4 ms·

As a British citizen, this makes me sick to my stomach. However, I'm probably in the minority. A few years ago I went to a debate about the Internet and how i

As a British citizen, this makes me sick to my stomach. However, I'm probably in the minority. A few years ago I went to a debate about the Internet and how it affects families, and it was interesting and rather scary to hear people's attitudes. It seemed that a lot of people didn't fully understand what the Internet was, asking why it didn't have a watershed [1] like TV does. Despite good arguments being put forward for freedom and openness, the crowd voted overwhelmingly in favour for heavy censorship and controls. And now, thanks to Theresa May's band of paternalistic fascists, they're going to get their wish. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watershed_(broadcasting) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watershed_(broadcasting)

iDemonix 9y ago
I think this is a similar problem to that of net neutrality: a majority of people don't understand how the internet works (in any way, shape or form), and therefore are easily swayed by the loudest parties - often the ones trying to make a profit, not protect the internet.
- doubt_me 9y ago
  It's worse. Way worse. People don't want to know. Or they know and act anyway
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
nebabyte 9y ago
Thank you. I often find myself in subconscious denial ("oh, surely it's just a fluke and they'll get back on course soon") over news of the direction our British friends are headed, because of the self-affirming echo chamber net communities often form. I've only ever sometimes heard (but fortunately tried to keep in mind) the fact that the reason for it is that it's not seen as dystopic by the British public, and that they're majority-for the changes being made. (Even though it makes perfect logical sense, the subconscious impulse of denial is still there without hearing "the other side".) With that said I do hope your fellow citizens can be persuaded to see the value of the internet as an open platform. Censorship works in theory but I think what people want more is the ability for self-censorship; that and censorship of the whole are two radically different things. If only adblock lists (content subscription in general) were a more common model. You could tell your neighbors they can just "not subscribe to those channels" without affecting others. Hmm
- mattkevan 9y ago
  The thing is, I don't disagree with those parents' concerns. There's a lot of horrible horrible crap on the Internet, stuff that I don't want my child anywhere near. And if I wasn't tech savvy, having the government do it would probably sound like a good idea However, enforcing a nation-state firewall which blocks stuff 'for our own good' – and records every aspect of our lives in the process – is not the right way to go about it.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    Being Tory though it's got to be profitable for private business too; just providing blocking that's useful isn't going to keep the shareholders happy.
  - 7952 9y ago
    Seems to me that government tend to treat the web as a public space (like a city park). And naturally some things are not appropriate in that context. But many of us treat it as a private space akin to a bedroom, and expect similar levels of privacy. This difference in view is a source of the problems. Because it is really neither public or private but some indeterminate place in between. We need the difference to be much more explicit so that some kind of social convention can determine socially acceptability. So that the law can respond appropriately to context.
    - AlbertoGP 9y ago
      I would propose for the government to put approved content under https://city-park.gov.uk https://city-park.gov.uk so that concerned people can limit their browsing to that site.
  - nebabyte 9y ago
