Agreed. It may well become even more extreme in the future. Like how the chinese media censors/edits out anything that makes them look bad. Any negative news about their government and it isn't reported on their news stations or papers or anything.

Then again they already control what you know by deciding what to report on and what not to report on. This is just them admitting to it and making it more obvious lol.

well yes, the future is uncertain, but it will be no matter what happens.

i read that the government will offer grants to ISPs that install additional filters for stuff like porn and gambling sites, but these will be optional on the consumer's end, and will cost extra to implement.

if they start blocking material that isn't illegal to view, then i think you have something to worry about.

i've heard about how bad internet is in australia, and i feel for you. here in eastern europe it's incredibly quick and incredibly cheap. but as for the new filtering slowing things down - i've heard arguments from both sides, and i don't know what to think. i'm not sure if the filter is just a URL list, or if it's an interactive thing that is able to recognize naughty content. obviously, the latter is much more complex, and has a greater chance of slowing things down...

they did the same thing in 1980s America when the 'Parental Advisory' tag first started getting applause from conservative housewives who wanted to extirpate themselves from being an adequate parental figure. i think the real issue here is that people are actually expecting the state to raise their children for them, to put filters on the world so that parents don't have to broach nasty subjects like sex, drugs and violence. it's just a matter of time before "parenting" has fuck all to do with raising your children.

as for the censorship issue, it's an obvious encroachment on freedom of speech and press, i don't know how they would be allowed to pursue it in the first place. although i would understand censoring websites which were a threat to the state (e.g. advocating domestic terrorism), that doesn't seem to be the issue here.

this has nothing to do with freedom of speech or raising children or any of the other crap people are spouting. the government is only filtering material that is already illegal to view/possess. they are merely enforcing the law. what's the big deal?

it's like getting mad when drug traffickers are stopped at the border. you can shout all you want about how your right to sniff the drugs was hindered when the government prevented them from entering the country. just don't forget that "your right to sniff the drugs" does not actually exist.

Well what about legalised drugs? You realise the only reason drugs like heroin, cocaine and weed are illegal is because the government haven't found a way of justifying making money from it yet. Tobacco and alcohol are just as harmful but they're legalised because the government can make a giant profit from it.

What worries me is how far will this go?


Also...

"i would understand censoring websites which were a threat to the state (e.g. advocating domestic terrorism), that doesn't seem to be the issue here"

i agree with what you're saying^

and this to...

"to put filters on the world so that parents don't have to broach nasty subjects like sex, drugs and violence. it's just a matter of time before "parenting" has **** all to do with raising your children."

extremely good point^

Those "protection" programs are mainly for children under 12 in my opinion, because they're still impressionable and they really have no reason to be viewing adult content on the Internet anyways.

The fallacious reasoning in this argument is that there is ALREADY a hearty process/filter that is aimed specifically at illegal material. It's not like we are such a backwards country that this is all of a sudden a focal point, this is straight up censorship of material that our Government, in all it's fabulous glory, decides what is 'right' for our eyes.

There is NO Opt-Out, which is just ridiculous in the first place. This was a big issue a year ago when its discussion was 'all the rage' on Australian forums. The testing of the best available filter massively slowed down the Internet (Which is already slow, but besides that, it was slown down ridiculously, indefensible if it is ONLY for illegal material). ot only this, but there are 'normal' websites that were blocked and, whilst weren't illegal, were 'against' what our nanny state Government was trying to push. It is ridiculous.

Of course, there will be a way to get around the filters - However, this isn't a solveable issue in that sense. Being a direct filter that is applied from the first step, there is no way to step around what is meant to be crippling internet speeds.

Nowadays, the 'ment is trying to push a 'multilayered filter', one aiming at tykes and one for those who want a less stringent choke on their internet browsing ability.

Not to mention the fact that, as a filter, it will directly ignore one of the bigger hubs for illegal-searching users on the net - Things like BitTorrent.

The title of the filter - Clean-Feed. I don't need a bunch of stuck up arsehole politicians deciding what is clean and what is not.

10,000 out of every million websites will be incorrectly blocked. This is actually a fair amount, at least one to question the validity on a techincal level, along with the internet slowdown.

Whats even funnier - You opt out of the second level, so you can 'view adult conyent' and you get put on a list.

An old list of websites on the 'black list'. Most of which - Porn, but some interesting additions throughout.
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Australian...%2C_6_Aug_2008

Most of the poker websites gone... Yes, because children can gain access to a credit card easily and pump money into an account to play online..........

It's funny that the Thai filter degenerated from stopping child pornography to now filtering anti-Royal Family websites.

Poker and anti-royal family websites banned? I was worried about them going to far in the future not the present.

I wonder what would happen if the whole of australia refused to log on to the internet if these changes were put into affect? The government would lose so much money. Shame it'll never happen.

I wonder what your stance was on Bush's wiretap program...

They couldn't have done the same thing in America during the 80's, the internet really didn't take form as we know it and become popular until the mid 90's.

"Parental Advisory Label" is actually a compromise between "the conservative housewives" and recording artist who did not want to be censored.