Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I mean, what other "Internet forums" are there?
bottom line, a minority of people having *some* websites restricted temporarily is a small price to pay for the greater good. guess it comes down to whether you think the most vulnerable people in society being protected from some of the web's most extreme content is a positive thing or not.
And isn't stopping vulnerable people being abused. That's what the money should be spent on IMO
Nice, you utter shits.
I think there should be codes of conduct that people need to agree to online. And those who breach these should have their access curtailed and be filtered from everyone else until they pass some sort of Internet superhighway driving test.
There should be sin bins like in ice hockey.
If there were implications and agreed expectations of individuals online then people would act accordingly.
I don't see why a few hideous humans should restrict everyone else's freedoms, but if it means the web is a better place, then I think some restrictions are a good thing.
I'm all for an eBay like "positive feedback" score for all Internet users, to allow full access you'd need a 80% score or something, with everyone starting at 50% and counselling for those who dip below 20%.
I know most of this isn't workable and it's easier to just turn the Internet off, and slowly turn bits back on again.
I'd also be for websites needing to get a license, but if that meant I needed to pay 3 full time mods to ensure DiS never gets out of hand, DiS would be shut down pretty quickly.
but they'll never take our digital freedom
they'll be BANNED
The Internet right now is completely at odds with capitalistic and political control - there's only so long that can continue
Before the powers that be set the agenda.
I think those who care about the web are far too caught up in it and ablivious to how quickly things could change.
I spoke to a fair few MPs a few years back about p2p and you'd be probably not be surprised how clueless most of them are about the web. It will be easy for the Daily Mail to swing this debate with talk of peadageddon, without them realising they could give a far left government of the future the power to block Samantha Brick.
she'd rewrite the Communist Manifesto if her editor told her to - she's no loyal idealogue
I meant if an MP took offense to her traffic-worthy trolling, they could block her.
(mostly I wasn't sure if it was Jan Moir or Muir)
But she is exceptionally good at it. I loved it when people got their knickers in a twist about the female jealousy thing. Malevolent genius.
...what is the definition of 'undesirable material'? If it was up to the Daily Mail (and the whole campaign was lead by them) then almost everything would be banned.
It's a bunch of tech-illiterate reactionaries and Mumsnet users unnecessarily worried about something they don't understand lobbying a bunch of tech-illiterate PPE Oxford graduates. Look, Clare Perry, the leading MP on this whole stupid issue doesn't even understand how the Internet works (and she is now being sued for defamation, which comes directly from her ignorance): http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/britains-leading-anti-porn-politician-doesnt-seem-to-know-ho
The irony is that Cameron has the gall to criticise China for its blanket censorship of its citizens and then goes and employs Huawei, the Chinese technology firm that designed and built the Chinese filtering system. This whole thing is fucking bollocks, I feel like I have woken in some dystopia or something.
None of this is about porn, it's become far more than that. I didn't even know it was a problem until esther rantzen started banging on about it, and yet again like so many things in politics it is driven by confirmation bias - she works for some children's society so of course only sees the section of the country's children that have stumbled across grot. Esther then clumsily scales this up and concludes that ALL of the country's kids are being exposed to nasty porn. And now the result is that we're getting some cack-handed law made by clueless fuckwits. In my experience, you only find porn when you're looking for it. Parents should talk to their kids, see what they are doing, teach them the dangers and learn how all of these shiny gadgets they fill their houses with actually work - most of them have filters you can set locally (iPads included, Steve Jobs was famously anti-porn).
And as an internet forum, Mumsnet would also be blocked?
Which goes to show exactly how far ahead they've thought this through. Typical Daily Mail-esque thinking - "suicide is bad, anorexia is bad, let's ban it". So when a worried friend or parent goes to find websites or forums about these issues because they feel their friend/son/daughter is likely to attempt suicide or is perhaps being anorexic, they can't find anything on the subject because the twats in Whitehall have passed a law through that was glanced at for less than a second
And then you gotta wonder what happens if they are found to be searching for such things?
Would Daily Mail articles which mention the word anorexia also be blocked?
Which illustrates why you shouldn't have a world run by total hypocrites: http://www.vice.com/read/all-grown-up-sexing-up-the-internet-with-the-daily-mail
as both would fulfil the blocking criteria set out by the rules. In practice, not a chance: because both have a direct line to policymakers.
