Internet filtering: You can't opt-out (1 Viewer)

[Graney]

"Societal welfare" is shorthand for aggregate individual welfare. It is unlikely that "absolute" bans (or censorship) would maximise such function, but some level of restrictions (or censorship) may well be appropriate.

I can't think of any real downside of banning alcohol, tobacco, gambling, in terms of it's impact on "societal welfare". There is a loss of taxation, which can be put to positive ends, but as that taxation is only generated in association with such a large amount of suffering and personal destruction, it seems you would maximise "societal welfare" by at least heavily restricting access to these instruments of self-destruction, and finding other ways to raise taxation.

How does anything less than "absolute" bans on alcohol, tobacco and gambling help to maximise "societal welfare" in any way?

 

[_dhj_]

I can't think of any real downside of banning alcohol, tobacco, gambling, in terms of it's impact on "societal welfare". There is a loss of taxation, which can be put to positive ends, but as that taxation is only generated in association with such a large amount of suffering and personal destruction, it seems you would maximise "societal welfare" by at least heavily restricting access to these instruments of self-destruction, and finding other ways to raise taxation.

How does anything less than "absolute" bans on alcohol, tobacco and gambling help to maximise "societal welfare" in any way?

I think whether putting an absolute stop to alcohol, tobacco and gambling is beneficial to societal welfare is arguable both ways. There are the factors you have mentioned. On the other hand there are other factors - some individuals can maximise utility when they consume alcohol, tobacco and engage in gambling, while others with addiction prone personalities cannot. An absolute stop would also intrude on the spectrum of human experience. It suffices to mention that some of our best times in our short lives may be spent under the influence.

But all of that is actually moot due to the fact that an absolute ban is unenforceable. Humans have drunk, smoked, and gambled throughout our sociological history. A ban would breed underground subcultures, it would limit the ability of the government to control these behaviours. Sensible restrictions, as we have now, are more adapted to addressing the issues.

 

[Captain Hero]

^Why exactly?

Furthermore to what I said before:



You're a joke. The private enterprise can do as it wants! Government? DESTROY! DESTROY!

You can't opt out of Government you utter fool.

 

[Graney]

An absolute stop would also intrude on the spectrum of human experience. It suffices to mention that some of our best times in our short lives may be spent under the influence.

You should not support the censorship of drug information then. I would argue to many people, the use of psychadelic drugs is an extremely important part of human existence, and has a long and important sociological history.

Not to mention, from a purely objective perspective, the use of psychadelics such as LSD, MDMA, marijuana etc... undeniably have less observable measurable negative impacts on "societal welfare" than alcohol.

But all of that is actually moot due to the fact that an absolute ban is unenforceable. Humans have drunk, smoked, and gambled throughout our sociological history. A ban would breed underground subcultures, it would limit the ability of the government to control these behaviours. Sensible restrictions, as we have now, are more adapted to addressing the issues.

Exactly the same argument applies explicitly to "material such as and relating to child porn, criminal conduct, bomb making, drugs, suicide, health damaging cults and items "

Saying we shouldn't stop an evil because it's popular and pervasive seems morally weak. It's okay to allow self-destructive, socially abhorrant behaviour, so long as everyone does it.

I think you're trying to compromise your ideology to include the evils you're comfortable and familiar, but by doing so, you have a very inconsistent and hypocritical ideology.

 

[_dhj_]

You should not support the censorship of drug information then. I would argue to many people, the use of psychadelic drugs is an extremely important part of human existence, and has a long and important sociological history.

Not to mention, from a purely objective perspective, the use of psychadelics such as LSD, MDMA, marijuana etc... undeniably have less observable measurable negative impacts on "societal welfare" than alcohol.



Exactly the same argument applies explicitly to "material such as and relating to child porn, criminal conduct, bomb making, drugs, suicide, health damaging cults and items "

Saying we shouldn't stop an evil because it's popular and pervasive seems morally weak. It's okay to allow self-destructive, socially abhorrant behaviour, so long as everyone does it.

I think you're trying to compromise your ideology to include the evils you're comfortable and familiar, but by doing so, you have a very inconsistent and hypocritical ideology.

My comments are not to be taken as an endorsement of 'absolute' censorship of everything related to the mention subjects, but as to mean that censorship ought to be available as a tool to address the issues. Some material, depending on their seriousness and nature should be censored. It is true that when dealing with the internet policymakers face different challenges. For instance, while age could traditionally be used as a proxy indicator for enforcing restrictions, the age of the internet user is practically unobservable. The mechanisms and ways in which restrictions are imposed in the cyber-arena no doubt will improve as technology advances. And of course as technology advances, so too will there be a growing need to regulate the areas created by such advancements.

