35 réponses à ce sujet

[Napoleon1853]

http://news.yahoo.co...internet_filter

I think this is wrong.
From my point of view, it would likely not work perfectly and end up blocking ok websites.

Also...

Critics say illegal material such as child *********** is often traded on peer-to-peer networks or chats, which would not be covered by the filter.

I think It would likely not do everything it is supposed to anyways.

Modifié par Napoleon1853, 15 décembre 2009 - 08:58 .

[Monstruo696]

Napoleon1853 wrote...

http://news.yahoo.co...internet_filter
I don't know if this thread would be considered inappropriate or not for the OT.

I think this is wrong.

You wouldn't leave your child to wander the streets by themselves, why should the internet be any safer?

EDIT: This is directed at those who support the censoring, not the OP.

Modifié par Monstruo696, 15 décembre 2009 - 09:02 .

[Lucy Glitter]

Ahh, this is old news here. I feel like we live in a dictatorship when we don't. Australian government has a stupid view on the internet and apparently no one has told them stuff like this is really dumb. Anyway, smart people can bypass these filters and sell children anyway. 

Monstruo696 wrote...

Napoleon1853 wrote...

http://news.yahoo.co...internet_filter
I don't know if this thread would be considered inappropriate or not for the OT.

I think this is wrong.

You wouldn't leave your child to wander the streets by themselves, why should the internet be any safer?

You can BUY an internet filter for your kids, you silly nit. 

Modifié par Lucy_Glitter, 15 décembre 2009 - 08:57 .

[Monstruo696]

Lucy_Glitter wrote...

Monstruo696 wrote...

You wouldn't leave your child to wander the streets by themselves, why should the internet be any safer?

You can BUY an internet filter for your kids, you silly nit. 

Your point being? 

So you put your kid in an "indestructible" bubble, you would still leave him alone on the street?

[Lucy Glitter]

Monstruo696 wrote...
Your point being? 

So you put your kid in an "indestructible" bubble, you would still leave him alone on the street?

 I don't think kids need that much protecting, to be honest. What? Looking up porn on the school internet is horrifying or something? I say let kids find out stuff by themselves. Sure, they might end up talking on some chat site to some creepy guy and be duped by him, but it's not like a parent would let that get out of hand. Supervision is what every parent should do, and it should all be alright.

[Maria Caliban]

I was left alone outside my house many times, as were other children in my neighborhood. And I've lived in some not-so-nice neighborhoods.



One wonders about the mental health of children who are never let out of the house save to go to school.

[Monstruo696]

Irony: Member of the Writers Guild lacks reading comprehension.

And the poster above him is no better.

Modifié par Monstruo696, 15 décembre 2009 - 11:14 .

[Maria Caliban]

Monstruo696 wrote...

Irony: Member of the Writers Guild lacks reading comprehension.

And the poster above him/her is no better.

Since we're being nitpickers: No, that wouldn't be irony. In addition, if you're struggling with the gender of someone named Maria who is sporting a female avatar, you have bigger problems than a lack of reading comprehension.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 15 décembre 2009 - 10:57 .

[Monstruo696]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Monstruo696 wrote...

Irony: Member of the Writers Guild lacks reading comprehension.

And the poster above him/her is no better.

Since we're being nitpickers: No, that wouldn't be irony. In addition, if you're struggling with the gender of someone named Maria who is sporting a female avatar, you have bigger problems than a lack of reading comprehension.

Fine, fine.  I'll fix it.

You sound like a woman on her period.

[SardaukarElite]

I've never actually adopted the view that the internet is one of my democratic rights, so I don't actually care that much from a moral view.



I doubt it blocks everything they want it to though.

[Panderfringe]

SardaukarElite wrote...

I've never actually adopted the view that the internet is one of my democratic rights, so I don't actually care that much from a moral view.

You'd be thinking differently were you Finnish.

[Chimervera]

The Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, said today he would introduce legislation just before next year's elections to force ISPs to block a blacklist of "refused classification" (RC) websites for all Australian internet users.

An earlier version of the Government's top-secret list of banned sites was leaked on to the web in March, revealing the scope of the filtering could extend significantly beyond child porn.
About half of the sites on the list were not related to child porn and included a slew of online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist.

Source: http://www.smh.com.a...91215-ktzc.html

Modifié par Chimervera, 16 décembre 2009 - 01:24 .

[Panderfringe]

Chimervera wrote...

half of the sites on the list ... included .... Christian sites,

I do not disapprove.

[SardaukarElite]

Panderfringe wrote...

You'd be thinking differently were you Finnish.

Well, yes.

[Chimervera]

Panderfringe wrote...

Chimervera wrote...

half of the sites on the list ... included .... Christian sites,

I do not disapprove.

But it also includes "websites of fringe religions". What is classified as a fringe religion? Will it block Wicca sites? After all - it is still against the constitution to practice 'witchcraft'. What about all those New Age religions? Pastafarianism?

We have very little idea about what they're actually blocking.

[SardaukarElite]

Chimervera wrote...

But it also includes "websites of fringe religions". What is classified as a fringe religion? Will it block Wicca sites? After all - it is still against the constitution to practice 'witchcraft'. What about all those New Age religions? Pastafarianism?

We have very little idea about what they're actually blocking.

