As far as online profitability goes porn is very much the elephant in the room, and if you are into bestiality you can actually be in that virtual room with that elephant! Without porn the net may never have got going as fast and dominant as it did and young kids become so blasé about sex. Google have refused to release figures of just how much of their traffic and searches are porn and sex related as it is that big but it's believed to be the percentage of traffic. Body conscious English girls know all about that competition and the anxiety having to live up to the online competion their boyfriend's, husbands and potential partners are enjoying in their private time.
Every year the Google people release fun filled top ten lists and searches but I'm pretty sure if they released the genuine spreadsheet of the top ten words then 'Sex' would top it and plenty related to the porn industry would tick in close behind, many deliberately miss spelt. Because all this porn is gushing into people's houses and mobile phones free of charge and uncensored we have seen a rising number of cases of porn addiction within children, a worrying development. What ever you are into its there online and pretty much everyone reading this, whatever your age are, have no doubt tapped what they want to see into a search engine and closed the curtains. Porn is no longer seedy as everyone can indulge in the privacy of their own homes with no judgment. I think this is the main reason pressure groups are scared of internet security laws to soon be passed where governments can store all your online and mobile phone activity. Imagine if the police, social services or you employer could log on and see what you guys have been looking at?
So now that the government is moving to stem porn access to kids they have to do it so not to upset big commercial interests. The broadband providers don't want to mandatory block porn full stop because of the huge loss of traffic and have skillfully lobbied the government for a compromise where parents make the decision to sign away their underage kid's right to view porn by blocking it even getting into their homes. This means the likes of BT and Virgin don't have to spend all day deleting or scaring off the porn industry that they know make them a whole lot of money through advertising and broadband subscriptions. Leaving it up to parents with a waver means parents are unlikely to want to block porn as they are the ones watching it but get to be saddled with the responsibility, as they should be. But I do feel they are quietly throttling heavy users of their services as part of the deal with the government to prepare households for more severe blocking of porn access. That heavy usage is looking at those free porn videos and fast-forwarding to the good bits.
In the old days kids got their porn through digging discarded dirty mags out of bushes and ditches, woods and skip, husbands and those boyfriends not too keen to stash porn in their marital homes for too long. If that didn't do it we would reach for the bra section in the Freemans catalogue, older ladies in huge girdles with little butterflies on their bra's a surprising turn on, the bathroom the only room in the house with a lock on it to enjoy. Without the Pandora's Box of the internet you had to earn your porn delights in our day and restricted where to get it and how to enjoy it. Now the kids can find it anywhere and everywhere, regardless of where we hide it. Parents can try to lock their kids out of porn on those PCs and laptops but the democratic nature of the net means your kids can look up exactly how to circumnavigate that problem by also using the internet!
We know online porn has not only made 'normal' women feel even more insecure about their bodies but given young men false expectations of sex, expecting to unwrap perfect ad pert breasts and bodies every time they meet a nice girl. Girls, not so obsessed with porn, don't expect boys to be John Holmes. But the porn industry is not interested in realism, ugliness or imperfections, why we look at it. Our kids are growing up with seriously warped ideas of sex and love. Only last week we had a five-year-old up in kid's court for raping an older girl. Five! The judge blamed it squarely on internet porn. The parents were too far gone to be responsible.
A positive to internet porn is it drives prostitution off the streets as men simply log on to get off or can browse and book there hoars there. This has to be a good thing as perverts and even serial killers are easier to trace online if they do go that way. But the huge problem with the internet is it allows pedophiles access to your house and so kids through chat rooms and most 16-year-old boys asking to chat with your 12-year-old daughter are normally 45. That deception is a more serious problem than hardcore porn access for me. Last month we had this virtual online community world up in court where underage teenagers were having sex with each other in virtual hotels, and was only closed down when bad publicity spooked the big investors in it. How many of those virtual teenage avatars were really sixty-year men? There seems to be no boundaries online and we need to show some backbone and clamp down hard on this and stop big business making money from sex and underage kids.