In my view it is those who absolutely or ideologically oppose internet content restrictions who are hypocritical or internally inconsistent if they also endorse any restrictions in the dissemination of discourse through other media in relation to encouragement of criminal enterprise, terrorist communications, the spread of racial hate, holocaust denial etc.

 

[_dhj_]

To clarify, I am not a fan of accusing others of having 'inconsistent' or 'hypocritical' views. 'Inconsistency' is often a phantom of the imperfection of language in expressing ideas. It is the semantic tool which those who for instance oppose abortion, killing in war, capital punishment, because it amounts to 'murder' resort to. I do not dismiss their arguments on that basis but rather upon an "even according to your argument" qualification.

 

[Graney]

In my view it is those who absolutely or ideologically oppose internet content restrictions who are hypocritical or internally inconsistent if they also endorse any restrictions in the dissemination of discourse through other media in relation to encouragement of criminal enterprise, terrorist communications, the spread of racial hate, holocaust denial etc.

I absolutely agree, and do not endorse the restrictions of any media in any way. In the role of devils advocate, I clearly explained so here in this awesome post http://community.boredofstudies.org/showpost.php?p=3768015&postcount=48.

I think it is better to have a fair, open and public discussion and debate on all issues, rather than any government regulation.

I think the accusation of inconsistency and hyprocrisy was fair in the context of this thread, but now you've explained your views, I see they are more moderate and rational and I can respect your perspective.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

You can't opt out of Government you utter fool.

Hi there I'm moving to France.

And in our day and age you can't opt out of private enterprise either! Oh the pain! Help me escape from the clutches of the Ford Motor company or the viral presence of Apple computer!

*runs off crying*

 

[Captain Hero]

Hi there I'm moving to France.

And in our day and age you can't opt out of private enterprise either! Oh the pain! Help me escape from the clutches of the Ford Motor company or the viral presence of Apple computer!

*runs off crying*

You can choose to buy different products, but moving to another country is fucking difficult.

That said and done if this plan does go through I'm moving to a country that is truly freer than our own.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I can choose to buy different products but I can't really choose to not use one of those products. Case in point: I need interwebs. But my interwebs are monitored by the private companies that offer them. There aren't any viable alternatives, and moving to France certainly makes no difference!

 

[Captain Hero]

I can choose to buy different products but I can't really choose to not use one of those products. Case in point: I need interwebs. But my interwebs are monitored by the private companies that offer them. There aren't any viable alternatives, and moving to France certainly makes no difference!

The.

Government.

Did.

This.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Pass.

The.

Buck.

 

[Captain Hero]

Pass.

The.

Buck.

They said if they didn't implement it they'd be shut down. Are you retarded?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Wait. What? I was talking in general in that post, not about this particular instance.

The Rudd government's proposal is Mongolated.

 

[Captain Hero]

Wait. What? I was talking in general in that post, not about this particular instance.

The Rudd government's proposal is Mongolated.

I wuv u naow

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Why do holes surround themselves by donut?

 

[townie]

I'm sorry, but that's fucked, dude. I shouldn't HAVE to "hide" it; whatever I do on the internet is my business, as long as I don't pull up child porn or whatever (which is illegal anyway; let it stand as that!), and the government has NO right to tell me what it thinks I should be "consuming" as an "internet consumer".

My reason for my opposition to this bill is the fact that it is a slippery slope. From illegal porn (isn't most porn illegal?), to political websites they don't like, to censoring Wikipedia. What next?

couldnt have said it better myself

 

[townie]

-Really now. The government has this ability already in censoring movies and books but it simply doesn't happen. Given the outcry over the Howard governments editing of wikipedia a few years back, I think it would make fairly prominent news headlines if the government were to abuse censorship in blocking politically unfavourable content. But yes, I do recognise the threat, I just don't think that this particular one is all that possible.

you ignore the fact that when things like that are banned, we KNOW about it, one of Dom's points was the fact that you wouldnt know what was being blocked and why in all probability.

also, your not a very good lefty - at all

 

[Iron]

Where's the awe and respect? Obedience and discipline?
It wasnt so long ago that men our age could randomly get a letter in the mail saying 'you is drafted boi'

 

[aussie-boy]

this is an absolute disgrace - individuals should be able to service all of their needs and desires as long as they don't compromise other people's freedoms

this includes watching porn, reading controversial books etc
even taboo things like child porn aren't going to stop being produced simply because no-one in another country will be able to download it... i highly doubt profit is a motive in this activity
and illegal downloading keeps the entertainment industry in check - having to restrain itself from ripping people off on items they can just download

other problems:
-going through an additional proxy will slow speeds dramatically
-censorship standards in australia are ridiculous anyway
-complete waste of money
-people will find a way to get around it... no self respecting IT genius will set this up, hence hackers will only have to overcome the tech skills of some highly paid industry professional