What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
263 Comments
- jrm125, on 12/26/2008, -1/+189I never would have expected this in Oz. China, sure, but not Australia. I hope they stand up for their rights.
- inactive, on 12/27/2008, -3/+149People will say... oooh... but it's only 1,300 sites so it's OK... NO! It's not OK. Because once the technology has been set up to filter websites, there is room to block more and more until the internet consists of foxnews.com and bbc
- Frnnkdlxx, on 12/26/2008, -0/+125Thank you for my freedoms, masters.
- Coy0te, on 12/27/2008, -0/+79As an Aussie I'm completely embarrassed by this.
PS: Give us our ***** R rated games too, I want to see more brains in Fallout 3 and a prostitute bouncing on Niko Bellic. - zeddie2001, on 12/27/2008, -0/+75We certainly plan to!
At least some of us, unfortunately probably the minority who will be branded as 'porn enthusiasts' or such by the media. - dhughes, on 12/27/2008, -0/+73 If they want to stop child pornography why don't they just ban cameras? It would make just as much sense.
- DavidTurnbull, on 12/27/2008, -0/+51''The Internet has dramatically changed what children can see,'' said the professor at Charles Sturt University in Canberra, noting that ''a few extra clicks of a mouse'' could open sites with photos or videos of extreme or violent sex. ''Opponents of ISP filters simply refuse to acknowledge or trivialize the extent of the social problem.''
Install freaking filter software on your computer! - jmnormand, on 12/27/2008, -0/+50"scoffed at what he called ''Net libertarians,'' who believe freedom of speech is more important than limiting what children can access online."
this may be the most dangerous statement i have heard in quite some time. - Azerael, on 12/27/2008, -5/+541. This is old news. You can all stop talking about how terrible Australia must be, comparing us to China, saying "oh I was going to move there but evidently they are terrible people" etc. because;
2. The plan is dead in the water, and has been from the very beginning, because the Greens and Liberals (who, ironically in more ways than one, are traditionally the 'conservative' party) are against it. To pass, the legislation needs a majority, and Labour and those wacko independents are a few senators short. - PoopOnPaul, on 12/27/2008, -1/+42"But ethics professor Clive Hamilton, in a column on the popular Australian Web site Crikey.com, scoffed at what he called ''Net libertarians,'' who believe freedom of speech is more important than limiting what children can access online."
That is an EXTREMELY scary statement. How can someone possibly value shielding kids from the world over freedom of speech? I don't consider myself a libertarian, but I absolutely and passionately believe in freedom of speech. - tavallai, on 12/27/2008, -10/+49I thought that fascism in Australia died with the end of John Howard.
I thought wrong. - inactive, on 12/27/2008, -0/+35Exactly.
This argument has ALWAYS pissed me off.
"OH BUT THINK OF THE DAMAGE IT WILL DO TO KIDS WHO FIND PORN!!!"
Well, I 'accidentally' found porn when I was 10. I turned out just fine. - golemeter, on 12/27/2008, -2/+35Wait, so we're not going with that?
- mattydee123, on 12/27/2008, -1/+33the worst thing about this is that it slows the connection - we already have next to no bandwidth and this would just limit this small supply
good to see this is in the New York Times - maybe someone will notice now - ryan83189, on 12/27/2008, -0/+28Looks like you people haven't gotten your ignorant citizen indoctrination lately. Allow me to help.
"Why oppose this if you have nothing to hide?"
"Only perverts don't want this."
"Think of the children!"
"The terrorist want it, how about you?"
Did I miss anything? I am sure the Australian media outlets and politician talking points will fill in the blanks if I did. - Angrypeanut, on 12/27/2008, -1/+27I have read that it reduces bandwidth by up to 80% and a report has come up saying that it is already having alot of false positives. This is really going to restrict us aussies but also once it is in it will be near impossible to have it removed.
We Need To Stop It Coming In
http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442
iiNET (Australian ISP) is going to run the filter for the trail and will highlight every false reading and ANY form of bandwidth lose - zeddie2001, on 12/27/2008, -2/+28John Howard was no fascist, and it's clear that Rudd's ideas of 'freedom' extends about as far as his commitment to his election promises. I think it's a case of out of the frying pan into the exact same damn frying pan with different colours.
- inactive, on 12/27/2008, -1/+26Well, being Australian, I DID expect it. We are the country that bans things.
- inactive, on 12/27/2008, -0/+24No no no. foxnews.com has an 'x' in it. X can too easily relate to sex or xxx and such. The filter will thusly block any url or page that has the letter 'x' in it.
- mr5150, on 12/27/2008, -1/+25Yet our own rights are going down the ***** on a daily basis by nanny agenda driving politicians and senators. Sure we can keep or guns but as for the rest of the constitution it's used as daily toilet paper by those in power.
- PsychoBrat, on 12/27/2008, -2/+24Howard was into sucking up to the leaders of powerful western countries, eroding foreigners' freedoms under the guise of security, and helping the upper-middle class and above for votes and favors.
Rudd is into sucking up to the leaders of powerful eastern countries, eroding Australians' freedoms under the guise of security (shall I quote Franklin, here?), throwing scraps to the lower-middle class and below for votes and submission.