Subject based on the politics behind WikiLeaks and Assange
Rumblings on the horizon
There is something incredulously inevitable about the whole WikiLeak fiasco - ever since publishing the truths about our great leaders and their banal characters, WikiLeaks barely hit my radar, mainly due to the fact I was expecting a severe breach of security measures having got a sniff of the supremacy Google search engine empire talking to Verizon (An online security firm who wants to restrict online data from entering households) Discussions are in motion, after several failed attempts in 2009 - 2010; a security deal is imminent. I await a statement in early February 2011 - that'll confirm my suspicions that beefy data online will be censored meticulously via the Google/Verizon deal. Meanwhile Julian Assange's WikiLeaks case has set the clime for an agenda which is designed to make Verizon's impending security measures evidently more palatable; making internet's 'Information Highway,' lucrative and unethical. Yes, Google is about to sell its soul, and the Federal Government is a major influence. Along the way, there will be collateral. WikiLeaks and other information orientated organizations either may disappear, go underground, or become compromised. The debacle is set to install an omnipotent that'll de-value democracy and ultimately our own freedom. However, our superior bodies' rhetorical practices avidly will claim it'll be for the good of our civil rights and safety; mirroring Reich books called 'Opposing The System' - 'The Greening of America,' (Best seller in 1970) an analysis on the embodiment of culture in a bid to shift World opinion, the main example of how opinion shapes western views, for example; the cold war rhetoric in the 1980s; which relayed a total fabrication of untruths.
At the beginning of a decade, a bubble bursts
In a new decade, new arena's of collateral is due to be made. Bubbles are to burst. The infamous Dot.Com bubble (1995 - 2000) climaxed in mid 2000, in turn major organisations had to re-think about online strategies, as a means of survival; and from it innovative concepts swept the online spectrum. The terror attacks in New York changed the hunting ground for governments as they swayed towards the 'war on terror' threats instead of compromising democracy on the exploding information technology revolution which was taking place at the time of the twin tower attacks. The internet had a free run for a while and governmental practices for a period engaged in its supreme resources to counter-act against the Middle East western terror plots, which did exist. WikiLeaks collaborated with journalists all around the world, initially in Australia and Indonesia before any credible data was published in October 2006, the launch of the site was hardly a fanfare albeit for governmental officials to check on published data, and developments. Journalistic affiliates published documentations through WikiLeak's freedom of speech ethic - nearly 2 million documentations were made in their first year, with expansion of grandeur magnitude leakage were imminent; the clue is in the name WikiLeak, transparencies equals better justice systems, not what the American authorities could endure, when it comes down to exposing secret data; however, were not secret hence being in WikiLeak's transparent hands.
Once the beast is out of the box, you cannot entice it in again. Sounds obvious, but this is what currently is emerging with the US authorities. Their 'hunting him down like a dog' due to publishing data into the public domain that was classified information - unclassified information - and other data which is neither classified nor unclassified, allegedly cost American lives, although cannot be clearly proven. Assange overnight was made public enemy number one. Weirdly, it was only in the summer of 2010, WikiLeak had a donation of half a million dollars for their services. It is common knowledge that Julian Assange was an early internet hacker; code name "Mendax" - translated as nobly untruthful; his transparency for all to see. Admired for being the figure-head for the freedom of speech all over the globe; ice cool under pressure, arrogant beyond arrogances realm. Journalism his forte, Assange uses the medium as a tool of expression - erect and forthright in approach, consistently claiming he had gone to Sweden when the two sex cases emerge initially. Right up until the case was dismissed and laughed out of the Swedish court. Thereafter, a smear campaign gathering legs, in response, Prosecutor's only re-addressed the case when it was known Assange had a reputation in regards to women - opportunism laid before them to proceed. I could here Sarah Palin's cheerleaders from across the pond.
Regardless of the out-come this furore here; across the seas it must be of cyclopean delight to the "true infidels of human rights" - who will relish glee with such a deranged western own goal; making a mockery of the concept of democracy - freedom of speech - and that rhetorical word, transparency. Corrosive insidious propaganda is derailing single-handedly the foundations of what we know of as our western values. Assange is not a "fugitive" - He did not escape Sweden and burrow his way into the Needles, with a pose of blank VHS tapes. Yet his birthright nation of Australia tore up their own citizenship of law and made a whimsical attempt of taking away Assange's passport; in-turn hideously breaching mandatory human rights, especially as no charge has fallen on the head of Assange. Meanwhile a London magistrate sent Assange into solitary confinement in Wandsworth Prison. Whereby, 116 years earlier Oscar Wilde had resided for alleged - "sex crimes." British law cogs and wheels are aging back to Doomsday, not dared to be revamped, for the docile sake of tradition. I wonder if they've changed the bed sheets, since Wilde's two year stint. The injustice of Wilde's case highlighted how corrupt the British justice system was. Will it happen again? Distortions of truths, political henchmen pressures, sex accusations, inflammatory hype - annihilates a fair legal process.
