Academics Take On Government Net Censorship 274
Anonymous Brave Guy writes "There's an interesting article from the BBC today about a group of academics at the University of Toronto who are working to investigate and break down government-imposed censorship of the Internet. Are they defending human rights, or simply trying to impose their own beliefs on people from other cultures? Incidentally, one of their people was responsible for the previous Slashdot discussion of 'five fundamental problems with open source'."
internet censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:internet censorship (Score:3, Funny)
The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems slip through your fingers - Princess Leia to Grand Moff Tarkin
Is there a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there really a difference between the two? Fundamentally, the acknowledgement of "human rights" is a system of belief, born out of our culture. Certainly there have been plenty of cultures which have not accepted any of the principles which we want to "defend" today.
On some level, the concept of "human rights" is a claim that our cultural beliefs are better, and more right, then those that do not agree with them.
Since there is no absolute source of right and wrong in the universe, our own beliefs are the best we've got. And there are certain things that we believe so strongly, that we are willing to impose them on others. What gives us the right to do this? That we are stronger. Nothing else.
We ought to see this for what it is, and stop feeling bad about it.
Re:Is there a difference? (Score:4, Insightful)
Interestingly, your statement disproves itself. There must be a standard of objective absolute truth, because if there was not, then it would be objectively, absolutely true that objective truth does not exist, which is a contradiction. Therefore there exists at least some truth that is objective (ie. true in all places, at all times, for all people). Whether or not human rights are one of the objective truths is a separate matter.
Re:Is there a difference? (Score:2, Interesting)
I fail to follow your logic, care to elaborate?
Re:Is there a difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, take this true or false question.
T/F: This statement is false.
Reflexive Paradox (Score:4, Informative)
It is pretty much established that the reflexive paradox will come up in any complex system. The paradox has created a great deal angst for top thinkers like Goedel [sp], Cantor, Russell, etc..
Unfortunately, we keep building this paradox [descmath.com] into the base of our systems of thought. I personally think the one thing Aristotle and Socrates did right was to acknowledge that their definitions were never really complete, and to procede from there. The systems built with the paradox as a central feature seem a bit mushy to me.
As I recall, Goedel's contribution was to show that the paradox will show up in any system sufficiently complex to include the whole numbers.
Re:Is there a difference? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is there a difference? (Score:2)
Re: Is there a difference? (Score:2, Insightful)
Just as a matter of clarification `objectively true,' when talking about moral judgements, does not mean `true in all places, at all times, for all people.' In moral philosophy, this is what `absolute' truth means. `Objectively true,' on the other hand, simply means that there exist standards upon which everyone does or should reasonably agree for determining the truth of any statement in its domain.
Utter poppycock (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is there a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
All cultures have similar kinds of internal conflicts, and the most classic one is between the individual and the "state", or the larger group.
And all states go through phases where they try to assert more control over the individual than is healthy. An extreme case would be North Korea. Such excessive control is so uneconomical that we eventually get a balance of power in which the state provides individuals with liberty in return for taxes and basic obedience.
When we seek to "impose our standards" on other states, all we're doing is saying: "hey, it's pointless to kill your dissidents and hang your thieves, pointless to ban women from education and turn religion into a tool of mind control..." We say this because we've been through it, and know that it's bad stuff.
Re:Is there a difference? (Score:2, Insightful)
And that explains why we all agree on these things right? Well, at least all of us enlightened types who think this way agree on it. And that's all that counts.
Right?
I.e., we know better than you. And we know better 'cause we are better. A
Re:Is there a difference? (Score:3, Interesting)
People from Iran, for example, don't necessarily feel that first world countries are better. In many cases they long to go home. People usually go to first world countries for education, money, or to flee political turmoil. They frequently feel that their home countries are more virtuous, stable and sensible and have better food.
Our western recipe for success doesn't really work. It requires turning all the housewives into realtors or project managers or something, and
Re:Is there a difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
And no, most people don't get shot in the back of the head. They've learned to keep their head down, never to speak up, never to try to get ahead, never to try to question. It's only people who try to determine the course of their own life who have problems. Wonderful. And yeah, sure, it's not like the only thought in their heads are of oppression. I'm sure most days they just w
Re:Is there a difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
When we vote for president in the US, we, too, must choose from the best of the bad choices they give us.