They're mirror images of each other -- you might say opposites in some sense -- but this doesn't mean our votes gave us any real power; a mirror image of scheming rat is still a scheming rat. - goldfishey, on 12/27/2008, -0/+22as a kid, in pursuit of something new to read, I unearthed my parents copy of "'The joy of sex".
pictures and written instructions! ;)
I don't think it broke my psyche. Of course, that could be because I didn't equate the pictures with my parents until years later, when the full horrifying realization hit me. - purag66, on 05/13/2009, -7/+29Say what you want about America and our obsession with guns, etc....
- glhf, on 12/27/2008, -0/+22Not to them you didnt. Or you would support them. You turned out to be a free thinker thanks to uncontrolled internetz.
- ruarctb, on 12/27/2008, -0/+22The only way to protect children from content online is for parents to actively parent and not expect someone or something else to raise their kids right.
- inactive, on 12/27/2008, -0/+21It's a sad day that this is even close to happening.
I urge Aussies to burn the ***** roof down. - DavidTurnbull, on 12/27/2008, -0/+21I was referring to the fact that without procreation there are no children, and hence no child pornography.
*woosh* - dmtherob, on 12/27/2008, -5/+24Net Neutrality, People! Google it! This is worth fighting for.
- EffinRiot, on 12/27/2008, -2/+21Crickey!
Bye bye, Aussie porn! - DavidTurnbull, on 12/27/2008, -1/+20Better yet, ban procreation. The real thing is a lot dirtier than pornography itself.
- PsychoBrat, on 12/27/2008, -0/+18That's the funny thing: Conroy goes on about how they are "simply seeking to use technology to ensure [the] bans [on prohibited content] are working", but that's not what the filter does at all. This plan doesn't do anything to prevent people from publishing "inappropriate" (let's see how far they'll stretch that definition) content -- it only attempts to reduce the number of people who will stumble across it.
So when Conroy claims this will clean up the net, he's lying. It'll just make the general public a little less aware of what really is out there.
When he claims it will reduce the amount of child porn, thereby protecting our children from both exploitation and from stumbling across such content, he is also lying. Predators *don't share child porn on public web sites*, and the plan doesn't do anything to prevent the creation or distribution of such material.
Conroys lies, secrecy, and this whole blatant attempt to make himself politically relevant will only hurt citizens by lulling them into a false sense of security and making them ignorant of the REAL dangers children face on the internet. - mattydee123, on 12/27/2008, -0/+18rofl - as a fellow aussie i completely agree!
love the niko bellic reference! - xxxdan, on 12/27/2008, -0/+16What rights? Australia doesnt even have a formal declaration of human rights.
http://www.humanrightsact.com.au - fattony89, on 12/27/2008, -0/+16I know it's total *****, i hate every bit about it. Plus it wont even work if you have a slight knowledge of computer you could run all your own internet access from an outside proxy. In the end, it wont do *****, it will waste money and destroy my net speed. grrr
- JCPahl, on 12/27/2008, -4/+20Yes. Living in a free society your whole life seems to make people forget that freedom is extremely rare in history. Whatever problems America has, the inclusion in our Constitution of a clause to make the people the safeguards of their own liberty was very wise.
- inactive, on 12/27/2008, -0/+16Please, do not believe for one instant that this will stop with 1,300 Web sites. That is naive. Other democratic nations may see this electronic wall and, after observing the success or failure of it, choose to follow in Australia's footsteps.
- inactive, on 12/27/2008, -3/+19It's the people who AREN'T using the internet for porn that are the problem/nutcases.
- DeskFlyer, on 12/27/2008, -0/+15So much for the internet.
- DavidTurnbull, on 12/27/2008, -0/+15If this gets through I'm just going to hand out booklets on how to bypass any restrictions - give them out at a few schools and they'll spread like crazy. Might even make a Facebook application that people can install to to keep up to date on how to bypass restrictions and spread awareness virally.
Then again, it's sounding like it won't get through.
Hopefully it doesn't - I make my income online, so I use the internet quite frequently and being slowed down further would just suck balls. - TrellSaracen, on 12/27/2008, -0/+13We have no rights, beyond the right to take it up the arse from those who rule us.
Fascists, communists...politicians, the lot of them! - novenator, on 12/27/2008, -3/+16orubstein, your off topic spamming has been buried, reported, and you are now blocked
- nurbsenvi, on 12/27/2008, -0/+13This is a ***** retarded *****.
- GovernmentsGun, on 12/27/2008, -0/+13The philosophy of governments everywhere: We own you.
- stubbers, on 12/27/2008, -0/+13Keep up the pressure guys. The liberals seem to be on our side to some extent.
- TrevorBelmont, on 12/27/2008, -0/+13Wait... the worst part of being told what is appropriate for you to see by your handlers is the bandwidth constriction?
- masterwit, on 12/27/2008, -0/+11Don't worry I'm backing it up.
- Lith25, on 12/27/2008, -1/+12Even better, just ban having children.
- inactive, on 12/27/2008, -4/+15it is not a coincidence the Australian PM speaks fluent Manadarin
- ThePastafarian, on 12/27/2008, -0/+11***** Clive Hamilton.
- WiredLain, on 12/27/2008, -0/+10Restricting the access to the household computer does work though.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 265 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is