4 ms·
I'm not sure this is true. Oh, I don't argue with your point about the historical facts of restriction, but I do think that the internet is still far from regul
by kolektiv 13y ago
I'm not sure this is true. Oh, I don't argue with your point about the historical facts of restriction, but I do think that the internet is still far from regulatable. The story is still really that politicians believe it is - it isn't, but they don't have the expertise to comprehend why that's the case. The internet is a mass publishing medium, not just a mass consumption one.
Legislation has historically successfully targeted only publishers, and you can do this when the number is fairly small, but not when that target is "everyone" because of the work required in monitoring (which is still not amenable to automation, despite what politicians may believe - it's still just too hard for the software technology we have).
- Cakez0r 13y agoAnd the collateral damage of an automated filtering system is huge.
- netcan 13y agoI'm not 100% sure I agree with me either. :) I agree with your point. Being a mass publishing medium is what has kept the internet in anarchy thus far. In some cases, I think it will be possible to regulate publishers with some success. If you can get 10-20 companies to comply, you're covering most of the web. For porn, that's not going to work. But, a filter probably will. Censorship and contend restrictions don't need to be airtight. They never are. It's enough to just move things from mainstream to marginal. Seeing breasts, arses & fleeting (preferably comical) glimpses of balls is normal and OK, but unadvisable for young children. Genitalia in non sexual contexts is new, but now OK too (thank you embarrassing bodies). You can watch that with your friends or teenage kids. Genitalia in a sexual context is not OK. You look at that alone with a laptop in shame. You have to buy it from licensed sex shops with darkened windows. Regulations & mainstream public opinion cross influence each other but actual line is more or less defined by TV standards and practices. All internet porn (or political opinion or any subject of cencorship) filtering has to do is reclaim the control of that line. If you have to call up and ask for porn access or use tor to get it, it might let them do that.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago"Seeing breasts, arses & fleeting (preferably comical) glimpses of balls is normal and OK, but unadvisable for young children. Genitalia in non sexual contexts is new, but now OK too (thank you embarrassing bodies). You can watch that with your friends or teenage kids. Genitalia in a sexual context is not OK. You look at that alone with a laptop in shame." Did you really just go and claim that seeing breasts is unadvisable for young children? You complete and utter fuckwit. Do you think breasts are just there for you to leer over in your lonely cave of shame?
- Sacho 13y agoHe claimed that most societies(and at least the Western ones I've had contact with match that pretty well) shun exposing sexual organs to children. I don't see why the rage. This is not a controversial comment to make.
- darkarmani 13y agoBreasts aren't sexual organs.
- moocowduckquack 13y agoGiven that breasts are primarily for small children to drink from, to suggest it is damaging for small children to see them isn't just controversial, it is the height of bewildering and crazy idiocy from someone who must be so unconnected with reality that if they ever accidentally encountered a rational train of thought, they'd probably try to throw themselves under it. And it wasn't rage, it was accuracy.