Oh; you’ve got a reading problem. You could’ve just told us at the start, it would’ve saved a lot of time.
To make it very simple for your challenged self, however, I will speak slowly:
I don’t want my ISP to filter things, because such filtering is both useless and counter-productive. It doesn’t stop people accessing what they really want to, and it does have side-effects that stop innocent users accessing innocent services. I would rather not have a crippled internet service. I presume you will read this as “I AM A RAGING PERVERT”, and I can’t stop you doing so.
However, I don’t believe that such filtering is systemic or in serious danger of being government-enforced. This, presumably, is where we part company; I guess you’re going to start frothing at me about communist China now, and frankly I just can’t be bothered to listen to that sort of boring hyperbole. I presume you will read this as “I AM A RAGING FASCIST”, and I can’t stop you doing so.
I do think there are several concerning UK government initiatives that I fully oppose (DNA database, ID cards, communications retention), but you didn’t start your ludicrous OP about any of those, did you? I presume you will read this as “luminous soup trouser kettle bongos”, and I have no desire to stop you doing so.
So for the second time in a row: g’night, you mad bastard.
What a lovely misleading headline. The story is about the EU wanting to have such powers, but the headline claims that the UK is definitely going to get those powers. :rolleyes:
Personally, I’d rather campaign against genuine intrusions of privacy (and wastes of public money) like ID cards and the DNA database, rather than froth on about made-up problems like this.
My ISP has no problem with any webpages, btw, and neither did the last one, or the one before that.
Somebody send Wiltshire some pictures of little-boy penises and all will be right with the world.
If certain police departments are said to send shills into crowds of demonstrators to start riots they can crack down on, then what’s to stop certain corporate/governmental entities planting kiddypr0n, terroristic intel, etc., in internet sites that might threaten corporate/governmental control of information? archive.org, for one, is loaded with intellectual property big companies don’t care about because it’s too old or low-tech, but I imagine just one prominent legal blowup would cause them to move to protect their power.
I actually have to side with Wiltshire on this one. The vast majority of sites I frequent, including this one, are largely user-generated content which can contain nearly anything and can contain links to nearly anything.
The watchlist has already been criticized for some major errors in accessing major sites like Wikipedia (here’s the article on Wikipedia). Predictably, scope creeps, and people can’t access things that have not been proven illegal, or are in fact actually legal.
Should we lose access to the Dope if someone posts a graphic ‘erotic’ child porn type story in plain text? What if someone posts child porn to a forum that allows images? What if someone posts child porn to a forum that has less traffic and the moderators take a few days to clean it up? What if it’s not an actively moderated forum? What if someone posts child porn in their account on a social networking site? What if it’s a forum (like 4chan) where threads come and go so quickly, and images are uploaded at such a ridiculous volume, as to make permanent removal of child porn nearly impossible without drastic changes to their structure?
Ultimately a block list is always going to be ineffective and it’s going to be biased. There will always be new sites, new communities, new torrents, and meanwhile legitimate users are hassled and the offenderati agitate to use filtering to remove ‘obscenity’. It’s a threat to freedom of speech with the only gain of making the child pornographers (and their audience) stay on the move, which if anything is only going to decrease actual criminal charges. No thanks.
Maybe - deep down in places they don’t talk about - Big Media is less threatened by the sexual exploitation of minors than by losing the gains in copyright law realized during the DMCA/Sonny Bono era.
That is a heavily misleading headline, but yes, if you’d started your OP with this information, it would not have been retarded.