Mark Harris
Pain in the ass
I don't think the point is, is it 100% effective. The point is, there are those trying to do it. I mean, censorship has never been 100% effective anywhere at anytime.
shutting down the internet
- Thread starter brianluce
- Start date
Mark Harris
Pain in the ass
wayland yutani?
Anhar_Miah
Veteran
ah I got ya
Mark Harris
Pain in the ass
Not by me. Just answering a question.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
I didn't think that was rhetorical. :cheesy:
Wrong answer; but let us stay away from politics . :nads: :kali:
OK, John. No idea what you're talking about.
Mark Harris
Pain in the ass
Yeah, me neither...
adkimery
Veteran
The popularity and ease of access gives the internet a leg up over ham radio, but I agree that many of the same choke points still exist today that have existed for years (which is why I mentioned that the "big guys" that own most of the "old" media also own a lot of the most popular "new" media as well). Also, Net Neutrality is such a big deal because we depend on giant corporations to be fair and trustworthy gatekeepers to the internet. To go with Cheesesailor77's example, the Neo Nazi Times might have an online edition, but if your ISP decides that they don't think the Neo Nazi Times is appropriate content they can block or disrupt connecting to that site. Or a search engine can drop links to that site thus making very difficult for people to find. Yes, anyone can put up their own blog, but how is the rest of the world going to find them?
"In September 2007, Verizon Wireless prevented a pro-choice organization from sending text messages to its members coordinating a public demonstration, despite the fact that the intended recipients had explicitly signed up to receive such messages."
Wiki-linki
-A
karapetkov
Well-known member
Cheesesailor77
Veteran
this kinda of stuff i don't like too much. i guess it's good for people of oppressed nations to get information they're not supposed to see, but it also helps everyone else do things they don't want to get caught doing.
Unfortunately for now I suppose it's necessary
karapetkov
Well-known member
ConspiracyPenguin
Nosey Penguin
I didn't mean anything bad. I just meant that it seemed that you were intentionally not getting it in order to force people to back up what they were putting out there. I was not calling you thick as an insult, but as a tactic
He gets an apology? HE GETS AN APOLOGY!? Just kidding, Mark...
Sorry for the delayed reaction :grin: I see what you are saying, but in that particular situation, I think they would be a better way of alerting the government to this fact than just throwing it out for everyone. Although, I don't have the White House on speed dial either, so I don't know.
Look whose taking my job away from me! Haha, or rather making it easier I suppose. Maybe I'll take a three week trip to Puerto Rico and let JR handle things for me. :beer:
----------------------------------------
I still say there are exceptions to the "NO INTERNET CENSORSHIP" rule, but as a Political writer myself, I understand where this could go too far.
I have an ironic story for you guys. Just after this thread was posted and we discussed whether the internet could be good or bad or if it depended on how it was used, I was asked to write about good and evil. I wrote an entire column about it and realized I was totally wrong. Nothing is truly good or evil, those words are simply adjectives to describe things, just like beautiful and ugly. It all depends on each individual's perspective and opinion.
For example, I might say this thread is good because it discusses different viewpoints, but someone else might say it's bad for giving people ideas they shouldn't have. Alternativly, I might hit someone over the head with a fire extinguisher and think it is good, but they will think it is bad. Same thing with terrorists, they think they are doing good by crashing planes into buildings, I think they are doing bad.
Sorry, I may have went off topic, feel free to skip on ahead to what you were talking about.
rogar-Happy(DBG):------------------------------------
Hmmm...I can see several ways of using this. Refer to my stuff on good and evil. Has anyone tried it? Just wondering...
-------------------------------------
Not space. But the space between spaces. Anyone?
Later,
Anhar_Miah
Veteran
CP, what you are taking about is commonly known as relative morality, the subject of morality is in itself a vast and complex one, but even within relative morality the ability to distinguish between Good/Evil proves morality exists, take the example of dreams.
Are they real? every one's dreams will be relative to themselfs, But one thing is certain a dream requires by virtue a dreamer, likewise with the capacity to distinquish relative good and evil, requires by virtue morality (even if its relative).
Cheesesailor77
Veteran
While that may be technically off topic, it's exactly why I feel they way i do about censorship, and frankly about life in general.
If you ask me, the two things we need more in life are Education and Empathy. Censorship destroys both of those.
A little String Theory?
ok now we're definitely Off Topic lolCheesesailor77
Veteran
Well, if I were to follow your analogy, then they may exist, but you could argue they were completely inconsequential
Where the hell has this thread gone? lol
Anhar_Miah
Veteran
Well, if I were to follow your analogy, then they may exist, but you could argue they were completely inconsequential
True, but then how would I deny my own relative distinctions?
EDIT: Further, by accepting my own distinctions, it would be logically inconsistent to deny some external entity using the same rationale, even if the definition boundary between two entities are not the same.
Last edited:
Cheesesailor77
Veteran
Anhar_Miah
Veteran
sorry man, I'm ill and need to sleep now, I blame it on CP, he started it!