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

[jb_nc]

i wonder if you could show that rape would increase if this was brought in as a result of reduced porn access

Rape as a function of pornography access. Int. J. Wowsers.

R² = 0

 

[Will Shakespear]

http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/

clearly senator conroy is PRO-RAPE

 

[Kwayera]

So you agree with censorship in general? You think books and the media and other literature should be censored?

You don't?

You.. you disgust me.

 

[Silver Persian]

http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/

clearly senator conroy is PRO-RAPE

+1

 

[PrettyOddProlix]

No Great Firewall of Australia thanks.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

This is not a slippery slope fallacy. The government won't even admit exactly what will be censored and it has no plans to make the list of what is censored accountable to the people.

uh oh! this means that we're not gonna be able to access bored of studies and liberal party sites! run! run from the scary snowball!

is it at all possible that the government is not telling because it hasn't yet decided? might i also suggest that pointing out what has been censored would make the idea completely worthless?

get real zimmerman. you live in australia, not china. if a government attempted to censor anything political or anything of value, it'd be known. remember the scareyness when the sedition laws were encated. want to explain to me the mountains of important information that have been censored as a result?

*The monetary cost
*The cost to consumers of reduced speeds

Indeed.

*The cost to consumers and business of not being able to access legitimate material because of inaccurate filtering.

Yes I'm sure chemists won't be able to access the information they need from the good drugs guide or erowid anymore.

*Possibility of children being exposed to more harmful material because the system gives parents a false sense of security, when in reality it can be easily circumvented.

o_0

*Loss of utility to adults who wish to access pornography. Remember; the plan is now to censor "X rated" material from everyone, not just child porn.

I have a strong doubt that Family First will suddenly withdraw their support if these demands are refused, which they will be.

*The risk of abuse of the system by the government to censor unfavorable material or material that certain politicians (e.g. loony senators like family first as part of political deals) happen to dislike.

nr

Neb is a virgin, no suprise he'd support blocking images of people having sex that are younger that himself.

nah mang i need 2 c pictures to ready myself for the big day!!!

 

[squeenie]

Oh my, it looks like even the ISPs are against this:

"The leaders of three of Australia's largest internet service providers — Telstra Media's Justin Milne, iiNet's Michael Malone and Internode's Simon Hackett — have, in video interviews with ZDNet.com.au over the past few months, detailed technical, legal and ethical reasons why ISP-level filtering won't work. Critics of the policy also say that users will have no way to know what's being filtered."

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/11/01/0248221.shtml

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Seriously Jimmy what the *fuck* is wrong with you.

 

[withoutaface]

Oh my, it looks like even the ISPs are against this:



http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/11/01/0248221.shtml

Of course they fucking are. This increases their overheads and decreases demand for their services.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Of course they fucking are. This increases their overheads and decreases demand for their services.

If we've learned anything over the past few months, it's that corporations are always in the best position to self-regulate for the good of everyone.

 

[withoutaface]

If we've learned anything over the past few months, it's that corporations are always in the best position to self-regulate for the good of everyone.

In a better position than technologically illiterate senators.

 

[Trefoil]

Basically: Unless it's about physical maintenance and repairs, or breaking up monopolies and settling anti-trust disputes, the government needs to stay the fuck out of the Internet.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

In a better position than technologically illiterate senators.

you fool. will you never admit to your ideology (and you are a hack-like ideologue) being a total and utter failure?

Karl Marx: I told you so.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Seriously STFU Jimmy

 

[Trefoil]

you fool. will you never admit to your ideology (and you are a hack-like ideologue) being a total and utter failure?

Karl Marx: I told you so.

Well, in this case waf is right.

A technologically illiterate senator has the cabinet position of communications and is flinging his power about in a temper tantrum of stupidity.

Where I probably disagree with waf is that it's not always like that. If the senator does his job properly and actually listens to experts in their field (e.g. ISP companies and independent bodies), things are likely to go smashingly.

So basically, Neb, you're out of your depth. Stop trying to find excuses to defend social authoritarianism.

 

[withoutaface]

you fool. will you never admit to your ideology (and you are a hack-like ideologue) being a total and utter failure?

Karl Marx: I told you so.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF

 

[jb_nc]

http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communicati...ograms__and__support/isp_filtering_live_pilot

Expressions of interests for the filtering are open.

 

[jb_nc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUohfIhFET8

Conroy caught out lying (or misleading the Senate).

What a dickhead.

If your ISP tenders for the trial, CHANGE!

 

[Trefoil]

I think the Internet filter is a fundamentally good idea because it allows us to ban things which are un-Christian such as Islam or sex.

 

[katie tully]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLU9fDGk5sU