    Right, which is why I said this > If only adblock lists (content subscription in general) were a more common model. You could tell your neighbors they can just "not subscribe to those channels" without affecting others. Hmm Content subscription is a relatively easy model to understand. A stratified net is easier than DIY filtering but still is 'handled by the government' and affords the flexibility of a (somewhat) open internet. Far sight better than wholesale blocking.
Ntrails 9y ago
> It seemed that a lot of people didn't fully understand what the Internet was, asking why it didn't have a watershed [1] like TV does. It's all very well dismissing this, but I can't imagine being a parent and trying to moderate a childs access to "extreme" content (sexual or otherwise) in the modern world. On the off chance I manage to properly "secure" the home computer they'll be surrounded by friends with smartphones, laptops etc. In ye olden days the risks were of some parent letting children watch a 15 movie at a sleepover, or perhaps one kid getting a magazine and showing it about. The internet is never more than 3 clicks from the latest deathgif etc some of which can have a pretty strong influence on a person (let alone a child). Declaring everyone who sees things such as that as problematic to be fascist is probably not going to result in positive change.
- bewo001 9y ago
  In the olden days, the neighbor kid would bring the splatter movie VHS he 'lend' from his uncle. In the eighties there was a huge discussion (at least in Germany) on how to prevent children from viewing inappropriate video cassettes. And I don't see that the 17/18 year olds of today are all depraved and damaged because of all the Internet porn they had access to.
- mattkevan 9y ago
  You're right - there are far more risks. Access to extreme content is easier than it's ever been and can often happen inadvertently. It's a hard problem, and one I don't fully have answers to. I don't object at all to people censoring their own feeds or deciding what is acceptable to themselves - I do it myself. Tools for this should be easy to use and widely available for those who want them. What I do object to, strongly, is a bunch of unaccountable people secretly deciding what we should and shouldn't have access to, especially on such slippery justifications as 'protecting the children' or 'preventing terrorism'.
  - Ntrails 9y ago
    Unaccountable is a bit strong - given that this is being done by elected officials, but sure. This is one small but potentially landmark step on the way to complete control over the most powerful and complete source of free information possible. Sure it'd be great if parental controls really worked and were easy to set up. They're not, not even close. Heck - facebook will happily share beheadings for a couple hours until it gets to the front of a support queue somewhere. I, too, have no answers. But I do feel like demonizing the people who would like the government to resolve the issue for them (and the government for doing so) doesn't move the conversation forward. What is the price of free and uncensored access? Is there one day going to be a price we're unwilling to pay? I can't open the pirate bay dot com because the government doesn't want me stealing content. I don't think they're malicious or evil for that policy, I understand the logic. It even works in preventing some level of piracy.
18RDThNx 9y ago
Unfortunately many voters have no concept of liberty and what it means for those you disagree with. They're perfectly fine with using the hammer of the state to punish "immoral behavior." Though how many would look a friend in the eye and say, "if you offend my sensibilities, I want you to be thrown in jail?" Hopefully few.
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
ISPs could offer a web connection with a "watershed" or serve restricted services per device, which would have a similar effect. I use OpenDNS, loss of people use their ISPs blocking service, having that work on a watershed for a home router send reasonable. Don't see why it's such a ridiculous idea to you?
- pjc50 9y ago
  This already happens, as a result of the last "think of the children" initiative. UK ISPs are required to at least offer filtering to customers.

