those goals is - in my preferred choice of words - shallow and pedantic. Irrelevant would suffice.

 

[zebba]

I can't help but feel that you're arguing against one word of my post rather than that post's obvious intention.

And WTF did you do with my post? Good for the goose, eh? I don't have time to point out the flaws in your ill-thought out rebuttal just now so expect a response tonight...

 

[bum]

So now you're refusing to even argue against one word of mine? Even after calling me a hypocrite?

I addressed many of your points at what some might say is greater length than was necessary. What are you talking about?

 

[zebba]

So now you're refusing to even argue against one word of mine?

Perhaps you missed the part where I said I was busy and would reply tonight?

No it isn't. There is no information made public about submissions to the OFLC. What is transparent about it? Let's pretend the OFLC isn't completely worthless for a second, though. You agree that there is content on the internet that should not be - correct? Following the model you suggest is "transparent" then every website should seek approval and not be made available to the public until approval has been granted? Dodgy, dodgy rhetoric - self-defeating, in fact.

Actually it is transparent. If you keep an eye on the R18+ issue for games, which some of your posts below demonstrate you do, you'd know that information on rejections is freely available to the public. The internet blacklist would not be - because they know that the filter can be bypassed, so by making the blacklist public they are basically advertising the sites. As it is, the blacklist is secret and as such there is no accountability. That is what I mean by transparency. Your suggestion that my model requires pre-approval is wrong and constructs a strawman argument trying (and failing) to make my argument look absurd.

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.
I would have thought that was more reason for such a filter - not an argument against it.

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion... And a perfect example of the hypocrisy I suggested you were guilty of. Internet regulation cannot work the same way that other medium regulation does, because of the pure scope of it. The numbers make it impossible to maintain a working, up to date filter.

Look at computer game ratings at the moment. Games are constantly being banned then having their ban revoked. Why is this?
Because they, for whatever reason, don't pass the standards imposed on the medium and then they are edited by the publishers and are granted approval for release.

Look up Alien Vs Predator. It was RC'd. No changes were made and the RC was removed. Fallout 3 was edited - but only an idiot would claim it was because of the edits. In Fallout 3, they changed 1 thing - the name "Morpheine" to "Med-X". The slow mo exploding bodies, decapitations, etc, are all still there. As are the drugs. The classification board didn't revoke the RC because renaming "Morpheine" to "Med-X"...

But only a handful of games are being released.
wtf? Seriously. So seriously that I am going to write it all out the long way. In caps. WHAT THE ****? I think the most games ever knocked back in a single calendar year has been 4 and that was a big jump. 3 of those were later given approval for release with minor edits.

Firstly, your stat there is incorrect. The figures for last year were higher. Secondly, I thought I should add the word "metaphorical" infront of handful but then I thought that no-one would be so stupidly anal retentive to actually think I was referring to a handful as in "5". Compared to the number of new webpages created every day, the number of games released in Australia last year is a statistically insignificant figure - yet they still can't get it right.

I'm not pro filter. I'm just anti shitty rhetoric.

The only rhetoric in my original post was padding to create a narrative. It was bumper full of legitimate reasons why the filter is wrong. You just chose to go on the offensive instead of looking for the message.

Yeah, the sooner they close down those big kiddy porn producing movie studios the better!

What a stupid comment. Read what I said again. And keep reading it until you see what a stupid comment this was. I never said anything about big studios. But you know that someone is taking the pictures and making the movies, right? They don't just appear on the internet - people make them, people distribute them. Do you not agree that they are a bigger problem, far more worthy of resources? Do you also not realise that a head in the sand approach, as this filter is, will just force the people looking at the content to use methods that are even more difficult to detect?

But what right do they have to block websites that talk about euthanasia? Or drug use? Both of these they intend to block.
And both of these are equally illegal in this country. You can't pick and choose which laws you wish enforced and which you don't.

I'm sorry, it's illegal to discuss them? Here was me just thinking it was only illegal to do them. How silly of me... Laws are there to serve society, not the other way around. Law should always be open for debate.

 

[bum]

Gonna go Captain Kirk on you here (go boldly) as last time I did this the board told me I had too many quote boxes and had to cut shit.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said I was busy and would reply tonight?
Perhaps you missed the part where you attacked me for supposedly not addressing an issue without addressing any issues. You found time in your busy schedule to make personal remarks.

