5 ms·

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 Britis

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.
  - nitrogen 9y ago
    That's the Overton Window shifting. Not too long ago I recall everyone being horrified by a stratified net, where you had to add your name to a list somewhere to disable filtering. Now that's considered the better option?

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.
- nitrogen 9y ago
  That's the Overton Window shifting. Not too long ago I recall everyone being horrified by a stratified net, where you had to add your name to a list somewhere to disable filtering. Now that's considered the better option?