A great example of why this is a terrible set of ideas all round.
I'd be fine to have to apply for a license to unblock DiS, and argue its merits - even be happy to pay a small annual fee if it helped police sexist troll scum.
especially not with a fee involved: I have no idea why there should be a financial barrier to being published online that exists in no other media. Pay the costs to technical providers and keep within the limits of their rules and regulations (which should be based on government guidelines) - done. You don't need extra layers.
On the point of arguing for a site's merits: that's well and good until you start to think about what you'd do if they just said no. You'd have to change the site. You might well be okay with that, but perhaps there's your ability to have the site fit for purpose gone in a flash. Perhaps you then think that you're fitting in with the greater good by being a part of that: but do you really trust the people setting this up to get this right, and not abuse it?
You're talking about seriously - and systematically - limiting growth and development of the internet, whereby you can have whole swathes of websites blocked via a simple tweak of the wording of a subclause of a policy.
Why we are potentially on a long dark road to censorship. Not direct censorship, but forced from above by stupid short-sightedness
Does that make me one of the good guys?
there's a big difference between being practically born with a smart device in your hand and growing up with all that entails and doing an correspondence course in Windows 8 in order to catch up with your pay grade
my point is that the decision makers presiding over these policies that will govern the future use of the net are on a different fucking planet that the next generation of users
they are ignorant and afraid and this type of censorship/nannying/meddling/attempting to control is an extension of their ignorance and fear
as well as being theatrical overture to quell the ignorance and fear of their voting peers
The Internet did exist but it was pretty different and mostly academic-biased. Pretty sure porn was an early adopter, though!
While it's more obvious with some aspects of technology, I'd imagine the first examples of the motor car were treated with suspicion. In the 60s the hippies were ill-served by those then in power, surely?
but in this particular instance it's deeply integrated into the issue;
the abundance of smart technology means that children are exposed to the net and to smart devices every day
that exposure worries the puritanical grown ups who don't understand the net and they feel they have to protect the children
the children meanwhile are WAY more savvy than the puritanical grown ups and will therefore easily continue to use these devices in an unfettered way
ergo the only possible outcome of such a policy as this is that the puritanical grown ups get a degree of censorship of the other grown ups (and probably an inflated sense of self importance too)
The idea of any legislation attempting to deal with modern technology sends a shiver down my spine because the vast majority of MPs are almost certainly woefully lacking in the requisite technological background knowledge.
Well that's certainly true. They're using porn to get the public on-board. More likely it's backed by interested media parties who are aware that if the UK Govt can lock down ISPs via puritanical methods, they can get the Christian Right in the US to do the same over there...and then they think they can stop most people sharing music, books, games and films.
we could attempt to address the root causes of abuse instead of just putting a blindfold on so we can pretend such things don't exist
Cameron could pull a blinder by working with Michael Gove (or maybe someone else who isn't such a bellend), stop pissing around with pointless curriculums on faded empires and formulate an education overhaul that a) taught kids how computers/the Internet worked and b) also taught them the dangers of the Web. As Tim Berners-Lee said, the Web is merely a mirror of our society, the best an the worst of it, it's just easier to see the bad side of humanity with the Web.
Overhauling education in this way would also have the aded benefit of equipping kids with the knowledge they'll need when they leave school - even now computers and the Web dominate our lives, in 10-15 years time it's going to be unimaginably automated, and I worry that we have a whole nation that is either disinterested or scared of how it all really works...which is how laws like these come about.
i also think that if we're worried about the effects of the internet and porn on children's developing sexualities (which i don't think is a completely baseless worry), the issues surrounding porn should be discussed as part of sex ed (along with a whole range of other related things like consent and gender roles) instead of attempting to pretend it doesn't exist. can't really see the daily mail going for that approach tho
But the Daily Mail and its ilk (and the readership of said publications) are unfortunately the tail end of our society and the lowest common denominator, it takes them a looooong time to come round to ideas. I mean they've only relatively recently come around to homesexuality being a natural and normal thing (although Jan Moir may disagree there) and back in the 30's they used to support the UK Nazis ffs so there is progress...sort of.
