Internet censorship
 

So Australian authorities have been given the green light to start filtering what we can view on the Internet, and personally I think this is ridiculous. After so much criticism of the great firewall of China, I'm afraid things are starting to go the same way on our turf.

Links:

Green light for internet filter plans - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Internet Censorship Plan Approved In Australia | Stephen Conroy

What do you guys think about Internet censorship? One of the main arguments for this action was the fact that young children need to be protected from seeing certain things on the Internet that are "not suitable in a civilised society." Can't parents implement their own filters on their own computers if they're so worried about their children coming across things that they shouldn't be? Shouldn't extremely young children be supervised when using the Internet, just like they are supervised when watching certain rated television shows or films? And if they're old enough to not be supervised I am sure they will be able to handle content that they may see.

I don't know, I just don't believe in censorship, especially in this kind of format. Once it's given the green light who knows what's going to happen in terms of censorship and freedom?

Opinions/ thoughts on internet censorship?

Yes, I think this is absolutely ridiculous for a democratic nation. Australia is not a communist state, so why control what people can and can't look up on the Internet? I understand offices, schools, and libraries filtering what can be displayed on THEIR computers, but what someone does in the privacy of their own house is not the government's business, nor should it ever be. If someone wants to watch porn, so be it. If parents are worried about what their kids are looking up on the Internet, then either they need to get some kind of strong filter (i.e. Net Nanny) or restrict their kids to using the computer while being surpervised. I think that if the kid is deemed old enough to be unsurpervised on the Internet, then they're mature enough to handle whatever shows up on the screen. Search engines like Google and Yahoo have their own filters that block adult content, so those should be activated if the kid needs to look something up. Same thing with TV. Satellite and cable companies often have a feature where an adult can input a password to block any adult channels and any other channels that the parents think are inappropriate.

sounds to me like there are lots of parents (or parent groups) who want the government to raise their children for them. not really sure why those individuals chose to become parents in the first place.

the biggest problem with self policing the internet is that more often than not the kids know more about it than the parents. that's obviously changing now, but all the old school net 'protection' programs could EASILY be circumvented with just a right click. if the app isn't running the 'protection' is no longer in place. there's NO WAY a horny teenager would figure out how to do that for free porn. nope. no way.

Ha very true, but chances are a horny teenager doesn't need much 'protecting' from content on the internet as they are old enough to police (or not police) their own actions and understand what they see or hear. In the statements about internet censorship in Australia, most of the pro-censorship people were talking more about very young children. But if that is the case, 1) I doubt very young children would be able to get past any filters 2) Most schools DO have their own filters in place and 3) Young children should not be left to navigate the Internet on their own if people are so worried about what they might see!

Like you said, parents are wanting an easy way for their children to be monitored without them having to do much. Just like when children are to be supervised when watching a television or movie that may contain adult themes (so that they can be guided and not confused or hurt by what the see) parents who are so worried about their children should supervise them while they are using the Internet! It's called parenting...

Anyway, I think it's bullshit. Censorship to me just makes me think that authorities are controlling what I can and cannot have access to and I don't like it.

i absolutely agree with everything you've said in this thread but this one is by far one of the most significant elements. parents need to stop worrying about what their children will be exposed to when they stop watching and need to start developing the child's ability to pass judgment on what is presented to them.

i've also been complaining since college that public elementary education needs some sort of media studies program. starting at like 7-8 years old. it obviously doesn't need to go into great depth initially but there has to be something in place to help teach young kids to not believe everything they see on tv or read in a magazine.

Yeah, I completely agree with Lateralus - it's a terrible plan. I'm surprised at how little attention this is getting in the press, it seems like the government is really trying to slip it through quietly.

I know! I watched the news on several stations tonight and didn't hear anything about it.

Also... I've heard that this whole censorship/ filter thing is going to slow down the speed of Australia's internet even more, when it is already pretty crap. Ugh. The whole idea is just stupid and pointless.

Trying to change their view is a losing battle though, just like the fight to get R18+ video games in Australia.

And mr dave - yeah, you're completely right. If children are introduced to media and what it can involved at a young age, they can learn how to use the Internet safely and be aware that not everything that appears in the media has merit. Also, most children are a lot smarter than adults give them credit for - a lot of the time they know what is going on and what merit certain pieces of information have.

What he said^

have you people actually looked at what is being blocked? they're talking about 4chan style crap. child pornography and sexual violence and beastiality and that sort of thing. most of what is being blocked is illegal anyway. the sites are being filtered because they are hosted offshore, where the australian government has no jurisdiction. if a site like that shows up and is hosted in australia, it will be taken down, and the people responsible will probably be in deep ****.

99.999% of all internet users won't be affected by this. if you are among the miniscule minority who is affected, then you can go ahead and cry, but i doubt you'll get much sympathy from anyone.

Well I heard that the whole thing is going to slow down our internet immensely, which is why everyone is up in arms about it. And this really sucks because Australia's internet is already crap how it is.

