OOAK Table Tennis Forum

I hope this won't turn into a political debate (which is not my intention), but I'm wondering what you guys think about the proposals from some nations to filter/censor the internet, to protect the people from certain things they deem detrimental to society?

On one hand I can see some benefit to protect, for example, kids from exposure to violence/porn/etc, but on the other hand if we support some sort of filtering, it can easily be manipulated or abused by authorities, to suit their own agenda.

What do you think?

_________________
OOAK Table Tennis Shop | Re-Impact Blades | Butterfly Table Tennis bats
Setup1: Re-Impact Smart, Viper OX, Victas VS 401 Setup2: Re-Impact Barath, Dtecs OX, TSP Triple Spin Chop 1.0mm Setup3: Re-Impact Dark Knight, Hellfire OX, 999 Turbo
Recent Articles: Butterfly Tenergy Alternatives | Tenergy Rubbers Compared | Re-Impact User Guide

Government mandated Internet censorship is a really, really Bad Thing. It's as bad as it gets.
"Think of the children" is just the classic excuse. It is nothing more than the first step on a slippery slope. What will be next ? Those who do not think as the aforementioned government would like ?
No good can ever come out of such a thing. Not once. Not even by chance.

sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes ?

In the UK much has been made recently about the governments plans requiring internet users to actively have to tell their internet providers they want to have the ability to access porn on the internet if they chose to do so - if they don't, they will automatically be blocked from porn sites. It's a subtle shift from getting something unless you say you don't want it, to not getting something unless you definitely say you do want it.

Leaving the porn issue out of it, it comes down to censorship and should the governement be the maternal / paternal figure in what society deems to be right or wrong typically done when either they think society - us - are rubbish at policing the internet and the browsing habbits of our families but are affraid to directly say it or someone somewhere has an ulterior motive

Personally I can understand the need for internet filtering but doubt it's effectiveness and consider it trying to shut the door after the horse has bolted. How do you filter these sites, what happens if they start to use tags which aren't specific to their target audience and more and more people accidently stumble across them. It's much better to prevent it finding it's way on to the web to start with rather than filtering it when it gets there.

Maybe any domain provider should only be allowed to sell a domain name after the person trying to buy it has stipulated what will be displayed / sold on any website using that domain name. But then what's to say people won't lie.

Prevention is better than cure. But how to prevent it. Internet filtering is like putting a plaster on a gapping wound.

That said, during the Olympics in 2008 the viewing figures on the YouTube channel I run went through the roof - when I checked the geographical location of the views, I was getting a hits from China. Straight after the olympics, those hits disappeared so there must be someone way of blocking websites and keeping unwanted ones out.

National internet filtering can only suck big rocks and it will get worse.

_________________
Goof-off chopping bat
Gambler All Rosewood
Aurus Soft / Gambler GXL .6 sponge

Status - Out of Business Janitor/Babysitter

You only get what you search for !, tomorrow I vote against the internet filter, the nsa, asio, the united states and every other little pretend spy that cant keep to their own buisness, filter that suckers!, lol.

_________________
Donic defplay senso
Haifu whale soft (grips-euro)
Nittaku pimplemini 1.0mm

What's the diffference between internet filters and the filters on this forum which filter out bad language.

It's a matter of opinion. I like filters which filter out bad language - does that make it censorship or bad for the forum?

I think people should be able access content they want in any country. Countries blocking YouTube, Facebook, etc, are trying keep their people in the dark. That stinks.

As far as material that could be considered offensive, giving the user the ability to turn it on or off in their browser or with software is a good thing, but it should be the user's decision, not the government's.

_________________



The MNNB Blog has had some pretty amazing stuff lately. Just click this text to check it out. | My OOAK Interview
Table Tennis Video Links: itTV | laola1.tv | ttbl | fftt | Challenger Series | mnnb-tv

My whole set-up costs less than a sheet of Butterfly Dignics

There seems to be a trend to thinking that it's only governements that filter or block things on the internet.

For example, switch OOAK Forum for Governement and forum members for society. Does the OOAK forum give users the option to turn on and off the bad language filters? I don't think it does. Does that make the OOAK forum dictatorial and contrary to freedom of speach?

On the other hand, the forum does offer the facility to ignore "foes" which is a type of voluntary censorship. Parents also filter the content their children see on TV - in the UK there is even a watershed time of 9pm before which certain topics and types of material are not allowed to be broad cast. That too is filtering.

It's very easy to make sweeping statements about nations filtering content or everyone should be allowed to access content they want but do people here really mean "any content" - content which can be horrific, violent, exploitative or do they mean content which they themselves have filered in their mind as acceptable and therefore it should be acceptable to all.

There really are some things on the internet which I really don't want to see, and I don't have to see it first to know that. In my opinion, being kept in the dark is sometimes justified and waranted.

Filtering is BAD. I could give first hand examples of what effect it can have on people. (or countries) But I wont.

The topic is countries doing internet filtering, which I take to mean banning access to information. An internet forum restricting the use of some offensive words isn't the same. People can still express themselves on a forum equally well by using less salty language.

