What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, "Time for Miracles" view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
255 Comments
- NinaOdell, on 12/01/2008, -2/+148Whether you love it or hate it, porn drives pretty much all technological advances in media. It drove the video industry and made it profitable, and it has almost TOTALLY driven key internet advances.
So this little doughboy comes along and wants to take advantage of the house that porn built and make a little echo chamber of his own, eh? Pfft. He's going to find out real quick that even among the folks he thought were with him he's in a pretty small minority.
Even if you hate porn, here's the rub (so to speak): this would be the first step in a larger agenda, namely pushing out the "real" internet. While I agree it's waay easy to find graphic images and what-not when you're search for "Bush" for example, I'm an adult and have never installed a filter like Net Nanny, or the countless other Nannies out there (no kids).
I say, leave our "series of tubes" alone... - PoizonFrog, on 12/01/2008, -1/+121I thought internet porn was already free...
- Mpwns, on 12/01/2008, -0/+68they can take my tax dollars, but i draw the line at porn.
- mtnmusicman, on 12/01/2008, -1/+68Most of these guy's wouldn't even admit how much porn they watch, now me on the other hand :)
- IrishJoe, on 12/01/2008, -0/+58While I welcome the idea of free public Internet connectivity, I see problems with this approach:
1. It is likely that any firewalls put up by the government to block porn will be circumvented by clever people who would find the circumvention very lucrative. And that some material not meant for blockage would wind up blocked by mistake.
2. Can we trust the government to only block out porn and not, say dissenting opinions critical of the government’s policies? I don’t think we can. I wouldn’t trust either a Democratic or a Republican administration to only block out material that that all or at least a great majority would agree was pornographic.
3. Can we trust the company that the government contracts with to only filter out porn and not, say material critical of them?
4. Who gets to decide what is pornographic and what is not? Would all depictions of naked bodies be pornography? Where would the government draw the line and do we want them to draw that line for us? - Alheithinn, on 12/01/2008, -1/+44He'll be out soon enough and his opinion won't matter. Like most rabidly anti-anythings, he's probably deep into it himself.
- Atertract, on 12/02/2008, -2/+44Ironic, coming from a guy who looks like a perpetual masturbator.
- inactive, on 12/01/2008, -1/+33I bet he'll fill his hard drive full of porn before he ever considers pushing this through.
- themellowmarsh, on 12/01/2008, -0/+31Yeah, other hand . . .
- thepoliticalcat, on 12/01/2008, -0/+25For me, the main issue is, how do you define "porn"? Because straight heterosexist people will always define anything having to do with alternative sexualities as porn, by default.
- Culero, on 12/02/2008, -0/+24i'm a lefty. I adapted to the righty mouse. porn evolves us.
- FishHammer, on 12/02/2008, -1/+23NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
- masamunecyrus, on 12/02/2008, -0/+21Yes, but don't worry. The FCC is benevolent and will choose a responsible company, put checks and balances in place, and wouldn't even dream of limiting free speech.
- BuckQJohnson, on 12/01/2008, -1/+21This is just to control the net and destroy the internet as we know it. People want their entertainment and kudos if they can get it in the comfort of their home and not going to some adult book store to find it. The religious right and left want to control this entity because it allows people to do what they want and out them out when they lie. It's about control of the population, thats it. They use excuses like it's for the kids (like why should I care about someone elses kid, they should be watching their children themselves and apply the neccessary filter programs for THEIR computers at home). The don't because they want everybody to believe how they want them to believe. We as a nation is turning into the christian taliban.
- CamperBob, on 12/02/2008, -1/+20Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. - m0llusk, on 12/01/2008, -1/+20Then the top FCC staff gathered around the proposal while stroking themselves and moaning "Oh, yeah. OH, YEAH!"
- JoeParanoid, on 12/01/2008, -1/+19That's our airwaves they're selling off and I don't want the Mormons or fundies to get any of it. In any event, it will die just like most of the family and religious networks did.
- Calebh09, on 12/02/2008, -1/+18This will never work. Plus censorship of the internet is dangerous and will just lead to more censorship.
- greenfyre, on 12/02/2008, -0/+16Don't forget polaroid cameras and home movies ...
- widdelywah292, on 12/02/2008, -1/+17Is he retarded?
- ABadPerson, on 12/02/2008, -2/+18is masturbating right now
- Gunshock, on 12/02/2008, -1/+16The Internet is for Porn.
- sandman979, on 12/02/2008, -1/+16I don't know about you guys, but I'm getting tired of the government getting in my private life. I mean, who the ***** do they think they are to tell what can be seen and what not?
Guess what government *****... since sex is a normal physical necessity just like eating or drinking, you are not going to get rid of porn period. Is that simple. You can't suppress a basic human instinct. Get rid of online porn and in a week there will be another alternative I guarantee. Get a life... you're shooting in the dark. - inactive, on 12/01/2008, -3/+18It will never work!
- NicoNicoNico, on 12/01/2008, -1/+15What is the factor in deciding what's "indecent"? Would all naked pictures be edited out, even if they are art? What about people who like odd forms of porn (and can get without going to a porn site), like amputee porn? Would they start editing all pictures of that as well?
I don't like it. It's far too hard to implement, and gives the government too much control over our personal lives. - Dumbledorito, on 12/02/2008, -0/+14To paraphrase an old Dilbert cartoon:
"Let me get this straight: You're pitting your programming skills against the collective sex drive of every teenager on the internet?"
"What's your point?"