We need our politicians to start tackling this ignorance across all of society, the more people know the less they hold such Mail-esque opinions. It doesn't help when the Education Minister is trying to overhaul the education system by proposing we teach kids about faded British glories, presumably with each lesson started by playing Jerusalem from an iPod in the corner of the classroom. That kind of education is never going to make problems like this go away....I'm ranting now but I think there should be more than just lawyers and PPE graduates in parliament, if you had more doctors, scientists, engineers and artists in government then you would get far more reasoned and balanced approaches to this sort of thing. And those in power wouldn't be pandering to the ignorant because everyone would have had a decent, balanced and critically thinking education. There would obvs still be ignorance but not on the scale we see today.
...and then hopefully sex ed would be a lot more useful and comprehensive
it won't actually do anything. I already know far too much about the likes of darknet (ie. where all the real internet nasties lurk) - and the laws won't touch that. So it's completely counter-productive.
All that said, please can Twitter sort their abuse-reporting procedures the fuck out. If they want to prove the Camlaws aren't necessary, they really should be at least trying to fight active hate speech (which isn't and never will be the same as free speech, seeking as it does to limit another person's right to freedom of expression). And not, for example, locking their accounts when users draw their attention to sustained attacks.
The Web is a reflection of humanity. Sex trafficking, drugs, stolen goods etc have always gone on, but they are easier to come across. But like body in the thames said above, we should deal with the root causes of these problems rather than stick our fingers on our ears, put the blindfolds on and pretend they don't exist.
What also infuriates me is Cameron's insistence on conflating child porn with normal, legal porn, as if they are part of the same problem. Child abuse material is already highly illegal and rightly so...why then bring it up in a conversation about legal porn featuring consenting adults? And if Cameron is serious about reducing the amount of illegal child porn then why has he reduced funding to CEOP? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16833527
is more to do with kids being able to see it by default, as, like you say, most people are clueless how the internet works.
all they're actually talking about introducing is the parent lock that comes with BT, Virgin, and most major ISPs is defaulted to on. And you can opt-in, if you're fine with it being easily accessed via your connection (most business phone accounts for instance, have web filters automatically turned on.) But they may be looking to increase what is filtered.
Meanwhile, organ donation is still an opt-in system, which may sound unrelated, but the principle tells you a lot about the norms of society.
like you mentioned, all the major isps are happy to put a filter on for you, and there are thousands of products available to install. Shiny tablets come with filters available as do mobile phones. Censoring stuff that isn't illegal in my view is just that - censorship. Parents are not monitoring thier kids being they don't understand and the gov. could easily change this, like spending the money for this filter on a government training programmes, changing the curriculum. plus they mention parents who are less tech-savvy who want a filter on, what about the millions who are childless and wouldn't want the filter on, yet are equally not tech-savvy? They then get penalised for a rather vocal and selfish section of society.
The solution exists already, but people are too lazy to open up the settings tabs of their devices or get on the phone to their internet providers
*censoring stuff that IS legal, oops!
Surely it says please call your ISP to unlock this page?
And there's some sort of "report that this page shouldn't be locked" button you can bash?
travelled with easyJet and he like fresh squid from the local market.
Putin is not so fashionable and prefers bigger fish.
T H E
E N D
THERESA MAY: Yes! That's right Rosgay and Marlrubbish! I was Terror Man all along, possessing Mute-Branches, on a mission to plunge the earth into chaos; both through my terrorism under the name of Terror Man and through my insane ideas like trying to abolish human rights that only an actual certifiable brain stem MEGAdead moron
would agree with HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
MARLON: That was a lot of expedition Roscoe
ROSCOE: I believe the word you're looking for is exPOSition Marlon, but a very good point all the same
MARLON: Thank you I hope there is more because frankly I am confused
THERESA MAY: my ultimate plan is that I want all message boards and social media to be banned now so that all the DiS LOSERS (users) will suddenly have nowhere to vent about people eating burgers, Bon Iver, awkwardness when talking to an attrative, proper indie, and feminism and will GO INSANE and SMASH ALL OF THINGS, DESTROYING THE EARTH AND GIVING IT TO CHAOS TO CHAOS I SAY HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA
MARLON: That was too much expatriotism Roscoe
ROSCOE: Exposition, Marlon. And yes. I mean, as an audience, we CAN think for ourselves you know
BARRY-PRIMSALL: This kind of narrative device is the biggest con in any storytelling medium
CAROL VORDERMAN: Well sometimes I like to know what's going on in a film; not everything can be bloody Ingmar Bergman's Mulholland Space Odyssey or whatever you virgins like to watch
MARLON: Shut up and go back to advertising literally anything Carol Vorderman
CAROL VORDERMAN: Pfft. This sort of attitude just makes me want to consolidate all my debts into one easy-to-manage loan.