_________________



The MNNB Blog has had some pretty amazing stuff lately. Just click this text to check it out. | My OOAK Interview
Table Tennis Video Links: itTV | laola1.tv | ttbl | fftt | Challenger Series | mnnb-tv

My whole set-up costs less than a sheet of Butterfly Dignics

I agree. The internet is the greatest invention ever.

But it is the same - it's a restriction of what people can and cannot do.



Agree 100%

If nations knew the world was about to end do you think they would be right to keep that information from us or should they allow it to be known on the internet? What do you think the consequences would be compared to if they kept it quiet and the world just...

Family's, forums, social clubs - they're just micro versions of nations. The only difference is in family's we are the ones directly chosing what can and can't be filtered so we don't see it as wrong at this level.

Quite frankly, seeing the behaviour of some "humans", what they are capable of, what they get enjoyment out of, I don't think we/they are a species fit to govern ourselves - we're learning - but in many respects our ignorance and lack of interest in finding things out or desire to participate and think for ourselves in things like politics which directly affect us makes me question whether or now we are the best ones to decide what should and shouldn't be filtered in life.

I agree filtering can go too far but it also serves a very useful purpose in protecting us from our own ignorance and greed/evil behaviours of others. Technology progresses fastest during wars and in research for war - ways to kill ourselves. We are not a nice species. We need protecting from ourselves.

This analogy has no meaning : a government is a coercitive entity, a forum is a private property dedicated to voluntary association. A government can use force against you, the admin can't.


OOAK forum is Haggisv's private property. We forum members are his guests. His roof, his rules. Everybody is free to leave if they disagree with Haggisv's rules. And Haggisv may ban anyone if he feels like it.
Ignoring "foes" is not censorship : the ignored may still write as much as he wants, whether on that forum or elsewhere. His free speech is not suppressed - there is no right to force people to listen to you.
You also can't compare TV to the Internet, there is not much in common between those two. An Internet user is no captive, a TV watcher is.


I never saw anything I did not want on the Internet.
And there's a lot of things I dislike on the Internet. But I I'll just avoid thoses things : not visiting those websites, blocking content (via the ISP, FW, hosts configuration, filtering software, etc...) if you're afraid or to protect your children. There's no need to involve the government, a sensible and responsible behavior is enough.
You may want to remain in the dark. No argument from me there. But asking for everyone to get the same treatment ? Nope.

A government filtered Internet would end being another Pravda.

There's a big difference in context. The keyword here is coercion. To simplify : the government has a gun to enforce his claims, the admin doesn't. The government is able to prevent you to access the content at all. The admin will just say "You will leave, now". See the difference ?


Another failed analogy.
Forums and social clubs are voluntary associations. I stress the voluntary. A nation is NOT a voluntary association.
Even a family has a voluntary part : as soon as you're emancipated, you may leave the family. You're still blood, but no longer part of the family.


As we humans are unfit to govern ourselves, we should let a few humans govern the rest of us.
This is illogical. If humans are unfit to govern, no human can govern. And anyway, humans are also unfit to choose someone to govern.


Please, stop caring so much about me. I don't want to be protected from myself. Especially by the government. You know ? The evil, greedy sociopaths who start wars and send people they were suppose to protect to die in a foreign country.

No I don't see the difference. I can chose to leave my nation if I want. And where does coercion come in to this discussion? A government doesn't need a gun to filter something. Filtering isn't coercion it's censorship and if it's done right, you don't even know it exists. A governement has power over it's people when it can get people to do things without them even realising that's what the government is doing. And it's possible to go even deeper into analysis of power - Steven Lukes book - "Power A Radical View" is a great example.



Ever heard of immigration and emmigration? Nations are extended families. Nations have friends and allies - just like familes and when they get into trouble or want help they turn to other nations eg friends and familes - NATO is a good example of a family of nations - dsyfunctional family maybe but the concept is the same.



Agreed. You do see my point. The question is whether we can survive and evolve to a point where this is no longer the case in the time we have left.


I don't care about you. I don't know you. I care about my family and what they are exposed to and who's doing the exposing - by people and bodies which I can't stand up to on my own - that's why i need a "nation" to represent me. United we stand, divided I fall. That's the whole principle of nations.

As for governments, it's easy to concentrate on what they do wrong - they're a cheap easy target but I do wonder how many wars would be started if it was the politicians themselves who were put in a cage and told to fight to the death. And if you want to take this to the extreme - who bank roles the politicians that form the government - the people doing the voting can only chose to elect those that are put in front of them? Who choses who that is? What are their motives? Whether you agree with filtering or not, blaming nations for it is an easy option. Look deeper. Who really is doing the filtering? But that is a separate issue.

Arguements against filtering here seem to be based on "I don't want someone else telling me what to do or think" or "I could do a better job"? I'm not so arrogant as to believe that is always the case with me. Sometimes I'm not informed, am too lazy to research, naive about how to search for things. Sometimes I do need protecting. And sometimes I need protecting even when I think I don't because I don't truely understand the situation.

Internet filtering is good for someone like me. And that makes filtering as a tool good for me. And as the question says "is it good for your country", I'm entitled to express an opinion about "my country" and not just myself. What I do agree on is the "extent" that filtering should be employed and the "reasons" used to justify it. But as a tool in itself it is not 100% wrong.