Objectionable Material & Website Blocking

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Objectionable Material & Website Blocking

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

BDFL - Memuneh
79263 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2202052 19-Mar-2019 21:27

NZGamingIcon:

Talkiet:

Here's an uncomfortable truth for you all.

People here claiming there should be no censorship or filtering of any kind on the internet, and that even the most despicable illegal content should be carried and available to everyone... Well... You're reinforcing each other's views, making that position seem more popular, common and accepted than it is in wider society.

Guess how a lot of ultra right wing white nationalist movements become emboldened and build their own world view that they are right and need to do something. That's right. Essentially the same process. Their little echo chambers filled with like minded people, reinforcing each others views...

Attempting to have a conversation about censorship and internet filtering on here is simply not going to be possible - we represent NOTHING LIKE a reasonable cross section of society. Sure it might be interesting, but it will in no way be balanced or reflective of what New Zealand values.

Cheers - N

You are correct about censorship leading to echo chambers. There was a good discussion on JRE with Tim Pool and the twitter execs about this.

We all know Twitter is a cesspool of nazi, alt-right and extreme propaganda too, that Jack does nothing to curb.

solutionz

589 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2202053 19-Mar-2019 21:37

Talkiet:

I'm NOT sure I'm not reflecting my own biases here.... But I acknowedge that. I wholeheartedly believe that I don't (and can't ) know best. However I believe that realising that, and accepting that my opinions might be wrong puts me a huge rung up on ANYONE else here that thinks they are right.

I'm not sure if anyone here is claiming they know best. People are offering their opinions as expected of a normal online discussion.

I'm not sure what you'd prefer? This topic to be censored?

How about outline your personal lines of reasoning for your current position - rightly or wrongly - and allow us all to explore these other points of view.

Perhaps be a bit more open to other perspectives also; not everyone that argues for open internet is some sicko wanting to get off on gore etc - some have genuine concerns for the wider implications of these decisions. Maybe outline how you think these issues may be rationalised into the wider debate? And where there boundaries are before you start getting into fascism or authoritarianism?

Lias

5589 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202056 19-Mar-2019 21:38

freitasm:

We all know Twitter is a cesspool of nazi, alt-right and extreme propaganda too, that Jack does nothing to curb.

I think Twitter is just a cesspit fullstop, there are plenty of very offensive people on there who don't fit into those categories.

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup.

hio77

12999 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lizard Networks

#2202058 19-Mar-2019 21:46

Ok, so the way i look at this is.

1. Should there be filtering offered? - Absolutely. DIA is a prime example of this (anyone want to object to this part?)

2. Should there be a president set to block offensive content? - No, Not at all. Offensive content is all over the internet, depending on the situation adult material could be deemed as Offensive (eg. in a workplace)

3. Should Content be filtered in major crimes where social media is being used as a tool to amplify its effect? - Absolutely.

i think the key thing to remember here is, this filtering would have done nothing for IT centered folk that are often here.

but what it did do, was cut down on the harm from direct links to content.

no amount of fingerprinting was going to stop reuploads, soon as that happened i'd expect someone would throw a morph or something to change the content enough.

For this bit, is where the platforms need to take ownership of removing content.

#include <std_disclaimer>

Any comments made are personal opinion and do not reflect directly on the position my current or past employers may have.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79263 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2202098 19-Mar-2019 21:58

The irony...

I have just removed and banned the user who posted a reply in this very topic quoting a name that is still under name suppression.

Don't try your luck folks. The banhammer is still very active.

SamF

1578 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2202110 19-Mar-2019 22:17

Talkiet:

...we represent NOTHING LIKE a reasonable cross section of society. Sure it might be interesting, but it will in no way be balanced or reflective of what New Zealand values.

While I agree that people on this forum are not a typical cross-section of NZ society, I don't think anyone here thinks that, nor are we trying to 'decide' for everyone.

However, we do have a MUCH better grasp of the technical / feasibility side of this issue than the vast majority of NZers, so in this respect we are more qualified to have this discussion.

Case in point; the number of people (members of the public, press and politicians) whom I have heard this week ask something along the lines of 'why can't the social media companies stop this?' just goes to demonstrate the lack of understanding of how difficult that is to actually achieve.

Facebook and Youtube probably have the most advanced monitoring & filtering systems deployed on the planet, but the sheer VOLUME of data to process is incredible. Stopping a live video stream while it is in progress based on automated filtering systems is simply not possible with current technology IMO.

Additionally, I have not heard the phrase 'free speech' uttered by anyone publicly this week, because this would be insensitive in the current context. None-the-less, it must be included in the discussion at some point, so we may as well start here.