The WikiLeak's debacle is reminiscent of the film "war games" - cyber attacks coded 'payback,' offset by major corporations extinguishing affiliations all in a bid to get Assange extradited. Many mini mirror sites flew out of the WikiLeak nest of documentations. 'Open Leaks' was borne out of the fire and chaos of Federal Government cyber attacks. And no-one has died, due to the leak memo's and secret files directly. This scenario goes beyond what we know to be Assange's WikiLeak online agenda, and the alleged rape accusations. It is about our civil liberties. We know it hasn't anything to do with Washington's rhetorical statement saying WikiLeaks had put soldiers and civilians in danger. The only concept of a plan is that troops are going to finish operations in 2015. We know that the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Islamic terrorists is not going to plan, whatever that means. Unlike some, online journalists across the world have given a seismic amount of support to WikiLeaks and their founder Julian Assange. Cyber attacks have descended mercilessly on the affiliates of WikiLeaks and lawyers, evidently escalating the bill to 250,000 GBP, and counting.
"Infowar," coming to a server near you
America's political arena is suffice to say is; 'toxic' - Last year our *special* relationship with the US was marred over the BP oil spillage - even though BP is predominantly owned by the US, and lawsuits were frizzling around the airwaves, as if they're just paper darts. The term 'Kick your asses;" reached Radio Two listeners. Hostility has reared its ugly head across the pond, and has embarked on a crusade against anti-Americanisms, whether intended or not. The plight of stifling perpetrators on the internet appears futile, on the same scale as a King Arthur knight armored up, suffering from diarrhea, trying to run to the nearest bog-hole in time. Duly because WikiLeaks and Open Leaks embody complex global journalism, the works take on a type of shibboleth practice, similar to a MI6 agent in regards to avoidance of detection; partly because they're informers, whistle blowers, and investigative journalists. Therefore the only real access to the intrinsic WikiLeak's network coliseum resides with Julian Assange.
To a newcomer getting a taster of the information age embroidering all its complexities and is gripped by recent events - seek out the movie 'Enemy of the State' corruption in governmental departments out to frame a lawyer. The comparisons scenario wise appears like Siamese twins but in reality the biggest loser will be freedom of speech and our liberties. Elitism requires to be squashed - otherwise information will be severely censored for the non elite, or rich. The sooner that ordinary citizens recognize what is unfolding under our noses - the bigger chance we have in restoring 'normality' for our long term human rights.
If, this saga is played out fully with the fall guy being the CEO of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, the 'infowar' would've claimed its first victim; and overnight how we see information today such as - read blogs - digital media in all, anything cyber related would've gone through tough stringent measures before being read by you or I. The problem is we would be even more in the dark from reality and real terror threats, because of it. By closing up WikiLeaks and using the cyber information giant as an example for incredulously aiding 'terror' due to the leaks, covers up the developed western world government's mistakes, and will inadvertently create mass propaganda; in turn that'll change the way we think etc. It'll be a signature for western governments to force their omnipotent power onto the mainstream. Liberties severely compromised.
Superior governmental actions embraces folly; especially when it comes to the absent mindedness of secret data. In the UK the public see it as an everyday occurrence and therefore deemed hardened to nastiness being shoveled into the trough of the public domain; secret data is either usually left on train seats or waved precariously close to the grasshopper sounds of the paparazzi who are randomly clicking their telescopic cameras' for that illusive money shot. Stupidity is masked and re-branded 'transparency' by governmental circles. Tripping up and making the announcement it was all in the script, meticulously planned. Satirical, if it wasn't such a serious concern.
Whatever you're opinion about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange - there is no doubt the Founder is an extra-ordinary man. WikiLeaks support from staff to their network partisan is beyond immense considering what the 'infowar' represents to mankind; even the Washington Post and New York Times are holding onto the rafters, scared stiff of the potential eventualities internally from US governmental bodies. After the extra-national superiors dig their claws into Manning and Assange; who'll be next? Fingers will be pointing; - it's the nature of the beast. Still as Assange awaits his fate; he deems the Chinese censorship laws ultimately being the insidious thorn in WikiLeak's side; this isn't new - eventually the second biggest super-power may topple WikiLeaks just via technological prowess - that is the biggest threat; if WikiLeak's mainframe system is successfully hacked into cyberspace oblivion, many dwarf WikiLeak sites will burst out like parachuted dandelion seeds in force gale, relaying untold information about major corporations; the media mogul Rupert Murdoch first in line, it's been reported.