I just don't see the point to it, it's basically impossible to access child pornography anyway unless you actually go searching for it... as soon as censorship is given the green light it just seems as though they have the power to control what we see... who knows how expansive the censorship will get with time?

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.

Instead of censoring the internet we should just ban all the stupid people from using it.

Then again AOL and Youtube would go out of business if that happened.

In all fairness, Youtube does provide videos of live performances of bands you might not see otherwise - and not to mention official music videos before they get banned. So Youtube does have some value to it - musicwise.

Ok 1) Australian people can access alcohol and drugs easily; 2) parents allow 18+ games in their house; 3) it's up to the parents to censor the internet; 4) freedom of speech; 5) it's not suppsed to be a communist country; 6) New Zealand is cooler

1) What do drugs and alcohol have to do with anything on this topic?!

2) Actually Australia doesn't even sell 18+ games on the shelves... that's the whole point of the debate surrounding the issue.

3) Agreed.

4) Agreed.

5) Agreed.

6) Definitely agreed.

I'm drunk. I am making up assumtions. Glad you agree on the rset though!

Australia>>>>>>>>Boring New Zealand. Nice to visit NZ, not much else.

The funny thing in relation to R games, is that half the time, games that are 18+ in America are down to 15+ in Australia with minimal changes. So its actually allowing a greater proportion of kids to view inappropriate material at a younger age.

:whythis:

OMG! Really? That I did not know :rolleyes: :banghead:

one cannot be an effective troll and consider relevancy when making idiotic posts.

Sam said "they did the same thing in 1980s America," I don't know, I am trying to think if they had Internet censorship in the 80's, In all honesty I don't know if they did the same thing happened in America in the 80's. I remember watching a VH1 or maybe it was a History Channel documentary about either the computer or the internet and they said when they first had internet at colleges and/or universities, computer geeks used to send porn to each other but the only problem was their computer was like only 2K bite of memory so the picture was made up of text characters like "X's" and "O's" And I was wondering like if the professors at the colleges and/or universities got hold of what they were doing then they might of tried to put a stop to it - aka censorship. It was a documentary I vaguely remember and I forgot what decade, it could had been the 80's.

I know of a couple of similar stories of censorship. Like I was watching how they made the album by The Doors and the story goes like the producer on the Ed Sullivan show didn't want Jim Morrison to say "Baby we can't much higher" He wanted Jim to sing "Baby we can't get much better you dig." But Jim Morrison sang it anyway, much ot the chagrin of the Ed Sullivan Show producer. And then after the show the producer yelled at The Doors saying they would never ever do the Ed Sullivan show again and then Jim Morrison retorted "Hey Man, I just did the Ed Sullivan Show."

Did it occur to you that maybe he was referring to some other instance of censorship, not necessarily involving the internet?

It just seems so natural it's like he isn't even doing it on purpose... I just have a hard time accepting that people can actually be that stupid unintentionally.
Meh... I guess it comes with the territory though.
Anyway, forgive me for having to speak up about it.
I should know better than that by now with that guy.

Dude... go back and read the post he wrote.
Sit a long long time and realize exactly what it says and what it refers to. You're barking up a tree that doesn't even exist, in this scenario.


Edit:
Sorry, let me change that to: You're barking up the wrong tree...
Because god knows you'd fuck up that interpretation as well.

What do you mean by "tree"? In the 80s they didn't even have trees like we have today.

:laughing:

And... and technically, to bark up the wrong tree would simply mean to be barking up a tree that exists in our current time, so since the situation started in the 80's, the tree would not have been in the same format, and since the arithmetic of nature dictates that trees do not grow forward in time but that time grows around the vertical nature of trees, then you are obviously wrong.

Thanks,
Neapolitan.
P.S... I used a spell checker.

Edit:
And a grammar coach.

Now when you say "barking" do mean "bark" like a dog or "bark" like what's on a tree? :confused:

And I did read his post a couple of times.

So you're this ridiculous on purpose?

Didn't you ever wonder if "barking" was A.) a dog barking up a tree or B.) someone putting the wrong bark on tree? Like putting the bark of a Maple tree on a Birch tree? Like maybe someone in props dept. in Hollywood. Don't tell me you don't think about those things??

I honestly don't even know anymore... I'm hella confused right now :confused:

I need to stop reading his posts...

This is true, but what usually happens is that the games get toned down so that they can fit the 15+ rating.

Left 4 Dead is an example of this. In the US it was released as 18+, however when it came to Australia a lot of the gore was cut out so that it could be sold as 15+. Left 4 Dead 2 didn't even make it into the 15+ rating so you can't purchase it at all in Australia.

If R18+ ratings for games was introduced to Australia, 1) Violent games would not be streamed into the 15+ category so younger gamers wouldn't be viewing unappropriated material and 2) More games would be available in Australia and they wouldn't have to be modified or toned down.