?

Log in

No account? Create an account
This is somewhere between a rant and a stream of conciousness,… - Sally's Journal
November 29th, 2005
12:20 pm

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

(128 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
From:ex_robhu
Date:November 29th, 2005 01:41 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The first time I was annoyed about this was about smoking. It seemed fairly lilly-livered of the government to make it illegal to advertise smoking and illegal to smoke in any public places all because smoking is Evil and Bad and Wrong, and yet not actually make it illegal to smoke. I mean, either something is Evil, Bad and Wrong, or it isn't.
An issue with smoking is that people smoking in public places directly affect other non smoking people.

So with no evidence that access to fake pictures of illegal acts does any Bad Stuff, I don't see any need to ban them
Here here! If everyone is consenting and there is no direct cause of harm to other people I think it should be allowed.

And whether or not children are reading the internet does seem to me to be a huge red herring. Maybe there's a good arguement for catagorising the internet more (so that only .xxx is a dangerous place, and not The Whole Internet) but that's a different kettle of fish all together.
The big problems being that it is impossible to control the internet because it is entirely international and that there are no good definitions of what is porn (especially when you take other cultures into account).
From:nlj21
Date:November 29th, 2005 02:08 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The big problems being that it is impossible to control the internet

Ummmm, except that is not true. ICANN control the assignment of TLD and could quite easily create an .xxx TLD. And I'm sure the US governement will happily provide a good definition of what porn is which ICANN would have to use.

Yes, in theory everyone could use different root servers, but in practice, apart from a few hardcore geeks, they won't.
[User Picture]
From:ewx
Date:November 29th, 2005 02:35 pm (UTC)
(Link)

ICANN can create any number of TLDs they like, but the relevant kind of difficulty - or, quite possibly, impossibility - is getting people to only use particular TLDs for particular kinds of content.

.XXX looks like a trap to me in any case. If you want to destroy a class of content, first you need to identify it...

[User Picture]
From:atreic
Date:November 29th, 2005 02:38 pm (UTC)
(Link)
That's a cynical idea I hadn't thought of before. Personally, I'm in favour of having things in neat boxes... then if I want to buy cheese, I can go to .cheese and life is easy, and if I want to make sure my children don't buy cheese I can tell them "go wherever you want on the internet, but don't go to .cheese". But you're right, that does put all your cheese shops in one basket.
From:ex_robhu
Date:November 29th, 2005 02:49 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Except that pornography is not as easy to define as cheese :-)
From:neonchameleon
Date:November 29th, 2005 02:40 pm (UTC)
(Link)
If they wanted it to work, they'd be doing it the other way and creating a .safe domain rather than a .xxx domain.
From:nlj21
Date:November 29th, 2005 02:53 pm (UTC)
(Link)
.XXX looks like a trap to me in any case. If you want to destroy a class of content, first you need to identify it...

As far as I am aware the government + courts is quite capable of identifying what they deem undesirable and telling people to use things.

If there were a .XXX domain there would be scope for countries with free speech/expression protection to be able to say what content must be hosted in .XXX domain whereas they couldn't easily ban it due to free speech objections.
From:ex_robhu
Date:November 29th, 2005 03:04 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Except that every country would have different definitions (if they could get them at all) and so every country would put different things in .XXX making it rather pointless.

The internet just routes around these stupid ideas.
[User Picture]
From:ewx
Date:November 29th, 2005 03:09 pm (UTC)
(Link)

As far as I am aware the government + courts is quite capable of identifying what they deem undesirable and telling people to use things.

It's difficult and expensive, in reality. Getting the victims to self-identify makes it a great deal easier.

From:ex_robhu
Date:November 29th, 2005 02:48 pm (UTC)
(Link)
You proposal is entirely unworkable, because no one would find a definition of what porn is that everyone would agree on. The US government couldn't arbitrarily make such a definition as they would at the least need their own populace to agree, which would be extremely hard.

The only reason alternate roots and so on have not occured is that no one has done anything that would upset the seperate governments, so yes something would happen.

This is all entirely ridiculous because as I said there is no good definition of what pornography is.
From:nlj21
Date:November 29th, 2005 03:12 pm (UTC)
(Link)
1) The US governemnt does make decisions and definitions (eg. US Code: Title 18,2256) which many of their own populace disagree with. That's their job - they are the populace's democratically elected representatives. Just because there are people who will disagree with a definition is not an arguement against making a definition.

2) If the ICANN where to make a .xxx domain could you really imagine any foreign politician getting up and saying: "we are going to switch to a different root server, and cause great confusion for all internet users in our country, because we want you to be able to browse porn in .com domains".

2b) Some government are quite upset. I was in France on holiday recently, and the second headline (below the rioting) was all about the US refusing to give up control of the internet from ICANN to a UN controlled organisation. Their not setting up their own root servers.
[User Picture]
From:atreic
Date:November 29th, 2005 03:15 pm (UTC)
(Link)
(as an aside, rhetoric like "entirely ridiculous" and "stupid ideas" does not usually make for good debate. Well, conclusive debate, at any rate.)
[User Picture]
From:pjc50
Date:November 29th, 2005 04:11 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The current US government could quite happily define information on non-abstinence methods of birth control as "porn". And of course removing someone's domain name doesn't take them down (although it makes them much harder to access).
From:nlj21
Date:November 29th, 2005 04:15 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Yes, I agree that completely removing something from the internet is sufficiently hard to be considered impossible. The entire aim of any of these ideas are to making things harder.
From:ex_robhu
Date:November 29th, 2005 04:23 pm (UTC)
(Link)
It's a shame that Freenet is not faster and more widely adopted. It was designed to prevent this kind of censorship.
Powered by LiveJournal.com