iDemonix 9y ago

I think this is a similar problem to that of net neutrality: a majority of people don't understand how the internet works (in any way, shape or form), and therefore are easily swayed by the loudest parties - often the ones trying to make a profit, not protect the internet.

doubt_me 9y ago
It's worse. Way worse. People don't want to know. Or they know and act anyway
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

nebabyte 9y ago

Thank you. I often find myself in subconscious denial ("oh, surely it's just a fluke and they'll get back on course soon") over news of the direction our British friends are headed, because of the self-affirming echo chamber net communities often form. I've only ever sometimes heard (but fortunately tried to keep in mind) the fact that the reason for it is that it's not seen as dystopic by the British public, and that they're majority-for the changes being made. (Even though it makes perfect logical sense, the subconscious impulse of denial is still there without hearing "the other side".) With that said I do hope your fellow citizens can be persuaded to see the value of the internet as an open platform. Censorship works in theory but I think what people want more is the ability for self-censorship; that and censorship of the whole are two radically different things. If only adblock lists (content subscription in general) were a more common model. You could tell your neighbors they can just "not subscribe to those channels" without affecting others. Hmm

mattkevan 9y ago
The thing is, I don't disagree with those parents' concerns. There's a lot of horrible horrible crap on the Internet, stuff that I don't want my child anywhere near. And if I wasn't tech savvy, having the government do it would probably sound like a good idea However, enforcing a nation-state firewall which blocks stuff 'for our own good' – and records every aspect of our lives in the process – is not the right way to go about it.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  Being Tory though it's got to be profitable for private business too; just providing blocking that's useful isn't going to keep the shareholders happy.
- 7952 9y ago
  Seems to me that government tend to treat the web as a public space (like a city park). And naturally some things are not appropriate in that context. But many of us treat it as a private space akin to a bedroom, and expect similar levels of privacy. This difference in view is a source of the problems. Because it is really neither public or private but some indeterminate place in between. We need the difference to be much more explicit so that some kind of social convention can determine socially acceptability. So that the law can respond appropriately to context.
  - AlbertoGP 9y ago
    I would propose for the government to put approved content under https://city-park.gov.uk https://city-park.gov.uk so that concerned people can limit their browsing to that site.
- nebabyte 9y ago
  Right, which is why I said this > If only adblock lists (content subscription in general) were a more common model. You could tell your neighbors they can just "not subscribe to those channels" without affecting others. Hmm Content subscription is a relatively easy model to understand. A stratified net is easier than DIY filtering but still is 'handled by the government' and affords the flexibility of a (somewhat) open internet. Far sight better than wholesale blocking.

Ntrails 9y ago

> It seemed that a lot of people didn't fully understand what the Internet was, asking why it didn't have a watershed [1] like TV does. It's all very well dismissing this, but I can't imagine being a parent and trying to moderate a childs access to "extreme" content (sexual or otherwise) in the modern world. On the off chance I manage to properly "secure" the home computer they'll be surrounded by friends with smartphones, laptops etc. In ye olden days the risks were of some parent letting children watch a 15 movie at a sleepover, or perhaps one kid getting a magazine and showing it about. The internet is never more than 3 clicks from the latest deathgif etc some of which can have a pretty strong influence on a person (let alone a child). Declaring everyone who sees things such as that as problematic to be fascist is probably not going to result in positive change.

bewo001 9y ago
In the olden days, the neighbor kid would bring the splatter movie VHS he 'lend' from his uncle. In the eighties there was a huge discussion (at least in Germany) on how to prevent children from viewing inappropriate video cassettes. And I don't see that the 17/18 year olds of today are all depraved and damaged because of all the Internet porn they had access to.
mattkevan 9y ago
You're right - there are far more risks. Access to extreme content is easier than it's ever been and can often happen inadvertently. It's a hard problem, and one I don't fully have answers to. I don't object at all to people censoring their own feeds or deciding what is acceptable to themselves - I do it myself. Tools for this should be easy to use and widely available for those who want them. What I do object to, strongly, is a bunch of unaccountable people secretly deciding what we should and shouldn't have access to, especially on such slippery justifications as 'protecting the children' or 'preventing terrorism'.
- Ntrails 9y ago
  Unaccountable is a bit strong - given that this is being done by elected officials, but sure. This is one small but potentially landmark step on the way to complete control over the most powerful and complete source of free information possible. Sure it'd be great if parental controls really worked and were easy to set up. They're not, not even close. Heck - facebook will happily share beheadings for a couple hours until it gets to the front of a support queue somewhere. I, too, have no answers. But I do feel like demonizing the people who would like the government to resolve the issue for them (and the government for doing so) doesn't move the conversation forward. What is the price of free and uncensored access? Is there one day going to be a price we're unwilling to pay? I can't open the pirate bay dot com because the government doesn't want me stealing content. I don't think they're malicious or evil for that policy, I understand the logic. It even works in preventing some level of piracy.

18RDThNx 9y ago

Unfortunately many voters have no concept of liberty and what it means for those you disagree with. They're perfectly fine with using the hammer of the state to punish "immoral behavior." Though how many would look a friend in the eye and say, "if you offend my sensibilities, I want you to be thrown in jail?" Hopefully few.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

ISPs could offer a web connection with a "watershed" or serve restricted services per device, which would have a similar effect. I use OpenDNS, loss of people use their ISPs blocking service, having that work on a watershed for a home router send reasonable. Don't see why it's such a ridiculous idea to you?

pjc50 9y ago
This already happens, as a result of the last "think of the children" initiative. UK ISPs are required to at least offer filtering to customers.