Re:Is there a difference? (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah with those gays getting married, suddenly all these straight marriages are failing left and right. What a mess!
shapping society into their whims
Yeah. The conservatives have never ever done that. The religous right in particular is completely against the concept of shaping anyone to their whims.
legalizing drug
Yeah, those evil potsmokers... wrecking the private lives of everyone else. Mass chaos and destruction abound.
loose morals
Yeah, conseratives would never do something completely immoral, like, say, lie to start a war based on ulterior motives. Never.
individualism over the benefit of the majority
Yep. Now that's a completely unamerican concept if I've ever heard it. We need to return this country to its original ideals of things like blind and complete allegiance to our leaders and complete subordination of individal liberty.
Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week (Score:3, Insightful)
What a wonderful justification for oppression: People want to be oppressed! Lets see you explain that to the family of one of the Chinese students who died in Tiananmen Square in 1989.
Every sane person, regardless of their culture, wants the right to express their own opinions and to exercise control over their own lives. Yours is just a pathetic excuse
Just seems to be an excuse (Score:2)
Re:Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week (Score:3, Insightful)
I did not in any way endorse complicity with such governments. Read my last sentence again. I do not presume to know what "every sane person wants", and I am naturally skeptical of such claims (religious fundamentalists will also tell you what every sane person believes), but I know what I believe, and I know that those beliefs are, at least to
Re:Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week (Score:3, Interesting)
On the contrary, western culture has not prevented our governments from actively supporting oppression in other countries in many cases.
Re:Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet in forcing this belief upon others, you seek to rule them instead of letting them rule themselves, violating the very principle you claim to advocate.
My question wasn't nearly as transparent as you think.
Re:Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week (Score:3, Insightful)
a) You have still not said what, outside your personal morality and beliefs, makes this so.
b) So you are saying it is wrong to attack a country if the government has popular support? Say that they decided to kill off 5% of the population, and the majority supported it (because majority is what you mean by "the occupants of that country", right? I want my current corrupt leadership r
Re:Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week (Score:5, Insightful)
But what is implicitly being said... (Score:3, Insightful)
That does not imply that they have to listen, that they have to embrace the concept of human rights any more than we have to embrace the wonders of "strong leadership".
If a society can only exist under censorship - to keep them uninformed of the alternatives, is that right? I don't think so. That goes for countries and sects alike, seeking t
Re:Is there a difference? (Score:2)
Just because a few despotic governments deny their people these rights does not mean the culture itself is what is doing the denying.
"On some level, the concept of "human rights" is a claim that our cultural beliefs are better, and more right, then those that do not agree with them."
One of the founding tennants of the UN, which everybody supposedly signed on to and which has bee
Re:Is there a difference? (Score:3, Interesting)
I am not sure why people are modding your post down. The post did a nice job of being an entry point into discussing the article without being flaimbait.
I think the article is touching on something slightly larger than American culture v. the world. They are touching on the fact that if you have a system where people have access to a global media, then you will end up losing a great deal of what you consider to be your own local culture. To prev
Re:Is there a difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but I don't think the Saudis or Chinese are blocking the Net just because they're afraid of "Friends" or "Entertainment Weekly." And even if they were, I do not believe this would justify censorship. People should be free to make their own decisions what culture to adopt, not forced into it by the government.
Accepting human rights pretty much takes the ability to completely define culture out of the
Re:This is all political BS (Score:3, Insightful)
Please. Kiddie porn and snuff films are not censored. They are images of illegal activities and prosecuting their distribution is censorship in the same way that making murder illegal is oppressing your right to free speech.
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
An official spokesman at the Education Department could not be reached for comment.
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
Like all Canadian universities, UofT is a public institution, so the Canadian government certainly does fund it.
Re:In other news... (Score:2, Informative)
They are not imposing values (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They are not imposing values (Score:2)
Re:They are not imposing values (Score:2)
Well, it does if their values include hiding information from other people.
Re:Reap what you Sow (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell that to the North Koreans who are horribly tortured for speaking out, or even being merely accused of speaking out.
Tell that to the Chinese students who wanted more freedom and met up with an army of tanks!
You sir are an idiot.
Re:Reap what you Sow (Score:5, Insightful)
China is poised to become the most economically powerful nation in the history
of the world. You had best care very deeply about goings on in China.
I can only assume this display, "The Chinese people PUT their Goverment in Power PERIOD..."
is an innocent expression of ignorance, and not a troll. If every single
person alive in China during the revolution were still living, they would only
comprise about %25 percent of the population. Seeing as the revoltion ended
in 1949 [photo.net], this is not very likely. But let's, for the sake
of argument, say they are all living. That leaves one billion living human
beings who were born and raised under the rule of a totalitarian regime.
Were you alive when The Peoples' Army crushed the protesters in Tiananmen Square?
Try this one [othilamedia.com], this one [worldbunk.org], this one [peking.org], or this one
You asked "...WHY THE FUCK SHOULD I CARE ?" You should care because if you are
ever in a position where you feel it is your duty to oppose a dictator,
you better pray you get more help than they did.
Re:Reap what you Sow (Score:3, Insightful)
Because first they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, and did nothing.
And then they came for the black men, but I was not a black man, and did nothing.
And then they came for the women, but I was not a woman, and did nothing.
...
And then they came for me, and there was no-one left to defend me.
Re:Reap what you Sow (Score:5, Funny)
the preserving culture argument (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. If what Saudi citizens find out about other places via the Internet causes them to reject their Islamic culture and heritage, then perhaps it's a culture and heritage not worth preserving in the first place.
There are plenty of countries that are online, for the most part uncensored, and are able to maintain their culture. Next lame attempt at an argument, please?
Re:the preserving culture argument (Score:2)
In this case, having a country run by a ruling royal family may not be very democratic, but it's probably better than having an anti-western fundamentalist state.
Re:the preserving culture argument (Score:4, Funny)
Re:the preserving culture argument (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:the preserving culture argument (Score:2)
"Preservation of culture" is the province of museums, and cultural terrariums like Colonial Williamsburg.
Moreover, it's anathema to a living, evolving society. (This is true even in the good ol' USA, as with Wal-Mart vs. Smallville.) You can't legislate nostalgia.
Re:the preserving culture argument (Score:2)
"Any system that can not withstand scrutiny is a system not worth having." (paraphrased)
-Carl Sagan
Canadian TV censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Canadian TV censorship (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Canadian TV censorship (Score:3, Informative)
Despite living in Canada, you're apparently not aware that the law requires that 35% of popular music selections broadcast by commercial AM and FM radio stations each broadcast week must be Canadian selections" [crtc.gc.ca]. American TV cable stations are permitted, but satel
Re:Canadian TV censorship (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm aware of these guidelines, I'm just saying that they don't really have significant impact on what I end up seeing.
But the original issue was one of Canadian TV censorship -- which to me is still pretty funny. For example, our uber-popular comedy Trailer Park Boys [trailerparkboys.com] is coming to the US, except they're going to have to censor the show for American viewers [www.cbc.ca]. (There's lots of drug use and swearing on the show). There's obviously more censorship in the
Re:Canadian TV censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea is that because the Canadian music industry is smaller, and its harder for Canadian artists to tour, etc. and reach the same fame as foreign (read: US) ones, they need to be protected, because if Canadians artists aren't supported in Canada, they're less likely to be supported anywhere.
The result, however, is that lots of Canadian "filler" artists end up popping up - they're pop music that sounds like all other pop music, but it's CANADIAN filler. Other times, artists that make it in the US are WAAAY overplayed here (think, Avirl Lavigne, ALL THE TIME.) And, on occaison, there is a good Canadian artist/group that for some reason, can't seem to get a international record deal but does well in Canada.
Personally, I think that if Canada really wants to support its artists, they should do it willingly - that is, there'll be a demand for Canadian music. Perhaps TV/radio stations should make a voluntary industry pact, where stations can agree to Canadian content terms, and if they do, they can display a logo or something on their ads. If Canadians really care, they'll support the stations that have the logo; if not, then Canadian arists will have to prove themselves on the same terms as ones everywhere else, even if there is a bit of discrimination.