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2202119 19-Mar-2019 22:28

Actually... .I'm out of this particular discussion. I don't think anything productive will come out of a discussion here - that's not meant to be a slight on anyone or the userbase - it's just I genuinely don't think there are enough varied points of view or expertise here for something so nuanced. I also do think there are very vocal elements here that will be massively over-represented in any discussion and I'd probably be one of those - and that wouldn't be helpful.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

solutionz

589 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2202145 19-Mar-2019 23:09

Talkiet:
Actually... .I'm out of this particular discussion. I don't think anything productive will come out of a discussion here - that's not meant to be a slight on anyone or the userbase - it's just I genuinely don't think there are enough varied points of view or expertise here for something so nuanced. I also do think there are very vocal elements here that will be massively over-represented in any discussion and I'd probably be one of those - and that wouldn't be helpful.

Cheers - N

And you don't see the hypocrisy in this?

There have been a number of good points raised for and against censorship however you seem to dismiss anything that doesn't fit your existing view; whilst in 4 posts not providing any coherent view; whilst also arguing there are not enough varied views...

I see you're passionate about this situation but this "us" vs "them" mentality and dismissing of other perspectives contributes to the very echo chambers you claim to be concerned about.

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2202154 19-Mar-2019 23:45

No, I see no hypocrisy at all. I think realising one's limits and not professing expertise in an area where I don't have it is a responsible approach here. I do however have the experience to recognise the same limitations in others - and engaging with them on genuinely important topics like this just won't be productive.

Just because I can realise when someone is likely wrong, or is approaching from a biased POV doesn't mean I necessarily know what's right or have accurate insight myself. It's not that black and white.

I race cars at a club level. I'm pretty decent at it.... I can recognise a muppet at a track day that thinks going fast is all about a big engine and doesn't care about braking or correct lines. Does that mean I'm qualified to instruct racing drivers? No.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

ripdog

548 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2202173 20-Mar-2019 01:44

hio77:

1. Should there be filtering offered? - Absolutely. DIA is a prime example of this (anyone want to object to this part?)

I'll take you up on that. The DIA filter is an amazing combination of useless and a slippery slope to greater censorship (by introducing the infrastructure).

It's useless because child porn does not exist on the surface web - or rather, no authorities are aware of it. In order to be filtered, authorities must be aware of it. If authorities become aware of it, they are going to immediately move to take it down and arrest those behind it. Where is the role for filtering here? The DIA filter list is private, but if someone was to audit it, I would bet my left leg it would be composed of almost nothing but legit sites and domain parking sites.

It's a slippery slope because it reduces the legislative, technical and moral barrier to censorship of the internet. It is much easier to add a new list of domains to an existing filter than to build a new system from scratch.

Talkiet:

Here's an uncomfortable truth for you all.

That was your opinion, you are no the arbiter of truth.

I do find it particularily amusing that the argument here seems to center entirely on whether the content should be seen or not, ignoring the fact that the filter is the digital equivilant of building a wall of road cones. Sure, most people will acknowledge the barrier, but it's worthless against an even vaguely interested person.

[Mod edit (MF) removed sentence in breach of FUG]

SamF

1578 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2202174 20-Mar-2019 02:32

@ripdog, well put on your first comment; you make a good point and I tend to agree with you.

Regarding your comment that our argument "...seems to center entirely on whether the content should be seen or not...", if you read the other posts in the thread you will find that this is not the case.

Also, a note; please keep your comments civil and respectful of others.

lucky015

743 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2202176 20-Mar-2019 05:30

ripdog:

It's a slippery slope because it reduces the legislative, technical and moral barrier to censorship of the internet. It is much easier to add a new list of domains to an existing filter than to build a new system from scratch.

The first half of this is the exact point that explains why I can never get behind censorship and don't believe others should, While having a discussion fueled by emotion regarding recent events it is very easy to ignore exactly how many parties are lobbying for censorship of content on the internet at all points in time typically citing legal reasons.

While I'm not arguing for the removal of the existing DIA filter the very fact a filter exists in the first place makes it easier to introduce the topic of a second to be put in place and creating mandatory requirements for any such filters, this cycle continues until we reach the level of other countries where providers and even governments require content to be filtered just because it's easier to filter it than to fight against those demanding it be done.

Personally, I fail to see how such a rule would impact such an act in the first place when everyone is still going to have the conversation so I see mass censorship to be an incredibly extreme measure. Hiding the video from our population alone does not prevent the act but it does have a strong potential to lessen the understanding of the act.

Lias

5589 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202177 20-Mar-2019 06:30

hio77:

1. Absolutely. DIA is a prime example of this (anyone want to object to this part?)

As noted earlier, yes I have always had concerns about that filter. The goal is noble in theory, the reality is I doubt it blocks even a fraction of what it's meant too, and it's against the principals of net neutrality. I'd much rather the time and energy that went into _blocking_ things like that was used to _monitor/record_ things like that, and then prosecute and castrate.

cws82us

788 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2202178 20-Mar-2019 06:39

Sounds like censorship to me. What’s next they going to start blocking Facebook and Twitter ?

join Quic and get free sign up when you click my link https://account.quic.nz/refer/250676

waikariboy

902 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2202180 20-Mar-2019 06:49

I think its complete BS that these internet service providers have done this. There roll is to provide internet access not to decide what they think we should be accessing.

Balm its gone!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7