Witchcraft is against the Australian constitution? Freedom of religion is actual one of the few proper constiutional rights Australia has, careless blocking of religious websites is just asking for a High Court case.

[Chimervera]

SardaukarElite wrote...

Witchcraft is against the Australian constitution? Freedom of religion is actual one of the few proper constiutional rights Australia has, careless blocking of religious websites is just asking for a High Court case.

Yes, we have freedom of religion - as long as we don't practice witchcraft. It's not enforced, but it does mean that they can block sites with information about witchcraft and still have the law on their side. So people trying to take this to court will have a lot to contend with.

[Orogun01]

Monstruo696 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Monstruo696 wrote...

Irony: Member of the Writers Guild lacks reading comprehension.

And the poster above him/her is no better.

Since we're being nitpickers: No, that wouldn't be irony. In addition, if you're struggling with the gender of someone named Maria who is sporting a female avatar, you have bigger problems than a lack of reading comprehension.

Fine, fine.  I'll fix it.

You sound like a woman on her period.

Funniest argument I have heard in a while . 
On the subject; while i'm sure that there is a lot of content on the internet that could screw a child's mind, unless they are actively looking for it no kid is likely to find it by accident. At any rate there are other countries with stricter censorship laws.

[Chimervera]

On the subject; while i'm sure that there is a lot of content on the internet that could screw a child's mind, unless they are actively looking for it no kid is likely to find it by accident. At any rate there are other countries with stricter censorship laws.

The big issue is that this is mandatory. Sure, it blocks illegal material - but it also blocks a lot of other stuff that is not illegal. They're not just keeping children from looking at it, they're stopping everybody from looking at it - and we have no say in the matter.

Modifié par Chimervera, 16 décembre 2009 - 01:46 .

[SardaukarElite]

Chimervera wrote...
Yes, we have freedom of religion - as long as we don't practice witchcraft. It's not enforced, but it does mean that they can block sites with information about witchcraft and still have the law on their side. So people trying to take this to court will have a lot to contend with.

Interesting. Still they'll have to be very careful, and past experience has told us that governments often aren't.

Not that we're discussing politics or anything else against the rules.

[falranth]

I'm 100% anti-censorship. Parents should be the ones moderating their kids, and every now and then you should let curiosity kill the cat. Builds character, so long as you teach them to think critically as well (which we don't do in our school system).



As far as child pornography goes, that stuff shouldn't be censored so much as taken out at the source. Though, by viewing the images, the person is invading the privacy of the minor because minors are not considered to have the maturity to consent. Soooo complicated. I can't wait until graphics get good enough to allow pedophiles to quench their thirst without it hurting anyone.



Australia seems to have a lot of problems with censorship tho.

[Orogun01]

falranth wrote...

I'm 100% anti-censorship. Parents should be the ones moderating their kids, and every now and then you should let curiosity kill the cat. Builds character, so long as you teach them to think critically as well (which we don't do in our school system).

As far as child pornography goes, that stuff shouldn't be censored so much as taken out at the source. Though, by viewing the images, the person is invading the privacy of the minor because minors are not considered to have the maturity to consent. Soooo complicated. I can't wait until graphics get good enough to allow pedophiles to quench their thirst without it hurting anyone.

Australia seems to have a lot of problems with censorship tho.

Or it may encourage them to seek out targets to release their urges. No, they should follow the example of the great late( and pedophiliac) Lewis Caroll; write some weird books and keep their urges under control.

[falranth]

Orogun01 wrote...

falranth wrote...

I'm 100% anti-censorship. Parents should be the ones moderating their kids, and every now and then you should let curiosity kill the cat. Builds character, so long as you teach them to think critically as well (which we don't do in our school system).

As far as child pornography goes, that stuff shouldn't be censored so much as taken out at the source. Though, by viewing the images, the person is invading the privacy of the minor because minors are not considered to have the maturity to consent. Soooo complicated. I can't wait until graphics get good enough to allow pedophiles to quench their thirst without it hurting anyone.

Australia seems to have a lot of problems with censorship tho.

Or it may encourage them to seek out targets to release their urges. No, they should follow the example of the great late( and pedophiliac) Lewis Caroll; write some weird books and keep their urges under control.

I think emerging technologies are more capable of controlling and/or releasing urges than writing weird books. Unlike visual film and images, fiction is the medium of the imagination and actively fuels your fantasies--otherwise it wouldn't work.

[Orogun01]

falranth wrote...

I think emerging technologies are more capable of controlling and/or releasing urges than writing weird books. Unlike visual film and images, fiction is the medium of the imagination and actively fuels your fantasies--otherwise it wouldn't work.

I see the sarcasm of my comment was lost on you, my point is that what you think may control their urges may in fact encourage them to fulfill them. But this is steering the thread off point so I suggest we end this here.

[Monstruo696]

Orogun01 wrote...

Or it may encourage them to seek out targets to release their urges. No, they should follow the example of the great late( and pedophiliac) Lewis Caroll; write some weird books and keep their urges under control.

Look, no offense, and I'm not defending pedos here, but you're using technology to release your urges yourself.

They may not be as "questionable" (lol, murdering people vs. underage sex) but you play games yourself.  For what? Killing people? Feeling superior? Leading armies? Driving wrecklessly?

Don't try to justify it on how taboo x is against y, it's still the same concept.