Customize

Censorship

Discussion in 'Freedom of Expression' started by An-non-e-moose, Dec 9, 2008.

  1. Censorship

    Move this if needs be, but lets all take a moment to remember what got Anonymous involved in Chanology. Censorship. The Tom Cruise video, and we were all pissed because we don't agree with censorship.

    So... why are you accepting this faggotry? Virgin Killer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    If you're from the UK and unable to see that page it's because the Internet Watch Foundation told your ISP it had CP on it. They have thusly blocked the entire article.

    So... do something about it would you?
  2. Re: OFF TOPIC: Censorship

    If you believe Britchan, they did do something about it. Hurr.
  3. Re: OFF TOPIC: Censorship

    The problem with this on Britchan was the same problem with anything on Britchan:

    Egofagging, people not understanding how2troll, stormfaggotry and aids.
  4. nonnonanon Member

    Re: OFF TOPIC: Censorship

    ^THIS

    This is why, etc. The increasingly gratuitous won't-you-think-of-the-children baseless moralfaggotry from the UK government and its consultant minions and quangos is just fucking embarrassing. Also hypocritical. If you're reading, govt, here's a free clue that you can feel free to cut and paste from the internet and into your next executive briefing, as I realise that independent composition is not one of your strong points: if you haven't yet reached the point of being able to detect subtle signs of IRL abuse like, say, a baby with a broken back or a pair of women repeatedly sexually abused by their father over the span of twenty years and nineteen pregnancies or the very visible presence of a fucking sci-fi cult that keeps kids as slave labour, then there remain bigger problems than album covers. You haven't found time to wordclear 'transparency' or 'accountability' yet, either, don't think we can't tell. Go do a fucking clay model or something. Fuckwits.

    Although it's hard to know what to do. After all, we WWP people are gentle, law-abiding types who would never condone submitting ovar 9000 unique instances of goatse and friends in order to block up the IWF inbox indefinitely. Nobody, absolutely nobody, would consider getting involved with anything that naughty.
  5. Vir Member

    Re: OFF TOPIC: Censorship

    THE INTERNET WATCH FOUNDATION IS AN INDEPENDENT CHARITY AND THE ISPs CHOOSE TO USE THEIR BLOCKLIST VOLUNTARILY. DON'T BLAME THE UK GOVERNMENT FOR THAT ONE.

    Sheesh.

    If any thing, blame the ISPs for implementing the blocklist without transfering IP numbers correctly. That's what creating the pandemonium on Wikipedia. I do admit it's kinda amusing to watch the drama, but this was a proxy fail on the part of those responsible for the proxy.
  6. nonnonanon Member

    Re: OFF TOPIC: Censorship


    Hah.

    Yeah, it was 100% voluntary and no pressure was applied at any stage by the UK govt at any time. It was such a peaceful and friendly process, I remember it well. And the IWF has been such a stable organisation, stuck rigorously to the original mandate and policies, worked closely with internet rights groups throughout...

    I blame the govt because they're assholes and a little nerd rage is good for the circulation, but more specifically because they promote a proliferation of quangos with more power than accountability. In part this is because many of them have friends that enjoy consultancy rates. From experience, working with 'independent' organisations that enjoy partnership with any government organisation is upper middle class social-networking heaven. They never mean to cause these fucked-up organisations. It's just the natural effect of taking miscellaneous management professionals and other darlings and putting them in powerful places, whilst at the same time ticking off an issue from the list.

    Frankly, I don't actually mind the existence of the IWF for some purposes. Someone has to b& and v& for CP and the IWF had a role in there, somewhere. But it jumped the shark entirely when it went from the idea of censoring that which is very clearly illegal to its current, much broader, ever-expanding and less clearly defined set of activites. Which afaik began around 2002, roughly the same time as the chief executive of IWF became Peter Robbins, who moved into the role from the Metropolitan Police - I doubt that many who were involved in the original setup would recognise the organisation today, having moved from industry-led action to classical govt advisory group. It's just taken mainstream Britain a long time to notice the IWF. When it was originally set up most of the UK had never seen an interweb.

    About the IPs? I wouldn't be surprised if the ISPs did that intentionally. It was pure genius and comedy gold. Long may they continue. The IWF needs to learn their limits, or better, be required to account for their actions.

    Also, sheesh.
  7. Vir Member

    Re: OFF TOPIC: Censorship

    With this attitude you'll get precisely the government you deserve. :p

    The IWF has reversed its decision on the Wikipedia image now, at least when it comes to blocking foreign hosted files of it. They might still pursue UK hosted images.
    IWF statement regarding Wikipedia webpage
  8. nonnonanon Member

    Re: OFF TOPIC: Censorship

    Let us hope that you are right. I should like to get the government I deserve.

    IWF reversing the decision is amusing but does not remove the problem, as it's not about this particular image.
  9. Vir Member

    Re: OFF TOPIC: Censorship

    ISPs using a foundation's blacklist for porn isn't in principle much different than them using a blacklist for spam. They are free to do so if they choose.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins