Theresa May promises a British version of Iran's Halal Internet


Can't read the articles in my country. JK

How did all these idiot politicians even get on my internet? They are trying to do to it the things that I used it to get away from.
 
Added to the list of reasons to not wishing to live in the UK.

"Freedom with their exception"
 
But it's a natural evolution. We want it.
First, "intellectual property" policies was applied to the Internet. We all know that it is used for censorship and most artists get nothing from legal actions. And it was used. More, people were so manipulated that they accepted it.
Next, we had "children". More censorship of course to "protect the children". And we accepted it only because it was sound with our myths and unsound with other people's myths. Analyzing from outside, there is nothing more - the true answer would be to make people stop living on debt and look for own children like they should, yet it's not politically correct.
In Poland we have "gambling act" which prevents foreign companies from organizing gambling in country. In many countries there are similar regulations but related to sports, traditions or knowledge distribution. So people accepted it and called it "freedom".
So what do we expected? That it will stop? This is ridiculous. We had example of amateur TV!
Now we will get more censorship acts because of "fake news" problem while the solution: "analyze the source!" cannot be spread - because people may start to think that everything is a nice Matrix-like environment where most definitions have been re-defined [*]. And the true problem is that there is less and less knowledge, but more and more "content" which is made only to be used for advertisements. So what will we got? More censorship of course! Censorship of everything except this "content".

The problem is that even if we re-create the Internet from scratch, using block-chain technologies in widely-distributed decentralized network, this will come back, just on another abstraction level. Because we are the main enemies of Internet freedom. It could be seen when Google introduced ranks based on links - most "interesting links" subpages on personal websites disappeared because authors were envious that other author's site would pop higher. And without this framework the ecosystem had fallen apart giving place to purely marketing lies.

* I exploit it to "be a scientist" for 5 years and I know another Professor who exploited it and now he is a maths Ph.D without knowing what integrals are :).
 
Is it just me or does this smell like another topic to get older people's votes, i.e. another Brexit 'success'?
A little 'Make Britian Great Again' maybe?
 
The very same week, the German SPD published a recommendation that the government require state-media links in web searches.

Justice Minister Maas is not satisfied with the 24h takedown requirement for facebook, proposed sweeping censorship provisions in March. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/03/24/inte-m24.html

As a longtime libertarian and antiwar alt-media consumer, I find their links and articles recently way down in the rankings on any political topic - regardless of search engine.

The coordinated nature of these things should be a red flag. (pun intended) Someone promised us a 'New Era' last November and we're getting it, it seems.

"Obviously, the lack of any evidence just proves Russia is behind the lack of any evidence." - AZJoe
[doublepost=1495327565,1495324711][/doublepost]
meme-grandpahmszy.jpg
 
Hmm... It's pretty clear that politics and 'the internet' are not compatible. One should be indifferent to all opinions while the other needs to correct/ban them (i.e. brush them under the carpet, and pretend/hope they no longer exist).

I believe this is what {insert politically active group here} wanted in the first place; a world in black and white with no shades of grey. What is it about human nature that necessitates a 'common enemy'?
 
Politics = Bunch of neurotic and obsessively power hungry control freaks that go to great lengths to avoid doing honest work
Internet = Global network of free flowing human thoughts and data

Doesn't work forever, one has to bend and it won't be the control freaks.
 
Politics = Bunch of neurotic and obsessively power hungry control freaks that go to great lengths to avoid doing honest work

To be more accurate:

Politics noun. (pŏl′ĭ-tĭks)
1. The activity of a country's ruling class.
From Greek "poly" meaning many, and "ticks", meaning blood-sucking parasites.
 
What will happen if you do or think things that aren't government approved? I have been lucky so far, as my government hasn't overtly targeted me personally.
 
"We will put a responsibility on industry not to direct users – even unintentionally – to hate speech, pornography, or other sources of harm,"
I like how they didn't have even half a clue about how things work.

Luckily there will be no
"safe space for terrorists to be able to communicate online".
so recursive hanging it is.
A more indiscriminate attack on people for political ends you would have to look long and hard for.

Edit: Missed the opportunity to go: Theresa May - Cut this shit out!
 
Last edited:
There was already news not too long ago from UK banning certain acts in pornography, wasn't there ?
This country has a particular notion of what needs to be regulated by the public power. Indeed it may be seen close to these middle-eastern countries where religion and morals are a part of the public regulation (or Europe before the Age of Enlightment a couple of centuries ago).
 