Tim
Re:Canadian TV censorship (Score:4, Informative)
The University itself may have its own problems with censorship [littlegreenfootballs.com], but at least get the organization right.
Re:Canadian TV censorship (Score:2)
Re:Canadian TV censorship (Score:2)
No gauss needed (Score:2)
Re:Canadian TV censorship - Part of the reason (Score:2, Informative)
Being on the largest undefended border makes controlling all those dang signals (tv/radio) a little difficult.
Re:Canadian TV censorship (Score:2)
"Banned" is not the correct word.
Anyone broadcasting radio in Canada must provide 30% Canadian content (this is define as having at least one producer, musician, artist, etc.. it only has to be Canadian by a bit of a stretch). The rules are similar for television.
The government does not stop you from receiving signals broadcast over-the-air (VHF/UHF/AM/FM) from the States. Cable companies are allowed to rebroadcast these too. However they do stop you from receiving foreign satellite b
It's not the ads, it's the shows (Score:2)
Banned channels (Score:3, Interesting)
The most popular US news channel is banned in Canada. I'm pretty sure that SciFi channel is also banned; there are others.
Re:Banned channels (Score:3, Interesting)
We have a Canadian sci-fi channel called Space, which picks up a lot of Sci-fi's programming. I actually think it's a better chanel.. they broadcast ST:TOS, ST:TNG, ST:DS9 and ST:VOY.
They are NOT banned -- they just need to provide the required amount of Canadian programming if they want to broadcast in Canada.
Re:Banned channels (Score:4, Insightful)
CNN & CNN Headline News. The first (and I thought biggest) US news network. Shows zero Canadian content, and has never been "banned" by anyone.
Add in the fact that the vast majority of sitcoms, dramas, documentaries, movies, sports, and commercials are from the US. And when I say vast, I mean VAST. I think the average Canadian might see one episode of a Canadian sitcom a month, if that. I haven't seen one personally for years, because I rarely watch the CBC or CTV.
One of the biggest Canadian broadcasters, Global, broadcasts the Superbowl every year. A 100% US sport, league, etc. Almost every movie I've ever seen on television comes from the US. We get each and every one of your insipid "reality" TV shows. We have nightly NBA/NFL games in-season. The Canadian versions of Discovery/TLC/etc mostly show US-produced content. Even Space (our sci-fi channel) shows only US content. Well, unless Canada had a burgeoning 50's monster movie industry that everyone forgot about.
If there are bans going on, they sure as hell aren't very successful. Even if there are, it's trivial to set up a DirectTV dish, and contrary to what tinfoil hatters would say, the government DOES NOT CARE. There are at least a dozen of these dishes on my street, and no government official or police officer has once said word one about it. In fact, we have a cop on my street, I'm pretty sure if there was some sort of "ban" going on, he'd have busted them by now.
Don't even TRY to compare CanCon rules to what goes on in places like China or the middle east. You don't go to jail here for watching "unapproved" content.
American technology is helping repress the Chinese (Score:5, Interesting)
As a side note, I knew a lad working near me from China who had been at Tianamen Square the day before and then the day after the massacre happened. When he saw what the army had done to their own people he went home, packed and left for Hong Kong and then to the US.
Censorship is only one way the Communists will use to stay in power and shooting another bunch of college kids can happen again.
Re:American technology is helping repress the Chin (Score:3, Informative)
Different cultural standards... (Score:5, Insightful)
What is not real is the suggestion that human liberty and freedom is culturally dependent. That is a lie used by repressive governments to justify policies that really only serve their own interests.
There have been many attempts in Western nations to repress individual rights because of the "common interest", and these rightly strike us as barbaric. No reason to apply different standards to other countries just because they are different.
However... the day I see an electorate in a "culturally different" country freely and democratically vote for a regime that restricts human rights, I'll change my mind.
Show me a free by western standards Islamic nation (Score:2)
You couldn't be more wrong if
Re:Different cultural standards... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Different cultural standards... (Score:2)
Actually democracy can be highly effective at dealing with authoritarian governments before they become a danger to both their own citizens and the rest of the planet. The problem is that too many people equate democracy with elections. Even elections where there is either
Re:Different cultural standards... (Score:2)
Left to their own devices most governments (and government menbers, especially where it is possible to create the job of "professional politican") will tend to do this. Many countries appear to lack effective means to prevent a repressive government comming in through the "back door".
