4 ms·

"We have had repeated meetings of the extremism task force it met again yesterday setting out a whole series of steps that we will take to counter the extremist

"We have had repeated meetings of the extremism task force it met again yesterday setting out a whole series of steps that we will take to counter the extremist narrative, including by blocking online sites." The only distinctions I can see between this quote and the title are "filter" v "block" and "have" v "will". I'm not sure I see either as hugely affecting the meaning.

kjjw 13y ago
You think there's no difference between "exists" and "planned to exist"? Thank you very much for making me realise I am wasting my time reading Hacker News comments.
- vidarh 13y ago
  It's not even explicitly "planned to exist", but some unspecified number of "steps" using some unspecified number of criteria leading to some unspecified form of blocking, which might very well include a court order and which might very well be challenged in court without ever being put into place if Cameron actually ever even tries to make use of it. Keeping in mind that this is a country where known extremist clerics have been able to continue to preach and organise and avoid extradition despite successive governments trying their hardest to have people thrown out and making rather extreme statements about it. In comparison, this is an entirely non-committal statement about "something" which may or may not turn out to be something to worry about and some unspecified time in the future, should Cameron actually care about it rather than just having rattled off something to sound good in parliament.
  - dmix 13y ago
    > this is an entirely non-committal statement about "something" which may or may not turn out to be something to worry about and some unspecified time in the future This oddly also describes pretty much every surveillance state apologist/rationalization I've heard as well. Such as the one posited today by Cameron and his counter-terrorism task force.
    - vidarh 13y ago
      I believe the main purpose of the state is oppression, and that the state should be gradually and totally dismantled. You'll find no rationalisation for a surveillance state from me. But I don't believe opposition to Cameron is at all served by blatantly making shit up, and that is what this title does.
      - dmix 13y ago
        Agreed, the title should read: UK Prime Minister: We have "to expand our" Internet filters to block extremism. Which is more accurate, but arguably worse, considering it implies the internet filters already exist and the prime minister already intends to expand it's use before it's completely implemented.
        vidarh 13y ago
        Your "improved" title, as you admit carries a bunch of implications that are not in any way supported by the text. Making stuff up only serves Cameron, who can write off genuine opposition as hysterics.
        jon-wood 13y ago
        The filters do indeed already exist, and have done for some time. They were originally (quietly) implemented by ISPs when the government made it clear that they could cooperate, or they could have it made law and far more expensive to implement. The list of sites to block are currently maintained by the Internet Watch Foundation, with the aim of preventing access to child abuse, but could quite easily be expanded to cover other things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_system) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_sys...
  - prof_hobart 13y ago
    Not sure how you read it as non-committal. He's said in parliament that he will take steps including blocking online sites linked to extremism. And I'm also not sure why you think there would be any realistic likelihood of them being thwarted in court, given the fact that the courts have already ruled that ISPs have to block access to sites like PirateBay. It's difficult to believe they'd be more precious over protecting access to sites that the government claim are extremist.
- prof_hobart 13y ago
  Did I say there was no difference? I'm pretty sure I didn't. What I did say was that I don't think it makes a huge difference to the relevance of the story. Clearly there is some level of difference between "it will happen" and "it's already happened", but as far as whether the plan to filter/block is something we should care about or not, the difference doesn't seem massively significant - at least not to me. Maybe you'd enjoy Hacker News comments more if you actually read what they said rather than adding your own interpretation...
vidarh 13y ago
"Block" has a wide range of possible meanings that includes going to a court and getting a court order against specific sites. The statement also does not indicate that this has taken place, nor does it set out any specifics of a mechanism by which this will be done. In fact, there's nothing remotely providing evidence that there's even any actual intent to block sites, as opposed to a "series of steps" that may be used to block sites at some unspecified point in the future, subject to some unspecified set of criteria. The title strongly implies that Cameron stated that filters are already in place. That claim is not supported at all. Furthermore, the wording evokes filtering by type of content rather than blocking specific URLs (though that is debatable). In any case, the title is written in a way that hints that this was a direct claim by Cameron, which in any case is outright false. I'd love for him to have actually said this, as it would be an incredibly powerful thing to attack him with, and I find him disgusting, but making up stuff like this only serves to discredit legitimate criticism of what he is saying.
- jon-wood 13y ago
  > The title strongly implies that Cameron stated that filters are already in place. That claim is not supported at all. Filters are already in place, and have been for at least the last ten years. They're currently maintained by the Internet Watch Foundation under the premise of "won't somebody please think of the children", but repurposing the technology would be trivial, and could quite easily fly under the radar since its all centralised.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    You are quoting what I wrote out of context. The quoted statement specifically is addressing the claimed filtering of extremist views. > but repurposing the technology would be trivial, and could quite easily fly under the radar since its all centralised. Could, yes. If someone wants to document that and/or make a claim about that, then let them write an article about it. There are plenty of potential problems with the IWF. But lets try not to blatantly make up stuff and present it pretty much as if it is a quote, and link it to a page that does not support the claim made in the title at all. It does not benefit us in any way to be flat out dishonest when there is so much that can be legitimately criticised based on real, actual quotes.

