Why should the government get control over something they have no claim to? The internet is not land, nor property. Why are they in charge?
Australia's Internet Filter Switches On In July
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Yeah...this isn't going to last long. Hopefully Anon puts them in their place.
The problem: Charitable acts are a part of free will, not something that can or should be forced.
The US government obviously has no restraint, one only has to look at what special "projects" taxpayer money is going to, the pork barrel projects.
So, restraint is an alien word to the US. Obama has already expressed interest in crap like what Australia will be trying to do next month.
I know many, many people that are in the military and have talked with a few cops as well. At least in the US, if the government steps too far over the line as to take away major personal freedoms and tells the military and/or police to turn on their fellow citizens and force them to obey some unjust law, they are going to turn on the government and defend the citizens of the country, not the government.
Example: With gun control, if the US government repealed the second amendment and told citizens to give up their guns, and it came to the military to go around and enforce it(which it would have to to enforce such a thing), I'm betting more than half the military would turn on the government, at least in a capacity of saying, "No we are not going to enforce it, and if it comes to it, probably forcing the government to put the 2nd amendment back in place".
The reason I believe this is that I know a friend and another friend's cousin that are in the Army and they said that if the government ever did such a thing as I said above, then 95% if not all of the people on their military base would turn against the government. They said that their commanding officer said it is what he would do.
So, I'm definitely in the corner that the government should be afraid of the power of the people.
Where have you been, people have been cynical about politics since the word politics for the subject had been invented.Blitzwing said:
I live in the US...so yeah. My president is Obama, king of no restraint, Mr. "I'm going to do this and if the country doesn't follow in line I will slap it upside the head with fines and other punishments", the man that wants to force students to take part in community service to graduate high school. He is a man that is the embodiment of a government role in forcing people to make the "right" decisions in their lives.Blitzwing said:
The problem: Charitable acts are a part of free will, not something that can or should be forced.
The US government obviously has no restraint, one only has to look at what special "projects" taxpayer money is going to, the pork barrel projects.
So, restraint is an alien word to the US. Obama has already expressed interest in crap like what Australia will be trying to do next month.
You are missing one key point that renders your point invalid. What makes up the military and police forces? It is citizens of the country said government "controls".SomethingAmazing said:
I know many, many people that are in the military and have talked with a few cops as well. At least in the US, if the government steps too far over the line as to take away major personal freedoms and tells the military and/or police to turn on their fellow citizens and force them to obey some unjust law, they are going to turn on the government and defend the citizens of the country, not the government.
Example: With gun control, if the US government repealed the second amendment and told citizens to give up their guns, and it came to the military to go around and enforce it(which it would have to to enforce such a thing), I'm betting more than half the military would turn on the government, at least in a capacity of saying, "No we are not going to enforce it, and if it comes to it, probably forcing the government to put the 2nd amendment back in place".
The reason I believe this is that I know a friend and another friend's cousin that are in the Army and they said that if the government ever did such a thing as I said above, then 95% if not all of the people on their military base would turn against the government. They said that their commanding officer said it is what he would do.
So, I'm definitely in the corner that the government should be afraid of the power of the people.
Don't the people of Australia have reputations for being laid back and cool about things? Can you only be an Australian MP if you're the opposite of that philosophy?
people have been missing the point over why many are upset, most like the idea that some of the child porn sites will go down (except the p2p which is where 99% of it is but who cares, australia can get 1%). the thing that people are upset about is the speed effect that it would have on our internet.
many are still stuck on either adsl1 or adsl2, these speeds are not world class but we still (in the worst case scenario) pay upwards of $300AUD a month for the best downloads at those speeds. this filter was tested on a server which uses the NBN (about 5x faster than adsl2) and brought it down to a crawl (so, going by the percentage lost, the lower adsl1 speeds would be taken to dial up speeds) and that is what concerns me...also we cant opt out of it like we could the early trials.
many are still stuck on either adsl1 or adsl2, these speeds are not world class but we still (in the worst case scenario) pay upwards of $300AUD a month for the best downloads at those speeds. this filter was tested on a server which uses the NBN (about 5x faster than adsl2) and brought it down to a crawl (so, going by the percentage lost, the lower adsl1 speeds would be taken to dial up speeds) and that is what concerns me...also we cant opt out of it like we could the early trials.
If they block porn as you say, there will be mass rioting, Australia would turn into an anarchism, destroyed buildings etc.Phoenixlight said:
I hope you meant to say 'child porn'
EDIT: Oh, and in case others don't know, in the Aus state I live in, you can be find a hefty sum on the spot for swearing in public.
Goddamnit, reading the actual articles takes time people could be using for spewing misinformed, melodramatic, paranoid rants!Blitzwing said:
Bullshit.. People aren't THAT stupid. Why the fuck are people so damn paranoid!? They're targeting REAL dangerous websites. Not everything should be on the internet. Things are STILL illegal. You're not entirely rule-proof... Grow up, guys..SextusMaximus said:
I tried to /facepalm but the fail in this post was so much that it got to me and I missed my face.SomethingAmazing said:
Seriously though, your ignorance is almost impressive.
Opposition =/= organized crime. 'The opposition' is a term referring to political parties, usually with a different political viewpoint than the ruling party.
On Topic: I don't understand how Australians aren't up in arms about this. If this happened here in Canada I'd be out rioting.
I wonder how Google will feel. This is obviously not to the same extent as the Chinese censorship, but it's still censorship.
Yes, people ARE that stupid. The general public doesn't care about the internet nearly as much as people like you or I do and is therefore much more ignorant about issues like this.MattAn24 said:
Also, people aren't outraged by the fact that child porn sites are going to be blocked, they are outraged about the dangerous precedent this sets. If the Australian government showed some character and insight about censoring people wouldn't be so upset, but this is a government that allows 1 government official to deny ADULTS the right to buy gory/sexually loaded games under the pretence that "games are for kids" despite the fact that kids already have access to gorier/more sexual media AND that the average gamer age is in the mid 30's.
What makes you think that this government is going use internet censoring respectfully and appropriately when they can't even handle easier issues such as videogame rating?
No, it is EXACTLY about the horrible violence.triggrhappy94 said:
The whole reason there isn't an 18+ rating yet is because 18+ game were deemed too violent and unsafe for kids. Nevermind the fact that these games are not meant for children.
Nevermind the fact that children already have access to the same type of content in movies and TV. Nevermind that they could have put fines on stores selling/people giving these games to kids without hurting adult consumers. Nevermind social rights.