There have been many att
Re:Different cultural standards... (Score:3, Insightful)
What you mean to say is that well-educated people the world over realize tha
Face value... (Score:5, Funny)
*looks at Windows-loaded PCs on Best Buy shelf*
Ohhhhh yes they can.
Misguided (Score:5, Insightful)
No it's not. If Islam was a dying thing, like say the aboriginal cultures in Australia, then perhaps there would be an argument there. But religions are always passing converts back and forth. At the moment, IIRC, Islam has some of the highest conversion rates TO it. Which means "Islamic culture" is really in very little danger of going away, and there's no need to "preserve" it.
Plus, cultures are evolving things. American, Chinese, Islamic, whoever. Compare the governments in the Middle East around 1500 to what we have today. You could easily make the arguement that getting rid of the Princes and opening the country up is REALLY preserving Islamic Culture. (preserving it from the corrupt clerics, of course) It's all just a front for cynical politicians to control their populations in the name of God. As far as I'm concerned, the Chinese have more moral justification, since they're just operating under the "It's my party..." defense.
(disclaimer: respects all religions, disrespects all hypocrits)
Re:Misguided (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Misguided (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you.
Re:Misguided (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think that most people really think of what any given culture is and has been historically. Culture has ALWAYS spread, mingled, and intermixed, more or less to the extent that any given era's technology allows it to. How else is the Spanish word for money - "dinero", so similar
Re:Misguided (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it would not be a valid argument. If exposure to ideas and information outside the culture results in the collapse of that culture, then it wasn't worth supporting in the first place. That culture deserves to die and be replaced with something more robust.
Max
Re:Misguided (Score:2)
Also consider that, by that same basic logic, we all deserve to die of viruses if they are more capable than our immune systems. Would you argue that medicine is just immorally saving the lives of people who are getting in the way of evolution?
Any system, no matter how robust, can be susceptible to outside factors. That does not mean these outside factors "deserve" survival more; they are simply the newest thing and m
from (Score:5, Informative)
"Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression ; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of fronteirs."
[emphasis added]. So if there is any nation that is not a part of the United Nations, sure, imposing these restrictions on the freedom of the government of these nations would be imposing their own beliefs on these other cultures. This does not sound like what these people are doing, however. There is no excuse whatsoever for government censorship by any government who is a member of the United Nations(this means you, China [computeruser.com], United States of America [thememoryhole.org], and Canada [sasktel.com]).
Sure, one may argue that the United Nations may be unnecessary, outdated, completely irrelevent [zmag.org] or otherwise, but as it stands today, we are obligated to fufil our part of the bargain, despite how sometimes we may disagree with it, or alternatively, decline membership to the United Nations and become a Rogue State, with none of the protections to you that The Declaration provides.
These guys sound down-right nuts, though. If a dictator is willing to kill thousands of his own people, what makes you think they won't assasinate you, if you actively mess with them? Kudos to their efforts.
Re:from (Score:2)
You will be assimilated (Score:5, Insightful)
Resistance is futile.
Exactly what censorship... (Score:2)
"trying to impose their own beliefs on people" (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are a post-modern simpleton, who believes that everything is constituted by belief, that one belief is as well-founded as another (because none are founded at all except in social practice), and that suffering from ignorance should be the accepted plight of children born into particularly ignorant and anti-scientific cultures
Because the only other alternative is to wipe out the ignorant, religious savages as they get better at coming after us to enforce their own anti-scientific, anti-human (as we know it) belief sets. And as much satisfaction as some of us might take in battles fairly won against truly evil (because ignorant) populations, surely the satisfaction is sweeter if we can transform them to something approaching civilization (even as we are only approaching civilization, and have not reached it yet - witness the Bush anti-science agenda).
