Internet Censorship/Copyright bill

[Deluge Of Sound]

I can go on the internet with an opinion of my own and voice it, and other people can read it. I can say whatever the hell I want on my own website, and nobody (as yet) can really do a damn about it.

While the internet is not strictly "Un-Censored" it is about as free as any form of media can or will get.

Even here on talkbass my opinion gets across untainted. If I were to talk to the media, even the local paper or a magazine about an issue like this, they would twist my words to suit them. Here you get exactly what I am talking about, word for word.

What about the censorship rules on TB?
What about the ability to pay for hosting?
What about the ability to program and code a website?

Aren't those all censoring factors?

 

[sloasdaylight]

What about the censorship rules on TB?
What about the ability to pay for hosting?
What about the ability to program and code a website?

Aren't those all censoring factors?

The censorship rules on Talkbass are the only things there that are legitimate.

A website from godaddy costs as cheap as $1.99 per year, and hosting costs like $3/month, and there are so many "how to build a website in 5 minutes" guides out there for free on the internet or for cheap at borders that literally for about $20-30 you can get a website up and running for a year saying whatever you want.

The last two are no more censorship than the cost of a $2.00 can of soup is contributing to famine.

That is of course if you're willing to actually do some work for it. If you just want everything for free and think everyone is entitled to their own website then yea they're censorship.

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

The censorship rules on Talkbass are the only things there that are legitimate.

A website from godaddy costs as cheap as $.89 per year, and hosting costs like $3/month, and there are so many "how to build a website in 5 minutes" guides out there for free on the internet or for cheap at borders that literally for about $20-30 you can get a website up and running for a year saying whatever you want.

The last two are no more censorship than the cost of a $2.00 can of soup is contributing to famine.

That is of course if you're willing to actually do some work for it. If you just want everything for free and think everyone is entitled to their own website then yea they're censorship.

You want to keep the ball rolling on this?

The internet, by its very nature, is one of the most exclusive forms of media. It requires access to it. It requires the know-how(which must be taught, as very few are intuitive enough to be successful autodidacts) to use the internet, and it involves the ability to pay for it (which, incidentally is also online).

You want an uncensored region for your thoughts and beliefs? Spraypaint a wall by a busy freeway. You'll get more daily viewers than a blog.

 

[sloasdaylight]

You want to keep the ball rolling on this?

The internet, by its very nature, is one of the most exclusive forms of media. exclusivity does not equate to censorship It requires access to it. Attainable at any public library for free It requires the know-how(which must be taught, as very few are intuitive enough to be successful autodidacts) to use the internet, It's not that hard to get onto the internet, and with the help of your local friendly librarian you can get up online in about 25 seconds. and it involves the ability to pay for it (which, incidentally is also online). If you're hosting it yourself or have access at your house. You can go to wordpress.com, sign up, and have your own blog in about 5 minutes. Or blogger.com, or weebly, or liverjournal, or any slew of other blog style websites.

You want an uncensored region for your thoughts and beliefs? Spraypaint a wall by a busy freeway. You'll get more daily viewers than a blog.

The internet is as close as you're going to get to being able to express your vews in a completely uncensored medium as there is. If you want to do it for completely free then you have a few limitations on you, but they're few and far between. If you want to truly have an uncensored platform for your thoughts, then you have to pay, like I said, about $50/year, which unless you're living underneath an overpass, is doable.

 

[Simo98]

The internet, by its very nature, is one of the most exclusive forms of media. It requires access to it. It requires the know-how(which must be taught, as very few are intuitive enough to be successful autodidacts) to use the internet, and it involves the ability to pay for it (which, incidentally is also online).

Im going to assume you are.. over 25?

A majority of people growing up today in a western society are more than capable of building themselves a myspace or some form of blog, and getting out there on the internet, and their opinion/piece of information across with little or no instruction, be it via blog or youtube comments. I believe the term is "Digital native". My brother is 10 years old, to him turning on a computer and looking up something on the internet is as simple as turning on the TV, or using a microwave is for you or me.

As far as price goes, zoom on down to maccas and use the free wi-fi, or one of the hundreds of other locations you can get free access to the internet.

The internet is not exactly "Un-Censored" but its about as close as you can get.