MARLON: This situation is very worrying anyway. I hope theres a way to stop it now. What do you think Barry Primsall.
BARRY-PRIMSALL: Oh sorry mate I didn't hear ya cause ya called me by my original name. JAY Z after realising I'm the most bonzer MC gave me his hyphen as a gift so now my names BARRY-PRIMSALL. And remember all caps when you spell the man name. Anyway I aint got a dingo what to do in this situation. Maybe this calls for a BRRAINSTORMIN RAP
DENISE WELCH: No Barry Primsall you dont know what yr doin
ROSCOE: Oh I see. Stop Barry Primsall
MARLON: You didn't use the hyphen he couldn't hea you and has now kicked off his sick rhyme
Yo yo yo gotta think up a plan
Cause I'm the man with the plan
Blueprints with my bran
Flakes in the morning
Eatin breakfast brainstorming
That's how I roll like a soul
Rotund like a bowl attached to another bowl
to form a ball yo yo hip hop
Im a rapper and Im here to say
Gotta think a plan to stop Theresa May
Yippie hip wippie I'm the best in the city
My rhymes are so good that they aint shitty
In fact theyre quite gritty when I rap over a ditty
by Pink she dont stink
She's the best in the game
It's that kinda integrity that's my number one aim
I wouldn't even be ashamed
If I wasnt as good
THERESA MAY: HAHAHAHA YOU STUPID AUSTRALIA I HAVE HARNESS YOUR RAPING POWER AND CAN NOW USE IT TO BAN DIS HAHAHA MY PLAN IS COME TOGETHER
ROSCOE: No what will we do whatever will we do
MARLON: I dont know Roscoe. I cant think on an empty stomach
TO BE ONTNUED IN
T H E
E N D
there'll be an ever growing information gap between the UK and the sane world
CHINA: AW RUSSIA I'm so jealous!
GERMANY: Your mum packed Quavers! My mum only ever packs these diet crisps
AMERICA: She's probably concerned about your weight
GERMANY: That's rich coming from you America. Your medical system's had more obesity cases than I've had sausages for dinner
AMERICA: Aw shup you guys just shup
(ENGLAND comes over with his KEEP CALM AND DO LUNCHEON lunchbox)
ENGLAND: Hi guys
RUSSIA: Oh hi England. Nice lunchbox
GERMANY: Yeah for a SHIT NATION
(RUSSIA and GERMANY high-five)
ENGLAND: Heh heh nice joke you guys. Really good effort heh heh
(they eat lunch for a while, and then RUSSIA looks across slyly to GERMANY and AMERICA)
RUSSIA: So, what porn you been into America?
AMERICA: Oh... yeah, you know the usual stuff (sniggering)
RUSSIA: (sniggering) Oh yeah? I've seen some really great GHFF, HBM, Y7ER, and TTFN videos just last week
GERMANY: Ja, I was watching some wicked Mönch-kostenlose zahnärztliche Faust-Arbeit vids during the meeting. Ban-Ki Moon was frowning at me but I didnt even stop har har
RUSSIA: Ace. What about you, England?
ENGLAND: Um... oh... I've been, uh, watching SO much, I just lose track, you know?
RUSSIA: OOOHH (looking at the others) bet you've seen some CRAZY stuff, then
AMERICA: like ghost-horsing
GERMANY: Maybe a bit of monstre tunnelling
RUSSIA: I think England's more of a hawk malaise feet sniffler kind of guy
ENGLAND: (awkwardly shuffling) Um... I think I agreed to meet with Iran... and... um... lend him my book of PlayStation cheats... um... seeya
(walks off quickly)
RUSSIA, AMERICA and GERMANY: hahahahaaha
RUSSIA: I bet he's never even seen a Dennis
kind of reminds me of that
I LOVE OUR FREE COUNTRY
THE STARS AND STRIPES AND AN APPLE FOR MOMMY
strikes me as peculiar
I've always sung 'the stars and stripes are an anathema for me'
I think he's having a bit of a breakdown
mad til doomsday, he will be