  • Like
Reactions: ___
"We will put a responsibility on industry not to direct users – even unintentionally – to hate speech, pornography, or other sources of harm,"
I like how they didn't have even half a clue about how things work.

I'm fervently hoping that the politicians' cluelessness will save us from their totalitarian fantasies.

The rate of international trade in information has vastly outstripped any ability to actively police it. You can't whitelist major sources, because there is so much user-generated content. You can't filter everything with a huge computer, because computers aren't good enough at natural language or image comprehension. You can't seize the physical servers, because they'll just be replaced abroad. You can't have human customs agents approving/rejecting internet traffic because ... don't be silly.

And all that's before you start encrypting everything.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that effective censorship of the internet is so impractical that it is mutually exclusive with the western-style social media obsession. If Mrs May really wants to censor the internet, she'll have to ban user-generated content - and lose the next election by default.

The only thing that can be done is at the search-engine level. Force safe-search mode on, as it were. Coincidentally, the average politician can't tell the difference between google and the internet anyway. Why do we elect these idiots?

<sigh>
 
The only thing that can be done is at the search-engine level. Force safe-search mode on, as it were. Coincidentally, the average politician can't tell the difference between google and the internet anyway. Why do we elect these idiots?<sigh>
I don't elect those and I'm fairly certain that most of their voters can't tell the difference between Google and the internet either.

Intellectuals have always been a minority and unfortunately those end up in decision making positions less often each year.
 
while i agree with the general sentiment in this thread (overpolicing stuff is bad), i don't find politics the natural enemy of humanity either. it's a natural consequence due to our built-in desire for a social hierarchy which can effectively fulfill the needs and desires of the herd.

the problem is that we tend to elevate the wrong people as "good" and "decent." education in critical thinking isn't the final solution, trying to give everyone good manners/morals isn't either, reducing/expanding the government isn't the solution, etc. i think we have to find a way to discuss things better, though, without ridiculing the other side. at least in America, there are "two" "sides", and it seems like each hate and blame each other for everything, despite the fact that we're very nearly 50-50 on the divide. (though, there are probably enough people in the center who just aren't as vocal.) i'm frustrated with that, but not sure i have the solution myself.

of course, "I don't have the solution, but I'll do my best!" isn't quite the type of leader that people can rally behind...
 
at least in America, there are "two" "sides", and it seems like each hate and blame each other for everything, despite the fact that we're very nearly 50-50 on the divide. (though, there are probably enough people in the center who just aren't as vocal.) i'm frustrated with that, but not sure i have the solution myself.

of course, "I don't have the solution, but I'll do my best!" isn't quite the type of leader that people can rally behind...

That "50/50" divide could also describe Brexit. Either you are for it or against it, but in truth there are always a percentage of those who don't know/care, or just follow their peers. It's all so arbitrary to draw a line at 50%, but a fraction over or under, it's "everyone voted for x".

The 'void' between the two sides is absolutely artificial, and completely unhelpful; it just creates a sense of one (mind) versus the other while ignoring the fact that people vote for a myriad of individual reasons and motivations.
 
I think it is horrible that censorship is favored over opening up parliamentary politics as a broader accessible (not in an internet sense) forum for more political discourse. Censoring hate will not reduce bigotry and hatred at all, it will whitewash it away and hide "unwelcome" opinions, thus excluding them from the scrutiny and skepticism of others and killing all democratic processes. The source of this mess should be where they/we need to start: education, equality, taking people seriously who feel left behind and excluded from the democratic process already.

And don't even get me started on that whole pornography thing the UK has. People have a right to their fetish and no government should be allowed to decide about anyones sexuality. Regardless of what that is. And yes, even pedophiles have a right to be pedos. It's about the sex industry that needs harsher controls (human rights wise), combatting human trafficking, child abuse and banalisation of rape should be the first priority here. Second priority should be for parents to take fucking responsibility for the sexual education of their kids. It's all about putting things into context and reducing prudery, because kids need to talk about this shit freely. And they need to learn at an early age, that it is okay to deviate from the norm, being gay is not something to be made fun of, neither is rape or misogyny.

Guess that would be too much work for politicians of the Trump/AfD/publicity wins era...

Also: I personally really despise fake-news spreading bigot BS. But there still needs to be discourse and these voices need to be heard/expressed. That's how democracy works FFS, it is a constant process and struggle, clashing and argueing over and over again and that is how it should be.
 
Back
Top