kjjw 13y ago

You think there's no difference between "exists" and "planned to exist"? Thank you very much for making me realise I am wasting my time reading Hacker News comments.

vidarh 13y ago
It's not even explicitly "planned to exist", but some unspecified number of "steps" using some unspecified number of criteria leading to some unspecified form of blocking, which might very well include a court order and which might very well be challenged in court without ever being put into place if Cameron actually ever even tries to make use of it. Keeping in mind that this is a country where known extremist clerics have been able to continue to preach and organise and avoid extradition despite successive governments trying their hardest to have people thrown out and making rather extreme statements about it. In comparison, this is an entirely non-committal statement about "something" which may or may not turn out to be something to worry about and some unspecified time in the future, should Cameron actually care about it rather than just having rattled off something to sound good in parliament.
- dmix 13y ago
  > this is an entirely non-committal statement about "something" which may or may not turn out to be something to worry about and some unspecified time in the future This oddly also describes pretty much every surveillance state apologist/rationalization I've heard as well. Such as the one posited today by Cameron and his counter-terrorism task force.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    I believe the main purpose of the state is oppression, and that the state should be gradually and totally dismantled. You'll find no rationalisation for a surveillance state from me. But I don't believe opposition to Cameron is at all served by blatantly making shit up, and that is what this title does.
    - dmix 13y ago
      Agreed, the title should read: UK Prime Minister: We have "to expand our" Internet filters to block extremism. Which is more accurate, but arguably worse, considering it implies the internet filters already exist and the prime minister already intends to expand it's use before it's completely implemented.
      - vidarh 13y ago
        Your "improved" title, as you admit carries a bunch of implications that are not in any way supported by the text. Making stuff up only serves Cameron, who can write off genuine opposition as hysterics.
      - jon-wood 13y ago
        The filters do indeed already exist, and have done for some time. They were originally (quietly) implemented by ISPs when the government made it clear that they could cooperate, or they could have it made law and far more expensive to implement. The list of sites to block are currently maintained by the Internet Watch Foundation, with the aim of preventing access to child abuse, but could quite easily be expanded to cover other things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_system) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_sys...
- prof_hobart 13y ago
  Not sure how you read it as non-committal. He's said in parliament that he will take steps including blocking online sites linked to extremism. And I'm also not sure why you think there would be any realistic likelihood of them being thwarted in court, given the fact that the courts have already ruled that ISPs have to block access to sites like PirateBay. It's difficult to believe they'd be more precious over protecting access to sites that the government claim are extremist.
prof_hobart 13y ago
Did I say there was no difference? I'm pretty sure I didn't. What I did say was that I don't think it makes a huge difference to the relevance of the story. Clearly there is some level of difference between "it will happen" and "it's already happened", but as far as whether the plan to filter/block is something we should care about or not, the difference doesn't seem massively significant - at least not to me. Maybe you'd enjoy Hacker News comments more if you actually read what they said rather than adding your own interpretation...

vidarh 13y ago

"Block" has a wide range of possible meanings that includes going to a court and getting a court order against specific sites. The statement also does not indicate that this has taken place, nor does it set out any specifics of a mechanism by which this will be done. In fact, there's nothing remotely providing evidence that there's even any actual intent to block sites, as opposed to a "series of steps" that may be used to block sites at some unspecified point in the future, subject to some unspecified set of criteria. The title strongly implies that Cameron stated that filters are already in place. That claim is not supported at all. Furthermore, the wording evokes filtering by type of content rather than blocking specific URLs (though that is debatable). In any case, the title is written in a way that hints that this was a direct claim by Cameron, which in any case is outright false. I'd love for him to have actually said this, as it would be an incredibly powerful thing to attack him with, and I find him disgusting, but making up stuff like this only serves to discredit legitimate criticism of what he is saying.

jon-wood 13y ago
> The title strongly implies that Cameron stated that filters are already in place. That claim is not supported at all. Filters are already in place, and have been for at least the last ten years. They're currently maintained by the Internet Watch Foundation under the premise of "won't somebody please think of the children", but repurposing the technology would be trivial, and could quite easily fly under the radar since its all centralised.
- vidarh 13y ago
  You are quoting what I wrote out of context. The quoted statement specifically is addressing the claimed filtering of extremist views. > but repurposing the technology would be trivial, and could quite easily fly under the radar since its all centralised. Could, yes. If someone wants to document that and/or make a claim about that, then let them write an article about it. There are plenty of potential problems with the IWF. But lets try not to blatantly make up stuff and present it pretty much as if it is a quote, and link it to a page that does not support the claim made in the title at all. It does not benefit us in any way to be flat out dishonest when there is so much that can be legitimately criticised based on real, actual quotes.