Actually it is transparent. If you keep an eye on the R18+ issue for games, which some of your posts below demonstrate you do, you'd know that information on rejections is freely available to the public.
This is not transparency. This is just a report of a result after the fact.

The internet blacklist would not be - because they know that the filter can be bypassed, so by making the blacklist public they are basically advertising the sites. As it is, the blacklist is secret and as such there is no accountability.
And the first thing that interested people do when games are reject is import foreign copies.

Your suggestion that my model requires pre-approval is wrong and constructs a strawman argument trying (and failing) to make my argument look absurd.
It is in no way absurd. The model you yourself present as a more preferable system obliges submission for approval PRIOR to public release. There is no ignoring this element of your comparison. No strawman - just you not following your own ideas through to a logical conclusion. You just stop where it feels nice.

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion... And a perfect example of the hypocrisy I suggested you were guilty of.
Addressed above, IMO.

Internet regulation cannot work the same way that other medium regulation does, because of the pure scope of it. The numbers make it impossible to maintain a working, up to date filter.
No shit? Thanks for repeating my own point back to me.

Fallout 3 was edited - but only an idiot would claim it was because of the edits. In Fallout 3, they changed 1 thing - the name "Morpheine" to "Med-X". The slow mo exploding bodies, decapitations, etc, are all still there. As are the drugs. The classification board didn't revoke the RC because renaming "Morpheine" to "Med-X"...
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2008/07/olfc_report_why_fallout_3_was_banned_in_australia/
Well, I guess someone is an idiot. Probably still me, huh?

Firstly, your stat there is incorrect. The figures for last year were higher.
I apologise. I am sure the figure I've incorrectly remembered is significantly closer to the truth than the picture you were trying to present, however.

Compared to the number of new webpages created every day, the number of games released in Australia last year is a statistically insignificant figure - yet they still can't get it right.
The comparison is irrelevant outside of the argument you deny presenting - why are you still talking about it? Please don't respond to this I know you still don't see it despite it being spelled out above (again). The itallics are your opinion.

The only rhetoric in my original post was padding to create a narrative. It was bumper full of legitimate reasons why the filter is wrong. You just chose to go on the offensive instead of looking for the message.
Not sure you understand what 'rhetoric' means. However I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and agree with you without reservation. I saw your message and thought about the implications of it - which is more than you seem to have done.

What a stupid comment.
The period should be a colon. If it was as simple a matter to just stop this heinous shit being produced it would be being done. These people are nigh on impossible to trace. They don't advertise. How is this simply stopped? This is my point. Should have been obvious. I was ridiculing your stupidity.

I'm sorry, it's illegal to discuss them? Here was me just thinking it was only illegal to do them.
This has clearly been addressed in a previous post. Discussion is not without governing rules. Speech is not free. There are things that can be said that are illegal. I don't care if you think this situation is a fair one - it is the reality. Do something about it rather than asserting something that is not fact. You cannot talk about illegal activities in an instructional manner - it is against the law.

 

[manticle]

Hi guys.

I'm new to this forum and think it's great. Everyone is so nice.

Anyway I just thought I'd say hi and say I have some ideas about stuff that's going on too. I posted some stuff in one of the sub forums? Hope you all have a read some time. Let me know what you think.

Ok, cool. This place looks like a great place to hang out and meet new peeps and make friends and stuff.

Ok, that's it from me.

Cool.

See ya.

 

[bum]

If this is an inappropriate use of the Off Topic forum then I apologise to everyone.

If I remember correctly there is plenty of beer stuff up there if you'd prefer. I should warn you that people sometimes disagree up there too.

Welcome aboard!

 

[WarmBeer]

 

[manticle]

If this is an inappropriate use of the Off Topic forum then I apologise to everyone.

If I remember correctly there is plenty of beer stuff up there if you'd prefer. I should warn you that people sometimes disagree up there too.

Welcome aboard!

I think I was referring to all my points being ignored bum *******.

All.

Apologise for that! Ha!

 

[bum]

I won't apologise - I will however make excuses...

The quotes I had to delete which were eluded to above? Yours. Don't blame me. Perhaps if you'd made a paypal donation this wouldn't have happened (*crosses fingers and hopes manticle read that thread*).

I will apologise for the misunderstanding, however. Sorry.