You want an uncensored region for your thoughts and beliefs? Spraypaint a wall by a busy freeway. You'll get more daily viewers than a blog.

What about the fact that that is illegal? Isn't that censorship? Or the fact that it will be sprayed over soon enough? Or the fact that people may choose not to read your scrawly grafitti??

I believe you will find that what you are doing is considered "Splitting hairs", do you have a point? Or are you just arguing for the sake of it?

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

The internet is as close as you're going to get to being able to express your vews in a completely uncensored medium as there is.

Now we're getting to the crux of it! And, for the record, exclusivity implies privilege, which, IMO, implies a code of conduct, which is clearly a case of premature censorship.

Im going to assume you are.. over 25?

Nope, just a hair shy of 22.

A majority of people growing up today in a western society are more than capable of building themselves a myspace or some form of blog, and getting out there on the internet, and their opinion/piece of information across with little or no instruction, be it via blog or youtube comments. I believe the term is "Digital native". My brother is 10 years old, to him turning on a computer and looking up something on the internet is as simple as turning on the TV, or using a microwave is for you or me.

As far as price goes, zoom on down to maccas and use the free wi-fi, or one of the hundreds of other locations you can get free access to the internet.

The internet is not exactly "Un-Censored" but its about as close as you can get.

That's absolutely true... for the western world. It hardly holds true for the rest of it, if they even have access to the internet.

What about the fact that that is illegal? Isn't that censorship? Or the fact that it will be sprayed over soon enough? Or the fact that people may choose not to read your scrawly grafitti??

I believe you will find that what you are doing is considered "Splitting hairs", do you have a point? Or are you just arguing for the sake of it?

I'm totally splitting hairs for fun, here, but the distinction between "free zone" and "mostly free zone," is an important one, especially when we know that the day of "mostly free" are slowly but surely drawing to a close.

 

[Simo98]

I'm totally splitting hairs for fun, here, but the distinction between "free zone" and "mostly free zone," is an important one, especially when we know that the day of "mostly free" are slowly but surely drawing to a close.

Of course there will never be a truly free uncensored medium where you can simultaniously communicate your specific piece of information with every human on the planet, or at least it is highly unlikely. Even the crazy unshaven guy on the sidewalk with a sign that reads "The end is coming" can only reach a certain amount of people at any one time. And you could say he is censoring his own point with his rough appearance.

In a world where most media we have access to is heavily moderated by the powers to be, whomever they may be, the internet in its current form is a breath of fresh air, but like you said, I doubt this current state will last too much longer, many countries already filter their internet, and I can't say I would be surprised to hear that it is already happening in most western countries too, *Foil hat*.

I dunt like it

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

Me neither. Unfortunately, it looks pretty inevitable at this point.

 

[sloasdaylight]

Now we're getting to the crux of it! And, for the record, exclusivity implies privilege, which, IMO, implies a code of conduct, which is clearly a case of premature censorship.

What is your argument?

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

What is your argument?

Logic.

Using the OED (Oxford English Dictionary):


Exclusive, a. and n.:
Excluding (some other) from participation. Const. of, to. Sometimes quasi-adv. = ‘to the exclusion of’. Obs.

Privilege, n.:
A right, advantage, or immunity granted to or enjoyed by an individual, corporation of individuals, etc., beyond the usual rights or advantages of others; spec. (a) an exemption from a normal duty, liability, etc.; (b) enjoyment of some benefit (as wealth, education, standard of living, etc.) above the average or that deemed usual or necessary for a particular group (in pl. sometimes contrasted with rights).

Now, if a privilege is something that can be taken away, there have to be established grounds of appropriate conduct. That seems clear enough. Continuing on....


Censor, v.
trans. To act as censor to; see CENSOR n.

Ok...
Censor n.:
One who exercises official or officious supervision over morals and conduct.

See?

For fun, I've included the OED definition of reductio ad absurdum:

reductio ad absurdum, n.
in extended use: the action or an act of carrying something to an absurd extreme.

 

[Thunderscreech]

If this happens, I will go back to taping my songs from the radio...after my stint in "p2p rehab"

 

[sloasdaylight]

Logic.