"Did you know that if you put a little hat on a snowball it can last a really long time in hell?" - popkhorn, on 12/02/2008, -1/+13OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
- masamunecyrus, on 12/02/2008, -0/+12These people are delusional. I hope anonymous takes care of business if this were to ever happen.
Last time someone tried to crack down on IRC the entire internet was so slow for a couple days that credit card machines didn't even work. You'd think they'd finally catch on and see who's really in control of the internet, but they never do. - dieboldcracy, on 12/02/2008, -0/+11the soon to be definition of "porn" will be any website deemed offensive (i.e. anyone critical of the govt)
welcome to Internet 2, free and watered down, filtered, regulated. - ThaDRD, on 12/02/2008, -0/+10I'm sure this guy is a huge hipocrite and has a terrabyte of porn on his computer. All of these guys who are "anti-whatever" are usually the worst offenders. Sorry you can't control your porn addiction Chairman Kevin Martin.
- concertina, on 12/02/2008, -0/+10It gets much worse.
Free public wifi + censorship + limited bandwidth = two-tiered system
Poor and even middle-class people will be forced to live with strange and arbitrary restrictions on their internet usage, and government or business interference on a once-free medium will be forever legitimized.
You can pay for non-censored internet access, for now. But how long after this proposal is approved will the cost of uncensored internet be out of the realm of the average citizen? - CarStan, on 12/02/2008, -1/+10OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
- OliveStreet, on 12/02/2008, -1/+10They can take my porn when they pry it from my cold, dead, greasy fingers .....
- PhilLesh69, on 12/02/2008, -0/+9He can't understand why people need a computer to do what he can do in an airport bathroom.
- ScipiosLegion, on 12/02/2008, -1/+9then reply to him not the general thread...
- PhilLesh69, on 12/02/2008, -1/+9Don't forget that Ashcroft was offended (or turned on?) by the statue of Lady Justice in the lobby of the Justice Department.
He ordered her breasts covered.
Not only was he some hick lawyer from some crappy texas or other white-trash state, but he obviously doesn't have any comprehension of fine art/classical sculpture. - pedrior, on 12/02/2008, -1/+9OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
- nextekcarl, on 12/02/2008, -0/+7At first that's what I was thinking, too, but the likely result would be commercial groups would be competing against this, and over time would (could) start losing customers to it. Given enough time, it's possible they would have to increase their prices and this would be the only service left at a price point mot people could afford. We've seen the same sort of thing happen with the postal service since email came out (how often have the rates been going up over the last few years?)
- graeh, on 12/02/2008, -0/+7It's how they slipped it by here in Australia. The communications minister declared he was enforcing mandatory opt-out(ish) fully filtered internet countrywide in the name of "protecting children from sexually explicity material". Not an opt-in plan, not an end user content blocker, not better education and criticism of parents as responsible for their own children, but at the backbone. Initial disbelief and criticism of his policy - which was not disclosed as a policy direction during his election months earlier - was met with him accusing those who opposed the insane measure of supporting pedophillia and child abuse.
Believe you ***** me - just by invoking "won't somebody think of the children!" the government was able to basically neutralise the internet (unless a miracle occurs and someone reaches down their shorts and finds some ***** balls to can this *****). It won't be the last time sensationalist claims of protecting innocence and decency will be the tip of the spear used to hobble one of the greatest achievements of mankinds history. Even if those leading the charge genuinely feel they are champions of morality - those following not far behind have the least of our interests in mind. - Nekura20x6, on 12/02/2008, -1/+8Great - but who decides what's porn? This is the administration who had an Attorney General spend thousands of dollars to put clothing on a statue because he couldn't bear their nakedness. I'd rather pay twice for my Internet to fund free access for those that can't afford rather than this insane plan.
- NinaOdell, on 12/02/2008, -0/+7Feel free to wait for the grand anonymous train, or you can take off the Guy Fawkes mask (if you even wear one) and do something about it.
www.congress.org - Kidddrunkadelic, on 12/02/2008, -0/+7Better stock up.
- inactive, on 12/02/2008, -1/+7OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
- NecroSexy, on 12/02/2008, -0/+6What guy isn't?
- PhilLesh69, on 12/02/2008, -2/+8I know you are, but what am I?
Gee, it's kinda late for you to be up, isn't it BTConan? Does your mommy know you're using her computer? - inactive, on 12/02/2008, -0/+6By banning it, he will be glorifying it.
I've been around here long enough to know that half of Digg will see this as a challenge, not a restriction. It will be hacked, it will be taken offline, it will be squashed completely, and most of all,
There will be porn. - Suricou, on 12/02/2008, -0/+6Maragarine makes one point. Another common fear here is that this further legitimises cencorship in general - it announces that it's OK for the government to ban speech not just in law but through technological means if it's 'for the public good,' for a very wide definition of public good. Completly undermineing the first amendment. It might be porn today, but what else might a future administration decide is not legitimate? Hate speech, anti-religious speech, gay rights campaigns, hacking information, 'unlawful' things like p2p software... remember that even the information given in a high school biology book today would have been considered terribly obscene fifty years ago.
- PhilLesh69, on 12/02/2008, -0/+6No, just a religious fundamentalist.
If he had been born in Saudi Arabia, he'd be chopping women's heads off for not wearing their viel or for driving a car. Or even worse, he'd be flying a passenger jet into the infidel's skyscrapers. - WSPanic201, on 12/02/2008, -0/+6Yeah, and I'm considering a religion free government
-
Show 51 - 100 of 266 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is