Chinese internet filtering

Potter · Post by **Potter** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:31 pm

Internet 2 FTW!

Post by **MonMotha** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 12:02 am

Well, if you're going to upgrade the internet, can we at least move to IPv6 so I won't have to deal with NAT again, can actually multicast, and have can clue the routers in as to what the nature of my packet is?

Oh, wait, China already has IPv6.

sam · Post by **sam** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 12:45 am

you do realize i'm moving to sweeden to take advantage of their hot babes and fast internet don't you?

Original Sin · Post by **Original Sin** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:18 am

The internet in itself should be under no legislation outside of the laws already applicable for other media (such as the no child pornography thing.) Censoring, or banning items from the internet is a huge infringement on free speach, and perhaps one of the most dire.
TV is censored, because anyone can turn on the tv and see something offensive on accident. However, on the internet, you only find things that you decide you want to look for to begin with (generally speaking, spam is still annoying as hell).
The odds are, you're not gonna be subjected to gay porn unless you want to be subjected to it. (this goes for almost any other items on the internet).
Sure, everyone now and then theres the pesky pop-ups for porn. But hey, if people were more responsible with their computeres, they wouldn't have to worry about that, now would they?

Monban · Post by **Monban** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 8:08 am

You wanna talk about controling the Internet? Let's talk about the new 2257 law that just came into effect. This article (linked, for your clicking pleasure) gives a good rundown of why it endangers free speech on the Internet.

x5060 · Post by **x5060** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 8:21 am

Monban wrote:You wanna talk about controling the Internet? Let's talk about the new 2257 law that just came into effect. This article (linked, for your clicking pleasure) gives a good rundown of why it endangers free speech on the Internet.

You do realize that 2257 was passed in the 80's, right?

Original Sin · Post by **Original Sin** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 9:57 am

I have yet to see what the big deal with pornography is. If you don't like it, don't fuckin' look at it. No one's forcing anyone to watch porn.
All this is (or was) is a bunch of over-zealous assholes sitting back saying 'This is wrong, we should get rid of this!' and 90% of the time, they look at it anyway, or at least, want to look at it.
Sure, not everyone likes porn. So what? I don't like seeing football on TV, but I sure as hell don't go protesting and saying it should be taken off the air. The same goes with any recreational/special interest program/website.
Jus because you don't like something, doesn't mean it should be eliminated. There are how many people in this country? What gives a minority group (and I'm not talking racial) the right to take away something that is, arguably, mostly harmless, and ENTIRELY up to viewer discretion?

I'm sorry, but sometimes, I just don't understand people in this country, I really don't.

If X5060 is right, and this law has been around since the 80's, I don't believe it's enforced very well. And if this is a new law, I don't think it'll stand up for very long. Let's face it, porn is a booming business, and business creates cash flow. Cash flow helps the economy. Furthermore, if Judicial review is anything like it's supposed to be, they'll see this as a clear assault on free speach, in a manner that is extreme, and entirely unnecessary.

Monban · Post by **Monban** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:56 am

x5060 is correct the law was established in the 80s, however it was recently ruled that it applies to the Internet as well as physical media.

This is mostly bad news for sites like 4chan that, while not specificly pornographic in nature, do make use of nude photography. Granted in the 4chan sense the nudes are is usually used to shock rather than arouse, the point is it's free speech.

XeRo · Post by **XeRo** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:27 pm

I don't know Sin, but I can tell you one thing...

PORN RULES!!!!

mexican ninja · Post by **mexican ninja** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:44 pm

I just thought it was kinda funny, in a topic about censorship of the internet, that when I clicked on Monban's link, I came up with this:

Gotta love AOL.

XeRo · Post by **XeRo** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:47 pm

Lmao, what do you know...Mosh isn't the only person on this site that has Mommy and Daddy watching over her internet surfing.

x5060 · Post by **x5060** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:30 pm

... WOW... i have NEVER had filtered internet. even when i was younger and the internet was just starting. Thats sad.

Original Sin · Post by **Original Sin** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:04 pm

I also never had my internet filtered. Of course, I never got into anything over my head either (except porn. Don't deny it, you did too. =P)
It seems like the internet filters do a better job at filtering out useful informaton than they do filtering out porn. Just something I noticed the few times I uses the school networks...Yeah, I had porn pop up on the school computer, but I couldn't reach a news site for reference because it contained 'questionable content.'

....WTF...?

XeRo · Post by **XeRo** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:10 pm

The answer to that question is relatively simple Shaun, I believe that is because the filter knows that Porn is better for you than reading a bloody news story which will probably cause your brain to implode.

Original Sin · Post by **Original Sin** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:12 pm

See, I told you! Porn IS good! The news should not be replaced with porn!