Using the OED (Oxford English Dictionary):


Exclusive, a. and n.:
Excluding (some other) from participation. Const. of, to. Sometimes quasi-adv. = ‘to the exclusion of’. Obs.

Privilege, n.:
A right, advantage, or immunity granted to or enjoyed by an individual, corporation of individuals, etc., beyond the usual rights or advantages of others; spec. (a) an exemption from a normal duty, liability, etc.; (b) enjoyment of some benefit (as wealth, education, standard of living, etc.) above the average or that deemed usual or necessary for a particular group (in pl. sometimes contrasted with rights).

Now, if a privilege is something that can be taken away, there have to be established grounds of appropriate conduct. That seems clear enough. Continuing on....


Censor, v.
trans. To act as censor to; see CENSOR n.

Ok...
Censor n.:
One who exercises official or officious supervision over morals and conduct.

See?

For fun, I've included the OED definition of reductio ad absurdum:

reductio ad absurdum, n.
in extended use: the action or an act of carrying something to an absurd extreme.

I know the definitions of the terms, but what is your point? Are you saying that the internet isn't free of censorship?

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

You asked me to explain my reasoning:
And, for the record, exclusivity implies privilege, which, IMO, implies a code of conduct, which is clearly a case of premature censorship.
I used the definitions of the words to explain it.

To my mind, the internet has never been uncensored. Nor was the internet ever intended to be free of censorship, considering both its history and the ways in which it is accessed and maintained.

 

[sloasdaylight]

You asked me to explain my reasoning:
And, for the record, exclusivity implies privilege, which, IMO, implies a code of conduct, which is clearly a case of premature censorship.
I used the definitions of the words to explain it.

To my mind, the internet has never been uncensored. Nor was the internet ever intended to be free of censorship, considering both its history and the ways in which it is accessed and maintained.

Can you provide me with an official definition from Merriam or Oxford or some other dictionary, cause I've never heard the phrase premature censorship.

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

That's my own wordplay at work--I'm not sure any dictionary definition exists.

It doesn't. So, if I had the opportunity to reword, I'd probably use the phrase "preemptive limitations on expression." Your ISP can, theoretically cut you off at any time, for any reason, or as Comcast has, they can throttles your internet connection:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21376597/

Now, that doesn't mean they will, but it doesn't mean that they can't. Luckily for us, we live in America, but that's not true of the rest of the world (take a look at China's internet policy, for example).

 

[aborgman]

You want to keep the ball rolling on this?

Sure - but first we have to note that "censorship" has a specific meaning.

Censorship: suppression of speech which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

Limiting your speech because you can't pay != censorship.

The fact that buying a printing press is expensive isn't censorship nor does it in any way invalidate the first amendment.

Censorship is about banning content, not about barriers to entry (unless those barriers are based on content).

 

[sloasdaylight]

Sure - but first we have to note that "censorship" has a specific meaning.

Censorship: suppression of speech which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

Limiting your speech because you can't pay != censorship.

The fact that buying a printing press is expensive isn't censorship nor does it in any way invalidate the first amendment.

Censorship is about banning content, not about barriers to entry (unless those barriers are based on content).

+1

 

[zenrad]

I know the definitions of the terms, but what is your point? Are you saying that the internet isn't free of censorship?

Do a Google search for "Tiananmen Square" in China and you'll witness internet censorship.

 

[sloasdaylight]

Do a Google search for "Tiananmen Square" in China and you'll witness internet censorship.

I don't see your point. I never said that the internet wasn't devoid of censorship.

I said, and I'll quote:

The internet is as close as you're going to get to being able to express your vews in a completely uncensored medium as there is. If you want to do it for completely free then you have a few limitations on you, but they're few and far between. If you want to truly have an uncensored platform for your thoughts, then you have to pay, like I said, about $50/year, which unless you're living underneath an overpass, is doable.

I took the liberty of bolding the important part. You think you have more rights in printed media in China than you do on the internet?

 

[Simo98]

Do a Google search for "Tiananmen Square" in China and you'll witness internet censorship.

Er.. this is exactly what we are arguing against.


Otherwise when you google "(terrible act) commited by (your country here)" you will just get clip art pictures of farm animals.