My theory is, WikiLeaks agenda possibly could clean-up corruption, or at least be a deterrent - designed to ethically protect authorship from documents, any form of WikiLeak conspiracy remains nil regarding their whistle-blowers - investigative journalism and files. Informants are invisible, parading their everyday duties - walking amongst us. This in itself gives the US governmental aides a potential time-bomb financially. How long do they take to do their utmost to sink an amalgamated liquid, affiliated machine, able to change locations at a whim? Regarding the monetary giants' who diminished business contacts with WikiLeaks, it is my understanding, did so to protect their shareholders and affiliations only. After the near collapse of the financial markets of recent years, lessons have been learned, especially whilst an 'infowar' of this magnitude tainted with salaciousness - mercilessly firing a character assassination plot, underlining unimaginable circumstances, that'll undermine human rights as we know it today.©1st2thebar 2011
Internet censorship is a really tricky subject on what exactly the laws and boundarys should be, some countrys ban the internet from use completly, while in others certain websites, blogs or topics are banned. I am writing this review to give my opinion on the whole issue and maybe giving you some thing to think about in terms of internet use in general.
Internet censorship is the removal or editing of material online for any reason, this is a activity done by companies, government and others to change or delete a message or image or any other material being transmitted on the internet.
I do agree that internet censorship is a very important tool that can be used for good, for example removing child pornography websites that shouldnt be available to anyone from the internet, removing violent porn that can encourage rapists and others, removing advertisements for terrorism and other information which could harm others, for example information on how to create your own bomb. The fact of the matter is that we as humans can be very easily influenced by what we see and hear, with the dangerous tool of the internet, criminals and even normal people could find out ways to harm many others and also view explict material that is illegal.
Recently in the UK there was a debate how we could stop people videoing and uploading real fights, involving grown adults and/or children, I think that this should have been a censored activity as it is just sick to watch some one getting beat up and hurt, all people involved may not have concented for the video to be uploaded and made public and it had an impact on the behviour of some people who watched it, making them more immune to violence and therefore acting stupidly towards pain of others and generally makeing a nuisence of themselves and starting fights with others.
However where do we draw the line? Is it ok to take any material off line which may be harmful, does this affect our rights and our freedom, and what else is being censored and being hid from the public eye? I think that the UK dont really take many rights away from us on what we can and cannot view, the few restrictions are within reason and would be silly to argue againsts, though other countries policies differ.
To be honest some things that should be censored are left open to view by the public, like porn adverts on different websites that have absolutley nothing to do with porn, leaving young children more likely to see it.
I think that more work should be done to ensure that harmful material doesnt pop up on our computer screens from time to time, though others may disagree and see this an attack on our rights, I think that there is a limit that no one should cross on the internet, as some information is better not to be made public, and some images should never be shown. The goverment should work harder to put the people who post and view harmful and sick information behind bars where they belong, though the battle is so large and the internet can be so private, the probability of this ever happening is very low.
If you ever wanted to know where to buy the cheapest pink dress for your daughter, or who sang a particular song or starred in a certain film...then, of course, the best place to find out such information is the internet.
However, by the same token, if you ever wanted to know how to make a bomb from ordinary household chemicals or find a certain type of poison that is almost untraceable to forensic detection or even techniques for breaking into someone's house or car, then, yet again, the best place to find such information is the internet.
As can be seen from the above two paragraphs, the internet can be an extremely useful tool, yet at the same time can be a destructive, menacing and frightening place.
So the question has to be asked if the internet needs to be censored in some way, allowing through certain thoughts, opinions and advice that are deemed of value, yet at the same time prohibiting those that are viewed as unsuitable, unjustified or offensive in some way.
Naturally, what may be offensive or unsuitable to one person may be useful and beneficial to another, therefore it is a fine balance between what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. There is no black and white. Instead, there are large 'grey' areas of uncertainty which are further clouded by the fact that people have the inherent right to freedom of speech - some may argue that they have the perfect right to express their own personal views, opinions and thoughts however unpleasant or despicable they may seem to the rest of us.
