Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: wrathmore on August 23, 2013, 08:10 pm
-
This is taken from the off petition against the current bill which is going through motion in the UK:
"Recently the Prime Minister has announced the move to introduce legislation that will stop pornographic and extremist material from getting through to end users, including vulnerable children. This can only be a good thing, and something that is long overdue.
Yet, what is extremely worrying, and not (yet) widely known, is that the Prime Minister's internet filters will be about more than just hardcore pornography, according to information obtained by the Open Rights Group.
Content that is not harmful, but nonetheless, doesn't fit with David Cameron's rather narrow view of the world, could be blocked or banned altogether.
Open Rights Group, which campaigns for digital freedoms, has had the opportunity to speak to some of the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that will be constructing Cameron's content filters, discovering that a host of other categories will be on the block list, including "esoteric material" and "web forums".
What are peoples opinions on this and do they think that the government could crackdown and stop access to tor and SR?
-
gov cant block access to tor but they can block tor nodes running in their country. checkout obfsproxy, it defeats any attempts at blocking access.
-
Your post reminded me of a video I watched earlier today about sophists- you can apply that to anyone in government. I'll paraphrase:
Sophists have always been the traditional enemy of philosophy. They always have the ability to make the worse argument appear the better. There are a couple of tips and tricks to figuring out sophists. The first is that sophists will not work from first principles. What is truth, what is reality, what is virture, etc... These things need to be defined without refernce to historical context, existing prejudice, or the ten commandements, stuff like that.
In other words, a space alien or somebody from another dimension should be able to follow the argument. Or someone who's had no exposure to your culture should be able to follow the argument. That's philosophy. Sophistry is where there is all this emotional stuff and manipulation and you're a bad person if you don't believe it. Example, if you don't support the walefare state you hate the poor. It's all an argument from emotional indimidation. Always be suspicious of anyone who puts an argument forward that requires an in-depth knowledge of existing culture or prior historical prejudices.
-
bye bye Erowid for sure.. better go grab everything off that asap
things like Neurosoup too most likely.. but what of youtube? damn near everything has a presence there so will they nanny that too?
-
This whole banning of porn agenda is just a big front while the governments of our world try to justifie its filtering of certain websites and forums, they absolutely and categorically hate the fact that people are finding out the truth about life whist they are powerless, just take a look at cannabis legalization for example, its largely down to the fact that millions of people who enjoy using cannabis responsibly, many of which are medial users, are now all freely communicating with each other and of course realizing they had all been lied too with the reefer madness propaganda sillyness, millions and millions of people all over the world are now fully educated and know that real cannabis (not the crap you buy off the low level street dealers) will save lives and never harm them, the government want to put a stop to this kind of free speech so they use the banning of porn as distraction, the thing is people are not stupid these days, we see right through this bull shit!
-
Any earnest attempt to control the internet is done so in vain.
-
My understanding was that David Cameron's remarks referred to a default safe setting which one could opt of. Some of the criticism of his measures appears to be based on information from petition sites rather than on what he actually said.
-
My understanding was that David Cameron's remarks referred to a default safe setting which one could opt of. Some of the criticism of his measures appears to be based on information from petition sites rather than on what he actually said.
I took the quote on the original post from a petition site however the opting in thing isnt as simple as a filter switch. The filter will be ON as standard. You have to contact your ISP and tell them that you do not want this filter on, which i imagine would put you straight on a list with a mark against your name
-
How about looking at Patents companies his family have investments in.
Their is patents granted for software to real time scan your online activity against lists 1 being copyright others whatever they ask, I will find it out sometime later the patents.
-
This whole banning of porn agenda is just a big front while the governments of our world try to justifie its filtering of certain websites and forums, they absolutely and categorically hate the fact that people are finding out the truth about life whist they are powerless, just take a look at cannabis legalization for example, its largely down to the fact that millions of people who enjoy using cannabis responsibly, many of which are medial users, are now all freely communicating with each other and of course realizing they had all been lied too with the reefer madness propaganda sillyness, millions and millions of people all over the world are now fully educated and know that real cannabis (not the crap you buy off the low level street dealers) will save lives and never harm them, the government want to put a stop to this kind of free speech so they use the banning of porn as distraction, the thing is people are not stupid these days, we see right through this bull shit!
This. I'd give you karma if I could.