Re:"trying to impose their own beliefs on people" (Score:3, Insightful)
speak for yourself (Score:2)
most people in the world are against censorship (Score:2)
Im not an expert but i know that allot of laws that are said to be part of a religion are infact not and leaders have twisted and bent ideals and laws under the guise of religion and that goes for all countries everywhere including the USA. Saudi Arabian law (apparently) also says its ok to beat your wife to within an inch of her life because thats part of isla
Re:most people in the world are against censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
once its peadophiles it has begun and it will only get worse - not defending them at all but go after people who access the stuff not block access to it (seems like the best policy) censoring even one site is a first step on a slippery slope
to quote anime... (Score:3, Insightful)
To quote some other famous philosopher, "the only constant in the universe is change". Cultures, religions trying to resist change are fighting a losing battle. Now, it's granted that certain things are more likely to change than others, but that's up to the people who believe in them. Humans, like every other organism on this earth, are constantly evolving, adapting, changing to match their environment.
With this in mind, it's counter-intuitive to try to be static, resist change. Especially when the only method you have to resist change is to deny it, ignore it, and even prohibit it. Censuring the internet is simple evidence of this: Governments in countries like Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, etc, wish to "preserve" their existence by denying the existence of other ideas. From the beginning they should have known it was a losing battle.
The trend towards enlightenment through education seems to be unstoppable.Sure you have occasional hiccups (like the dark ages) but in the end, "change is the only constant" and those who oppose change, or the possibility of change that knowledge brings, are fighting a losing battle, and they know it.
Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Islam is the fastest growing religion on this planet [beconvinced.com], so why worry about the Internet?
2. Muslims live and thrive in countries with open access to the Internet (like US, Canada, India); if they are just fine with it, what's wrong with Saudi citizens having open access to the Internet?
This censorship by the Saudis wouldn't have anything to do with trying to preserve the royal family's hold on power now, would it? Naaahh.. I didn't think so.. ;-)
Point of view from the UAE (Score:5, Interesting)
Censorship is nothing but mind control (Score:4, Insightful)
Here in the west, particularly in America, there is a concept known as freedom of speech. We hold the right to speak one's mind as a fundamental freedom that exists independently of whether the government protects or even acknowledges it. What most people don't realize is the fact that it implies and is dependent upon an even more basic right, and that is the freedom to make up one's mind. The freedom to think for oneself. The freedom to choose what one believes is the foundation upon which all liberty rests. After all, what use is the ability to express your thoughts and ideas when those are being determined by someone else?
Censorship is an attack upon freedom itself. The idea that by fighting it you are somehow imposing your views upon someone else is one of the most despicable lies I've ever heard, and one of the most perfect examples of the pot calling the kettle black.
It is censorship itself that seeks to impose beliefs upon people. Those who fight it work to ensure the freedom of others to make up their own minds and decide for themselves what they are going to believe.
Any culture that depends upon protection from outside influences and ideas in order to survive is a culture that is doomed to perish, and should. The reason is because the degree to which a culture must be so protected is the degree to which it is based upon lies.
A culture is a set of defining values, beliefs, and ideals held in common by a group of people. A culture is therefore valuable and beneficial to the degree to which it reflects objective truth and contributes to the well-being of those who are a part of it. Those who believe that cultures are somehow inherently precious or valuable are missing the point. The very purpose of human culture is to ensure the survival of the individuals who belong to it. Culture exists to bring individuals together and unify them as a people for the added benefit of all who are a part of it. If a culture does not do this, or does not do this as well as another culture that is competing with, then it should and will either adapt or perish. There is nothing tragic about this. The exposure to and subsequent adoption of new ideas that are more closely aligned with reality, and therefore improve the lives of everyone so exposed, is nothing to cry about.
I fully support this group's efforts to fight censorship. I don't think they go far enough however. Graeme Bunton seems to think that Saudi Arabia censoring the internet in order to preserve its islamic culture is a valid endeavor. I don't. Ideas should stand or fall based upon their own merit. Cultures, being made up of ideas and beliefs, should be held accountable to the same standard. As I said before, if a culture has to be protected from outside influences in order to survive, then it is a culture that is to that degree based upon lies. As someone who seeks to know and live with the truth, I see no reason to protect lies no matter who it is that believes them or why.