The internet is no longer a place where a few emails are checked or the latest football scores are accessed. It has evolved into a Global Universe where good stands shoulder to shoulder with evil. On first impressions it can seem friendly, helpful and full of delights, yet lurking in the shadows is a shallow and unreliable digital storehouse of dirty pictures, inaccurate rumours, sleaze, dubious websites and equally dubious people.
If we were to censor certain aspects of the internet, then who would be responsible for doing so? I presume it would be the Government itself or at the very least an agency of the Government. In effect, we would only be allowed to access and view web pages that the Government of the day thinks is morally 'right' for us.
Sure, those bomb making sites and the likes will be confined to their rightful place in the cyberbins, but I have a suspicion that forums, bloggs and any other sites that do not adhere to Government morality and values will soon go crumbling swiftly behind.
The Government is already trying to tell us what is good for us and what is bad for us. Children's lunch boxes are already being scrutinised for the horrors of a packet of crisps or a bar of chocolate that may be lurking there, only to be swiftly pulled out because Government has deemed them unhealthy for our children, and the naughty parents really should know better!
So woe betide a cookery website that has a recipe containing any fat, salt, chocolate or sugar. Government is sure to take a dim view and shut it down, because, naturally, the Government alone knows what's good for us.
Big Brother will forever be watching us, breathing down our necks and scrutinising our every word and sentence, allowing us to only voice opinions that satisfy the ego of the State.
The internet would soon become a lacklustre place, devoid of anything meaningful or opinionated. It would no longer be a place where voices are heard and choices can be made freely, instead it would slowly evolve into a barren land, watered only when the State think it necessary.
So, if State censorship is not the way to go then what else is there to prevent us from accessing harmful and destructive material?
Well there's private filtering systems that can be purchased. These work by blocking certain images and key-words that are likely to offend or upset people who may be sensitive to certain aspects of the internet. However, these filtering systems will not prevent and block all dubious images and text, and may also have a negative impact, sometimes being over-zealous in their filtering and blocking sites that are not in the least bit detrimental.
Also this still does not address the problem of these harmful web sites, because filtering or not, they still exist, and can still be accessed inadvertently by an unsuspecting innocent surfer, or, worse still, by a person intent on using the information gained from the internet to harm or injure another person.
The trouble is that wherever there is something good, there are people intent on taking full advantage of the situation and will twist and manipulate it to their advantage. The internet is no exception. Originally a technical wonder full of knowledge and shared experiences, it is now being dragged down by those who seek to manipulate, destroy, harm or profit make from it at the expense of honest decent people. They will use any means possible to make our 'surfing' experience as unpleasant as is possible, just because they are able to, or because they can make a few bob from it, uncaring and unsympathetic to the harm and fear being bestowed upon ourselves and our children.
All things considered, (thanks to these unscrupulous people and their web sites), the internet is no longer seen as safe place. I worry every time my children go on the internet, fearful of what they may unwittingly be confronted with. It is a sad sign of the times that I must now sit them down and explain the dangers of the internet to them much like I explained to them the dangers of accepting sweets from strangers.
I suspect that when all is said and done, the internet, along with its bomb making instructions, child pornography, and a whole host of other appalling and disgusting web sites are here to stay, hand in hand as it were.
This being so, then this great and wonderful internet of ours seems to be sliding further and further down the slippery slope of of depravity, an idiotic minority spoiling it for the vast majority, as is so often the case.
Simple actions such as opening our emails are now fraught with danger. Does the email contain a virus, or by clicking on the link will it take me to a porn web site? Rather than taking an interest in the text of the email and reading it, we are ever more concerned about its safety and genuineness. We scan the email for viruses, worry when we see attachments, and generally treat this simple text message as some sort of ticking time bomb, and inhale deeply as we open the email, with fingers crossed, lest we have opened a cursed tomb of Egyptian proportions.
We fear web sites with equal disparity. Is this really my usual Banking site or is it a fake one ready to steal my Bank Account number, as we have so often read about in the newspapers. With trepidation, we gingerly type in our passwords and account numbers,and warily click on the 'submit' button, all the time with this slight element of doubt nagging the back of our minds.
Even the simple act of typing a harmless word into a search engine can have us unwittingly being ushered onto a porn site or some other site with equally dubious connotations.
It seems that wherever we turn there are dangers lurking in the shadows of cyberspace, ready to pounce upon us at the first sign of weakness.
