Jeros
Part of the furniture
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2003
- Messages
- 1,983
on a serious note, we need to protect children but there is such a thing as taking things too far, i dont get how people find kids sexually attractive though...crazy world
News Wiki Censorship
- Thread starter rynnor
- Start date
on a serious note, we need to protect children but there is such a thing as taking things too far, i dont get how people find kids sexually attractive though...crazy world
old.Tohtori
FH is my second home
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2004
- Messages
- 45,210
Noone saying that. Or even implying it.
There's protecting and then there's bubbleparents.
mank!
Part of the furniture
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 3,427
i know. i'm just being deliberately obtuse.
the only reason i don't think this has been banned long ago is that:
- it's sold with a different cover
- no fucker listens to them because they're shit
the comparisons with this and the nevermind album cover don't work. the scorpions album, titled 'virgin killer' has a picture of a prepubescent girl in a sexually suggestive pose. nevermind has a baby swimming.
the only reason i don't think this has been banned long ago is that:
- it's sold with a different cover
- no fucker listens to them because they're shit
the comparisons with this and the nevermind album cover don't work. the scorpions album, titled 'virgin killer' has a picture of a prepubescent girl in a sexually suggestive pose. nevermind has a baby swimming.
phazey
One of Freddy's beloved
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2004
- Messages
- 250
This opens a new kettle of fish. Back in the day (when i worked in an ISP in the UK) there was talk about censorship/moderation of newsgroups - back then the nntp servers were the servers of filth and perversion (and trekkies) along with the usual alt.binaries etc etc.
But it came to the fact that when a body decides to moderate something so "massive", they also become responsible for the entire content legally. I don't think anyone decided to censor or moderate their news servers then.....could be wrong, but that's what i remember....
But it came to the fact that when a body decides to moderate something so "massive", they also become responsible for the entire content legally. I don't think anyone decided to censor or moderate their news servers then.....could be wrong, but that's what i remember....
Phazey is indeed correct. However this is due to the retarded way the legal system works here. It is not specific to the internet industry either. For instance if you fall over due to some ice in sainsbury's car park and they had put salt down or gritted the area you can sue for negligence. If they did nothing and left it natural you cant sue at all. Retarded eh?
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2003
- Messages
- 9,353
- Thread starter
- #37
The IWF back down - BBC NEWS | Technology | IWF backs down on Wiki censorship
Hurrah for sanity! Noone has an issue with their core mission but perhaps they will be a little more carefull when it comes to censoring mainstream sites in future.
Hurrah for sanity! Noone has an issue with their core mission but perhaps they will be a little more carefull when it comes to censoring mainstream sites in future.
Furr
Can't get enough of FH
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,067
AFter reading this,
Frank Fisher: The Internet Watch Foundation, which blocked a Scorpions album cover, controls a powerful censorship mechanism | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
These paragraphs actually made me realise that the government in effect probably has the ability to "turn off" the internets for the majority of UK uk users.
"ISPs were able to block the pages in a trice – all their traffic flows through devices that monitor for prohibited destinations. If banned requests are intercepted, the user request goes no further and a "404 page not found" error is returned, or simply a blank page. The hardware infrastructure for this kind of national processing doesn't come cheap, it isn't easy to set up and it must have taken some time to implement. This is an expensive, powerful, integrated censorship that leads the world. It didn't happen by accident.
Nor did it happen in secret – hence some pessimistic satisfaction at my predictions coming true. I've written of the far-reaching impact of Cleanfeed and the gentlemen's agreements between government and ISPs – all without any democratic control. "Paranoid" is one of the most common insults in the comments below my articles. I hope no one is muttering about paranoia now."
hmmmm
Frank Fisher: The Internet Watch Foundation, which blocked a Scorpions album cover, controls a powerful censorship mechanism | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
These paragraphs actually made me realise that the government in effect probably has the ability to "turn off" the internets for the majority of UK uk users.
"ISPs were able to block the pages in a trice – all their traffic flows through devices that monitor for prohibited destinations. If banned requests are intercepted, the user request goes no further and a "404 page not found" error is returned, or simply a blank page. The hardware infrastructure for this kind of national processing doesn't come cheap, it isn't easy to set up and it must have taken some time to implement. This is an expensive, powerful, integrated censorship that leads the world. It didn't happen by accident.
Nor did it happen in secret – hence some pessimistic satisfaction at my predictions coming true. I've written of the far-reaching impact of Cleanfeed and the gentlemen's agreements between government and ISPs – all without any democratic control. "Paranoid" is one of the most common insults in the comments below my articles. I hope no one is muttering about paranoia now."
hmmmm
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2003
- Messages
- 9,353
- Thread starter
- #41
It didnt work though - for one thing certain ISPs didnt adopt the ban, proxies cut around it, googles cache undermined it etc. etc.
The IWF are a hopeless token bone thrown to all the idiots who throw their hands up at the horrors of the internet.
All they ever look at is web pages and they wait to have stuff reported - pretty useless but then censors in the internet age are pretty much a lost cause.
Edit - oh and I still think that guy is being paranoid - I imagine the ISPs just remove those sites from their DNS servers thus the page not found result?
The IWF are a hopeless token bone thrown to all the idiots who throw their hands up at the horrors of the internet.
All they ever look at is web pages and they wait to have stuff reported - pretty useless but then censors in the internet age are pretty much a lost cause.
Edit - oh and I still think that guy is being paranoid - I imagine the ISPs just remove those sites from their DNS servers thus the page not found result?