Internet Censorship

[Sam.]

The thing is, 9 year olds shouldn't be on the internet unattended. They don't allow under 13 year old's join forums or myspace, facebook, msn, why? Becuase people are too young and don't know what is on the internet, any kid who is on the internet under the age of 10 should be watched over by a parent. Besides, most kids now day's know what porn is, it's nothing new.

This will be the case if their parents are too lenient with them.



The thing with MySpace and Facebook is that so many things get posted that it's hard to moderate the content of the messages, and these places don't have word filters. Restricting forums to those 13 or older (COPPA) is usually optional, and the decision lies with the Administrator.



If I had an 8 or 9 year-old son or daughter, I would let them go on the internet unattended. I would install strict filters, blocks etc., and I'd show them such games as Neopets which are fine for children. Even with strict security settings on a computer, this stuff can still get through.

 

[Peaceful]

Exactly, that's what parents need to do, they need to install filters, blocks etc. Not have the government do it for them in a drastic way, it's pointless.

 

[Sam.]

This will be the case if their parents are too lenient with them.



The thing with MySpace and Facebook is that so many things get posted that it's hard to moderate the content of the messages, and these places don't have word filters. Restricting forums to those 13 or older (COPPA) is usually optional, and the decision lies with the Administrator.



If I had an 8 or 9 year-old son or daughter, I would let them go on the internet unattended. I would install strict filters, blocks etc., and I'd show them such games as Neopets which are fine for children. Even with strict security settings on a computer, this stuff can still get through.

Read it again and come up with a better rebuttal.

 

[Peaceful]

Sure, it can get through, but so can it with a filter, a filter is full of bugs, loop-holes etc, you can get past it in a matter of minutes, if you say even with strict security settings etc, things can still get through, but isn't this all what a filter is, a strict security setting, but for everyone, stuff can still get through, there's no stopping it.

 

[Sam.]

You almost contradict your previous point in saying that.



So, what? Things get through, so why bother?

 

[Peaceful]

Exactly, why bother with a government filter, there's always ways things will get through, you can't stop people from being able to view porn on the computer, you can't stop people viewing things that they find racist, you can't not see animal abuse, you can't stop it. The only way you can is to cut the connection to the internet, which will never happen.



No shitty filter will ever stop people from sharing child porn, people prying on children, kids viewing things that are not for their age.



Even if the governments do introduce a filter, it will NEVER be full proof, they are just wasting tax payers money, and as you can tell from all of the polls etc, 95% of people DO NOT want a filter, because it WILL NOT stop it. Maybe slow it down, BUT NOT STOP IT!

 

[Sam.]

No filter will ever be fool proof. The Government has a lot more money and resources than individual companies to spend, so you can't just dismiss any effort that they make make as to be rubbish.

 

[Peaceful]

It is rubbish. It will slow down our internet, block 1 out of 10 sites that shouldn't be blocked, we might as well live in China.



No point wasting peoples money on something that will never work.



and since we both have different opinions on this, you will always be supporting it, and i will always be apposing it, so what's the point in debating the matter any further.

 

[Sam.]

I'm winning, that's why I want to keep debating.



And please, don't make assumptions. You're assuming that it will slow down our internet, block 1 out of 10 sites that shouldn't be blocked and that it will be rubbish. Do you think the world would be different if people assumed that such greats like John F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington would have done a bad job at leading the country and weren't worth it?



On that note, I am finished here for the time being. I'll be back.

 

[Peaceful]

I'm winning, that's why I want to keep debating.



And please, don't make assumptions. You're assuming that it will slow down our internet, block 1 out of 10 sites that shouldn't be blocked and that it will be rubbish. Do you think the world would be different if people assumed that such greats like John F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington would have done a bad job at leading the country and weren't worth it?



On that note, I am finished here for the time being. I'll be back.

How are you winning? You're saying it's a good thing, I'm saying it's a bad thing, there's no win situation here, you will never change my thoughts on it.



Actually, if you keep up with the news, it has been proven that it will block 1 in 10 sites, slow down our internet speeds etc. They have proven this in a test area in Australia. So, no, I'm not making an assumption, i am stating a fact.



To be quite honest, i couldn't give two flying shits about those people. I have no interest in bullshit politics which have never bought the world any good apart from a bunch of hate.



I have the facts to back up my arguments, but you seem to think that it's the right thing even though it will just be a waste of money, and will never be able to be fully implemented in it entirety to stop this sort of thing, it's a waste of time, money and chewing up all of the crappy connections this country already has for the internet.



Maybe you should look at the facts of the matter, all of which has been stated through out this whole debate with the whole Australian Internet filter, there's so many problems, maybe you should read about them before actually trying to prove that it will protect kids who really, shouldn't be on the internet anyway if the parents were actually responsible.

 

[Sam.]

How are you winning? You're saying it's a good thing, I'm saying it's a bad thing, there's no win situation here, you will never change my thoughts on it.



Actually, if you keep up with the news, it has been proven that it will block 1 in 10 sites, slow down our internet speeds etc. They have proven this in a test area in Australia. So, no, I'm not making an assumption, i am stating a fact.



To be quite honest, i couldn't give two flying shits about those people. I have no interest in bullshit politics which have never bought the world any good apart from a bunch of hate.



I have the facts to back up my arguments, but you seem to think that it's the right thing even though it will just be a waste of money, and will never be able to be fully implemented in it entirety to stop this sort of thing, it's a waste of time, money and chewing up all of the crappy connections this country already has for the internet.



Maybe you should look at the facts of the matter, all of which has been stated through out this whole debate with the whole Australian Internet filter, there's so many problems, maybe you should read about them before actually trying to prove that it will protect kids who really, shouldn't be on the internet anyway if the parents were actually responsible.

It was crappy in a test. Of course it would be improved if it were to be implemented, so you don't really have all of the 'facts'. That was obviously a trial, which didn't work, so they'd be improving the technology. And in you saying 'if the parents were actually responsible', most of the time they are and they do their best, but everything has loopholes and there is only so much that one or two people can do. Internet Censorship would make things easier.

 

[Peaceful]

Actually no. They haven't improved much at all, all they did was up the blacklist to block multiple IP's which sites run. Internet Censorship would just piss people off, if you haven't noticed, so many of the government sites have been hacked and defaced, no one wants this filter, but, yet again, the government things it's best, so they think we all have to deal with it.

 

[Sam.]

Actually no. They haven't improved much at all, all they did was up the blacklist to block multiple IP's which sites run. Internet Censorship would just piss people off, if you haven't noticed, so many of the government sites have been hacked and defaced, no one wants this filter, but, yet again, the government things it's best, so they think we all have to deal with it.

Are you part of the Government that is creating said filter? No, so you have no right to say that it hasn't been improved.

It's the parents responsibilities to protect their own children from others as well as on the internet! Not the governments!

Like I said before, there will always be things that will get through and offend people. Governments run their respective countries, so they have more resources and money than an individual company would have. Personally, I think they could make the internet quite secure.

 

[Peaceful]

Are you part of the Government that is creating said filter? No, so you have no right to say that it hasn't been improved.

No, I'm not. But they give people updates on whats going on, and nothing has been improved. It will fail, it's designed to fail, the only reason it is getting put on is because some careless parents can't be bothered adding something simple to they're childs computer, which in all reality, will be as effective as a filter, so there's no point enforcing it on all computers.



You obviously don't understand the impacts this will have on the Australian internet and community as a whole, just because it blocks a few porn sites doesn't make it right, people just need to get used to the fact that you will never be able to filter the internet.