I do not pretend to know all the answers. Some may argue that total censorship is the only way forward while others may claim that this action is taking away people's right to freedom of speech, and that a more subdued and softly softly approach is appropriate.
What I know for certain is that things can not go on as they are. At the moment 'anything goes' as far as the internet is concerned and this is morally unacceptable. Day by day these vile and vicious web sites spit out their venom, unconcerned about the age or sensitivity of their quarry,relentless and ruthless in their quest to force their contemptible and disgusting views and opinions forcefully down the throats of the innocent or unwary.
I feel that internet censorship is quite important issue, But for me there are alot of aspects that can be covered by these words.
I feel that they are really important when you have young kids, to keep them protected, as you never really know who is out there, and who they are pretending to be, or not to be as is sometimes the case. You still want to give your child privacy, but you want to make sure that they are safe at the same time.
I know when I was younger and I was using the internet, if I was talking to someone on a chat room or anything like that, I would always minimise the page so that they couldnt see what I was writing, it wasnt for the fact there was anything dodgy going on, it was just that I wanted my privacy, looking back it really made me look like I was up to something but that was not the case.
I also think that there needs to be censorship around certain words that may appear to be innocent to a child but when it is typed into a search it brings up the most shocking of adult sites. I have heard that there are certain things on your browser that you can change so that some words etc can be blocked, but I am not too sure how these are set up or if they even work.
Sites such as Ebay and Ebuyer have some form of censorship, but i think that this needs to be tightened, as there are alot of things being sold on them that really shouldnt be, for example illegal games. This being said there are also alot of sites out there that allow you to download films before they are even released, albeit illegal to do this bu they do exsist.
So in my opinion some internet censorships are great but some really need to be tightened up, for all of our sakes.
Obviously the Internet has masses of benefits beyond which anyone ever guessed or expected. Every day brings new information, advice and much more, and it's revolutionised the world.
However, like with anything, any extreme is bad and internet censorship is becoming more of a feature. It's a fine balance, and already some countries such as China have very heavy censorship of the Internet and numerous amounts of banned content and websites.
I personally think that it's a very difficult issue to consider, and it's definitely one of those contentious topics where you are never going to please everyone one, and perhaps not even the majority. So should people be left to decide what is suitable viewing and usage of the Internet? To some degree, I think yes. A lot of it is common sense, such as not posting pictures of your children half naked, but some of it is dangerous information in the wrong hands. For example, terrorism ideas and tips and such are becoming more widespread, which encourages shall we say the 'weaker' elements of societies. And recently there was a massive forum shut down where people bought and sold others' credit card details. Even online shopping which seems relatively harmless is a way for companies to buy and sell information about you without any effort. If you have a credit report, then it's pretty much guaranteed that your name, address and telephone number is being sold around, and the Internet has just increased that.
Lots of web providers and virus protection companies offer 'Parental Controls' to protect children - but what about adults? I think it would be a good idea to trial specifically designed and intense blocking of specific sites for convicted criminals, which could be expanded to cover different kinds of crimes and help people's peace of mind.
Overall, I think some Internet Censorship is a good thing, because although knowledge and information can be a fantasitc thing, it can also be fatal in the wrong hands. I would like to see more specific and better, more consistent rules put into place so everyone knows where they stand.
Surely the Internet is just a large space full of bad stuff? Yes it can be.
When the Internet launched many moons ago it was considered a revelation, and in my view it still is. Certainly doom mongers will state that the Internet is the death of the high street, and perhaps it is. I know that normally I end up buying Cds, Dvds and so on online, as they are so much cheaper than down the street. I know online they don't have the same overheads as the high street, but i do go for the cheapest. After all we all got to watch the pennies!
I would say years ago the Internet was a worse place to be. Even if you went on an innocent site looking at innocent things, then you would get a pop up with half naked women, men, sleazy captions, chat rooms advertising extras and so on. When I first opened up my Hotmail account I also kept getting innocent looking e-mails such as "free tickets to hit tv shows" and so on, and when I would open the e-mail it was again offering me free access to adult only websites.
So do we need censorship? Yes I think so. Unfortunately since the Internet is such a vast space, i'm not sure how effective it would be to police the space, as it bring the phrase "needle in a haystack" to light. Just look at the illegal music sites. I remember the days of Napster and Morpheus. They were illegal, lasted a good while, were shut down and a couple more were opened up in their place. Even now although we shouldn't download the latest Britney Album, or Beverley Hills Chihuahua, it is easy to find things like this if you have a quick look.
