4 ms·

> Unfortunately, I don't expect the above to actually happen :( The problem is that the incremental cost to filtering additional material is now virtually zero

by sbt 13y ago

> Unfortunately, I don't expect the above to actually happen :( The problem is that the incremental cost to filtering additional material is now virtually zero. I'm not sure how this would play out in Britain, but I know many countries where a conservative government would have a field day expanding this list. It is easy for a politician to make the case that something should be blocked (think of the children!), but I am guessing no politician would stake his personal capital on unblocking something even remotely controversial. Unfortunately, now Britain has set a precedent, and I could easily see other governments in Europe pointing to Britain in justifying similar firewalls. Therefore, I have concluded that we have a binary choice, firewall or no firewall. To me, this is a simple decision, I would not entrust any committee at all with the management of what should be considered obscene.

nodata 13y ago
That's an excellent point. There needs to be a mechanism added that would make removing an item from the filter as easy as adding an item to the filter. Some way of doing this without putting reputation at risk. Any ideas?
- etherealG 13y ago
  I'd suggest that removing a site should be automatic but adding one requires a review by an actual person.
- coldtea 13y ago
  You're trying to solve, with extra policy, technology and ingenious ideas, something that wouldn't be a problem in the first place without the stupid law. That's how some supporters of free speech and people against censorship are now on the defensive -- trying to imagine how to make a censorship system "better" instead of questioning it's legitimacy in the first place. That's a huge, wide open, Overton's window here.
  - whatevsbro 13y ago
    > trying to imagine how to make a censorship system "better" instead of questioning it's legitimacy in the first place Next, apply this same reasoning to governments themselves. For example, there's practically nothing we can do to make governments better. No, voting doesn't count. Obama vs Romney is a prime example - which of them was not going to be serving Wall Street's interests? Writing to your representatives isn't working all that well either. SOPA? CISPA? NDAA? -Where are they now, and in what form?
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > For example, there's practically nothing we can do to make governments better. Sure there is. > No, voting doesn't count. Sure, voting on its own is of limited utility. Marketing better ideas of what government should be doing is the big thing that can be done to make it better. If there's not better ideas, or they aren't widespread enough to have a electorally-significant constituency that prioritizes them, voting isn't going to be able to effect much positive change.
      - whatevsbro 13y ago
        > Marketing better ideas of what government should be doing is the big thing that can be done to make it better. Also known as "writing to your representatives" or "political activism" etc. But it doesn't work, and it doesn't matter. Does a slave master care about what his slave wants? They simply don't give a fuck. Do you think the people in power do not know that Americans don't want to be detained indefinitely without due process or declared "enemy combatants" and shipped off to Guantanamo to be tortured on a whim? If they do know, why is the NDAA in effect and why has it been renewed? Do you think the people in power do not know that Americans don't want to pay for untold billions of dollars' worth of Wall Street's gambling losses? If they do know, why are big banks given all those bail-outs? And so on. The list of offences is practically endless. > If there's not better ideas, or they aren't widespread enough to have a electorally-significant constituency that prioritizes them, voting isn't going to be able to effect much positive change. I can't help but wonder whether you're working for the government. But I'll wrap this up here.
- idProQuo 13y ago
  This isn't the kind of problem that policy is good at solving. This is a cultural issue: so long as people in general are conservative about what they want their kids to see, removing things from the block list will carry a political penalty for the remover.

by sbt 13y ago

nodata 13y ago

That's an excellent point. There needs to be a mechanism added that would make removing an item from the filter as easy as adding an item to the filter. Some way of doing this without putting reputation at risk. Any ideas?

etherealG 13y ago
I'd suggest that removing a site should be automatic but adding one requires a review by an actual person.
coldtea 13y ago
You're trying to solve, with extra policy, technology and ingenious ideas, something that wouldn't be a problem in the first place without the stupid law. That's how some supporters of free speech and people against censorship are now on the defensive -- trying to imagine how to make a censorship system "better" instead of questioning it's legitimacy in the first place. That's a huge, wide open, Overton's window here.
- whatevsbro 13y ago
  > trying to imagine how to make a censorship system "better" instead of questioning it's legitimacy in the first place Next, apply this same reasoning to governments themselves. For example, there's practically nothing we can do to make governments better. No, voting doesn't count. Obama vs Romney is a prime example - which of them was not going to be serving Wall Street's interests? Writing to your representatives isn't working all that well either. SOPA? CISPA? NDAA? -Where are they now, and in what form?
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > For example, there's practically nothing we can do to make governments better. Sure there is. > No, voting doesn't count. Sure, voting on its own is of limited utility. Marketing better ideas of what government should be doing is the big thing that can be done to make it better. If there's not better ideas, or they aren't widespread enough to have a electorally-significant constituency that prioritizes them, voting isn't going to be able to effect much positive change.
    - whatevsbro 13y ago
      > Marketing better ideas of what government should be doing is the big thing that can be done to make it better. Also known as "writing to your representatives" or "political activism" etc. But it doesn't work, and it doesn't matter. Does a slave master care about what his slave wants? They simply don't give a fuck. Do you think the people in power do not know that Americans don't want to be detained indefinitely without due process or declared "enemy combatants" and shipped off to Guantanamo to be tortured on a whim? If they do know, why is the NDAA in effect and why has it been renewed? Do you think the people in power do not know that Americans don't want to pay for untold billions of dollars' worth of Wall Street's gambling losses? If they do know, why are big banks given all those bail-outs? And so on. The list of offences is practically endless. > If there's not better ideas, or they aren't widespread enough to have a electorally-significant constituency that prioritizes them, voting isn't going to be able to effect much positive change. I can't help but wonder whether you're working for the government. But I'll wrap this up here.
idProQuo 13y ago
This isn't the kind of problem that policy is good at solving. This is a cultural issue: so long as people in general are conservative about what they want their kids to see, removing things from the block list will carry a political penalty for the remover.