Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
asperity

The thin end of the wedge

Recommended Posts

The "purveyors of the internet"? Who might they be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asp, well it is not ISPs. The ISP carries bits without looking at them for the most part. The problem is in my view clearly with the generators of content. Protecting the younf is mostly about web content and social media content, which is also available on web pages. The Germans require each website to carry an impressum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressum, so you cannot hide behind internet registrar's privacy tricks. Other countries do not but maybe they should. If the impressum details were standardised they could be included in a new http header. That would allow browsers to filter pages without an impressum and aloow local law enforcement to licence publishers. You would still be able to publish anything you like that is legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose you could suggest that anyone who is happy for on line grooming ,exploitation,& bullying to take place  must be tolerant to such happenings. It's all very touting free speech & the like until any of the above come knocking on your door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davy, you talk as if nothing bad ever happened in the world before the internet came along. You could shut the internet down and all these things would still be happening because, guess what, there's a lot of evil people out there.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course bad stuff happened before the internet but if bad stuff is coming from the internet surely it better to control it electronically. This is just my opinion & for someone who is a champion of free speech you don't seem very tolerant of views different to your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Davy51 said:

Of course bad stuff happened before the internet but if bad stuff is coming from the internet surely it better to control it electronically. This is just my opinion & for someone who is a champion of free speech you don't seem very tolerant of views different to your own.

Am I trying to stop you expressing your opinion in any way at all Davy? Am I asking anybody to shut down your access to Warrington-Worldwide Forum because I don't agree with your opinion? This is what free speech is Davy, differences of opinion in an open forum. However you seem to be in favour of some unknown, unseen power shutting down all and every opinion that THEY don't tolerate. See where I'm going with this? And, unfortunately, the unknown and unseen Theresa May, and others of her ilk, are just the ones to shut us all down from saying what we believe. 1984 is almost here, a little later than forecast but............................................................😕

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Davy51 said:

What we have is a difference of opinion.  :mellow:

Exactly, it wouldn't be much of a forum if we all agreed on everything would it? I still find it strange that you would say I'm "not very tolerant" of views different to mine though, as all I'm doing is expressing a different opinion to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think what's more sinister, is the efforts by Governments to massage press reports, by omitting information on the ethnicity of the perpetrators of criminal acts.   They no doubt believe that such information reinforces public antipathy towards migrants etc; and provides a narrative for right wing politicians.  However, it's the internet that tends to undermine their efforts as witnesses can share personal experience of a crime and the perpetrators. They even extended this shut down of information in the case of the Rotheram rape trial, when they attempted to silence Tommy Robinson.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obs, Lots of commentators elsewhere have noted that such omissions occur in BBC news coverage. They pursue bias by omission on many topics where there have a corporate position and diversity is one of those. I really doubt that anyone in government has the effort or even will to tell them what to write. Indeed all the evidence is that it is Labour that control the BBC website rather more than the Government, as an example if the Government announce something the headline is usually of the form "Labour slams …" If Labour announce a policy it is "Labour Says.....", most people don't get past the headline so this sort of thing is effective. It is the BBC journalists that do the censorship and a lot of the choice of words, such as not using terrorist is enshrined in their Editorial Guidelines - https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidance/terrorism-language

More detail on reporting crime and an indication of the hoops and contortions can be seen here, although the interpretation you highlight is likely to be groupthinks as it is not spelt out by the guidelines as being applied. https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/crime/reporting-crime

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, asperity said:

Exactly, it wouldn't be much of a forum if we all agreed on everything would it? I still find it strange that you would say I'm "not very tolerant" of views different to mine though, as all I'm doing is expressing a different opinion to you.

We should probably agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the problems with social media is that any comments could prejudice court cases & could even result in criminals walking away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Confused52 said:

Obs, Lots of commentators elsewhere have noted that such omissions occur in BBC news coverage. They pursue bias by omission on many topics where there have a corporate position and diversity is one of those. I really doubt that anyone in government has the effort or even will to tell them what to write. Indeed all the evidence is that it is Labour that control the BBC website rather more than the Government, as an example if the Government announce something the headline is usually of the form "Labour slams …" If Labour announce a policy it is "Labour Says.....", most people don't get past the headline so this sort of thing is effective. It is the BBC journalists that do the censorship and a lot of the choice of words, such as not using terrorist is enshrined in their Editorial Guidelines - https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidance/terrorism-language

More detail on reporting crime and an indication of the hoops and contortions can be seen here, although the interpretation you highlight is likely to be groupthinks as it is not spelt out by the guidelines as being applied. https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/crime/reporting-crime

 

 

Con, perhaps Gov was incorrect, perhaps "the liberal establishment" would be more accurate, but all avenues of power, incl Gov; have been penetrated by a PC elite imo. with an attempt to control, speech, thought and action by the great unwashed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Davy51 said:

I suppose you could suggest that anyone who is happy for on line grooming ,exploitation,& bullying to take place  must be tolerant to such happenings. It's all very touting free speech & the like until any of the above come knocking on your door.

So what do you suggest, who should control the internet and to whose standard?

Russia is building a internet that can run without being connected to the WWW, way to go?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Milky,

It depends what you want it for but I think you will find that the Russian system will put a controllable air-gap in both directions between the international connections and the domestic network in Russia . There is therefore a set of users potentially with direct connections into those internationally connected routers that can launch traffic to the international side as well as being able to receive packets back. These users can then use internet addresses belonging to everyone in Russia to launch cyber attacks outside the country.

This is only possible if all international connections are under the direct control of the State, which in Russia they are and here they are not. Be under no illusion the Russian proposal is about weaponizing the Internet and not protecting its citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Milky said:

So what do you suggest, who should control the internet and to whose standard?

Russia is building a internet that can run without being connected to the WWW, way to go?

 

I certainly won't be commenting further in case i get labelled as wanting to ban free speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Davy51 said:

I certainly won't be commenting further in case i get labelled as wanting to ban free speech.

That is a shame, because you point of view is any interesting one. However you can't really have free speach and censorship and as long as you stick to the law you have to come to terms that you may disagree with what is on there. Of course you can argue against it. 

The problem is the laws are so different from country to country. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don’t think exactly the same way as me, then you’ve clearly got a lot to learn about diversity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, asperity said:

If you don’t think exactly the same way as me, then you’ve clearly got a lot to learn about diversity.

Doesn't diversity permit exactly the opposite of what you said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Confused52 said:

Doesn't diversity permit exactly the opposite of what you said?

That is a quote from the Twitter feed of Titania McGrath, which is a spoof Twitter account that takes the mickey out of SJWs who Tweet nonsense like this and believe it 🤣🤣. Look it up, it's amusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, asperity said:

That is a quote from the Twitter feed of Titania McGrath, which is a spoof Twitter account that takes the mickey out of SJWs who Tweet nonsense like this and believe it 🤣🤣. Look it up, it's amusing.

Ah, I've just seen the spoof of what happens after Brexit from the same source. I particularly liked the effect on Owen Jones, Guardian readers and BBC staff. Less keen on the nuclear war footage!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...