A great site that should be censored could be e-bay. What's wrong with e-bay? Well you can buy a fake handbag, children, the latest films, illegal software and so on. Surely e-bay should police the site? Well after all if they were to remove listings then they would lose money and why would they want to do that?
The Internet is a great place to find out what you need to know, but I think a good censorship would be if a site was to be using certain words then it should be checked to make sure what it is advertising is what it is.
I do think it would be a really hard thing to do, but I don't want to be surrounded by nude sites when I don't want to be!
Censorship is one of those issues which tends to raise quite passioned opinions from those who see the need to protect peoples freedom of expression to those who believe the most vulnerable minds in society need protecting from some deviant messages or opinions that exist.
The internet was touted as the last place where true freedom of expression existed but even today with the announcement that Glasgow police have been scouring sites like Bebo and myspace looking for gang members with pictures of them carrying weapons as part of their crack down on knife crime. You might have freedom of expression but it can still also land you in front of the courts people.
In my opinion there is definately a need for censorship on the internet otherwise it can be a place to ferment extremist views and opinions like those held by far right groups, interestingly one of those far right groups the BNP had their membership list published on the internet and they sort to censor this using the very European privacy laws that they object to politically. That just goes to show you the sort of hypocrites these people are with their blinkered ignorant attitudes, personally I believe it was wrong to publish this list however a part of me is glad to see police officers and prison warders being exposed as they have no place in such positions of authority.
When it comes to extreme political views that advocate violence or the depraved pornographic acts that sites host on teh web such as child abuse then it is only right that some form of censorship exists on the internet.
I think you would be hard pressed to find anybody stupid enough to believe that there should not be some form on censorship in society and certainly the internet is a pace much in need os some form of censorship on it especially as increasingl younger and younger children are seeing it as a normal product that you go to for many things, research for school work, to chat to your friends and to explore new applications for technology, sometimes even I find it hard to remember a time when the internet was not such a significant part of my life, the South Park episode where the internet fails and there is a Grapes of Wrath spoof exodus to California is something that was very funny but also partially believable.
Anyone doing even the most innocent sounding google search is likely to encounter web sites promoting pornagraphic acts that have no place on the internet, sure youcan block such sites with some software tools but there is a definate need to prevent the most depraved material getting onto the screens of many vulnerable people in society.
I also find that those with extremist views make use of the internet to spread their evil opinions whether they be religious intolerance, racist comments or homophobic opinions there is no place for such opinions in a morally correct thinking society which has respect for the different people who make up society. It is for these reasons that censorship is justified.
Censorship exists on Dooyoo as a means to regulate the sae and to make it a better place for everyone, those who try to cheat the system with copied or uncceptable opinions hae their work deleted and their accounts removed, comments that are abusive, sexist or offensive can als be censored which is a good thing as well after all such comments can reflect on both the members and more importantly the business.
When there is a lot of information flow, the question of censorship arise. But now adays, there is a lot of emphasis on all access to information and freedom of speech. Internet has to face the same issues. There are sites that our parents don't want us to see, some that our government doesn't want us to see and some that our boss thinks are not for us.
I think instead of implementing censorship, the users should be encouraged to view the right media and not view the not right media. But again, the criteria for deciding what is right and what is wrong is very vague.
The new generation is very smart. They can by pass ip blocks by using proxy servers and can by pass filtering software. The only effective way would be to create an awareness among the users about whats wrong and whats right for them because after all, they are the crowd affected.
There is a lot of fear about the possibility of censoring the internet, particularly when people hear about the great firewall of china. In practice, a system as big as this cannot work as intended, because it has to be constantly updated to stop the latest ways around things that people have found. The reason that it is most successful in China is that most people are either too afraid or unwilling to pay and get around it. The importance of the internet for freedom of expression is absolutely vital and the citizen journalism as seen on the internet means that no matter how hard they try major news companies and Rupert Murdoch cannot control all information out there which means in turn that the influence they have on government is fortunately reduced. However, it is also true that the internet opens up all sorts of criminal opportunities and sometimes censorship is necessary to stop them.
Internet is freedom. The Internet has surely helped to change the world. I cannot think of my life without Internet. My social life is partly depending on the Internet, and, more importantly, I gather form the Internet plenty of relevant information for my job and also book my holidays and stuff.
Plus we have Dooyoo on the Internet!