Lee
moral relativism is a mistake (Score:3)
I think it is a mistake to assume that you cannot defend basic human rights simply because the leaders of other cultures refuse to grant these rights to their citizens. The concept that morality is relative, and that there is no objective standard for morality, is flawed. It assumes the majority of people in a particular area, based on history, have the right to impose their collective will on the individual. Instead, the world need to recognise the objective morality of preserving basic human rights, even if the majority in that region (although usually it's a ruling minority) object. Freedom of speech is a basic human right, and no govt. has the right to to take it away, especially if it is critical of the govt. in question.
I Was Surprised At Some Of Their Comments (Score:3, Insightful)
The point of their exercise is that members of a given culture (their governments) have imposed their beliefs on the people of that culture. It is up to the PEOPLE to decide what the "culture" is - NOT the government.
In any event, there is NO culture worth "preserving" if it cannot "preserve" itself, by definition. (And the Iraqis are proving and preserving daily by shooting US troops.)
These people need to get straight on this or their efforts will be half-hearted and useless.
rights are a cultural imposition? (Score:3, Insightful)
Similarly, no one can fight against the absence of rights they consider the norm because rights have no basis and no universality among human beings. So these folks consider seeking to guarantee the rights of others in other culture as "cultural imperialism". To be consistent, if rights are the gifts of society, then the society may take away what it gives.
I can only hope that if we lose some of our rights in the US that some "cultural imperialists" rise to our aid! Rights are derived from the nature of human beings. They are not free arbitrary gifts of the state to be granted or withheld by its whim. Persons who do not have certain inalienable rights are living under some greater or lesser degree of tyranny against their own nature as human beings. Any who wish to help them gain and keep their rights should be applauded rather than being sneered at as "imposing their culture".
Re:What Sla$hdot DOESNT want you know (Score:2, Funny)
If this were groklaw, your post would already be deleted.
Re:Impose on other cultures? Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
I look at the issue of censorship and morality, and their various catalysts such as "cultural identity", "security" and "happiness" as a farce.
This reminds me of a true story. I have a dog. My neighbor has a dog. The difference between our pets is that I let my dog out. I make sure the dog is aware of t
Re:Impose on other cultures? Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Freenet? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the same everywhere, really. The first people who bought hybrid cars didn't get machines that worked as well, were as fast and efficient as those we have today (have you seen the 2004 Prius? or the 2004 Civic Hybrid? And soon there'll be Accords and Camrys) and they had to pay a higher price/deal with more problems, uglier designs, etc.
Same with the people who buy version/revision 1.0 of video cards, motherboards, etc. More bugs, higher priced, etc.
But without the early versions, we wouldn't get the killer apps later on.
I'm sure that better routing/whatever will be developped for freenet, and with bandwidth and storage becoming cheaper all the time, the network will be more efficient than it is now at equal number of nodes. It just takes time to get there... Of course there could be some theorical bottlenecks to the project that can't be easily solved without changing some of the fondamentals, but maybe that's possible too without compromising the goals too much.
My 2 cents (canadian).
Re:Freenet? (Score:4, Informative)
If you read the documentation and the mailing list you'll find there are a few simple steps you can take that will dramatically improve the performance of your node:
Yes, you'll get some key lookup failures, but it's a lot better with the above. More problematic, I think, is the type of content that's available on Freenet. Anonymous and unblockable publishing and retrieval means anything and everything can appear, no matter how illegal or reprehensible. That's the price you pay for totally free speech. I'm still not entirely comfortable with that, and a lot of people think that price is way too high.
Re:so guess they would be fighting for janet jacks (Score:3, Insightful)
I strongly disagree.
Governments maybe be elec
Re:so guess they would be fighting for janet jacks (Score:3, Insightful)
No, because that would be an example of the majority imposing their will on the minority. In other words, mob rule. The government should take steps to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
Re:call me a cynical pri*k (Score:3, Informative)
Does the DMCA mean anything to you? Guess what! We don't have an equivalent. (Yet...)
Their citizens haven't legal access to foreign media sources
I doubt you've ever been here. I get CNN, Al-Jazeera, Fox, PBS, and many more. In fact, most television stations here are not Canadian. I challenge you to find ANYTHING that would back up your statement.