However, freedom can be misused, freedom can be abused, and also freedom is never 100% freedom, otherwise it would be anarchy.
There are situations where I think we should be happy if censorship occurs. I am thinking about websites with images of children being sexually abused, and off course, wesbites where mad priests preach hate against our country.
I therefore conclude that whenever the content of the Internet is against the public or endangers other people, we should censor it.
It may sound too harsh, but we need to mantain a certain degree of control on the Internet.
Internet has virtually no censorship. People and companies can set up servers in any country in the world. Some undemocratic countries practice censorship. Most and all the countries in Europe and America don't put any restrictions unless something is totally against the laws of nations and could be used to cause damage.
There are sites which promote terrorism and anyone can access them. There are porn sites which could be accessed by any age and there are sites which are set up to do fraud.
There is lot of bad stuff out there on the net and Authorities find it very difficult to regulate internet because internet has no borders.
I admire the way internet has changed the world. Freedom of speech has gone a long way and even countries like China are changing. People all over the world even during the hard times are using internet as a tool to let the rest of the world know what is happening to average citizen in places like Iraq.
Overall internet is a good thing. I don't thing it should be censored despite the abuse of freedom by some people and organisations. This is a small prize to pay to maintain the greatness of the net.
I do not think that much can be done to censorship the Internet. Yes China are doing a great deal and Yahoo had to accept China's rules and hand over data on so called dissidents, but in the long run I think that the Internet is such a thing, that it will not be possible to censor the WHOLE of it.
Yes they can shut down Youtube in Pakistan because there were a couple of cartoons with the Prophet scratching his bullocks and God knows what else, but the images go around by email, and the result of shutting down Youtube is that now everybody In Pakistan know about them. They even have some videos with naked women.
The Internet cannot be controlled in the same way you control the press. It can be monitored, to a very large extent kept under vigilance, but it is hard to prevent the unwanted content to eventually filter through.
Much for the censor efforts to keep "bad" content away!
The internet is a vast place and exists as one of the greatest sources of information. As well as being informative, the internet also has offensive, racist and pornographic sites that are unacceptable. Over the last few years, the internet has grown considerably with modern day sites taking over people's lives. When surfing the internet, it is imminent that you will come across a site that contains aggressive or explicit material. The big question that remains to this day is: Should the internet be controlled and censored? This idea brings up many topics, both good and bad as the internet can be seen in a positive light or negative one.
On the negative idea of extreme pornography such as rape, torture and necrophilia, this has strongly been considered to be illegal to possess. In 2003 after the murder of Jane Longhurst by a man who claimed to have an obsession with internet pornography, the family campaigned to make the laws stricter. They have gained support and possession of this 'extreme' pornography as termed by the government, may well be illegal in the near future. Horrific sites that depict children performing sexual actions are sick and shouldn't exist at all. Sites such as these may promote paedophilia and more severe problems such as the murder case of Jane Longhurst.
On the contrary, it is true that the majority of people aren't paedophiles, so we are talking about the bare minimum. Perhaps the more worrying thing is that anyone has access to such sites, meaning children themselves could reach this material. Children are not old enough to understand any of this material. For everyone else, pornographic material portrays women as sex objects rather than people with normal characteristics. The more worrying problem is popular well-known sites that everyone visits with offensive material on it.
YouTube is a fine example of this. The site contains many bias beliefs towards groups and more. There have also been some extreme cases with YouTube playing a key part in some tremendous crimes. An example of this is when one man posted a video on YouTube rather like a plan for his mission, which was to cause harm and commit suicide. He shot things depicting them as people's heads being very personal, producing a rather terrifying tone to the video. Days later, he went on a rampage killing several people before committing suicide himself. He used YouTube as a way to get known and gain attention, which he mentioned in his video. However, you can label these people as crazy themselves, and just making use of such websites to act how they naturally are. After all, YouTube doesn't allow videos containing pornographic, extremely offensive or unsuitable material. Censoring videos on sites such as these would have to be done manually rather than by computer as content may be deceiving by titles or descriptions.
The question that props up from this is 'who would censor the internet?' With the internet being a worldwide service, it would be hard to decide upon who should control it. Whether it was government officials from different countries or from the United States, there is bound to be disputes upon who would censor the internet. There are countless sites out there, and I feel there will always be a way round if the internet was controlled and censored. However, countries are finding ways to control the internet as Nate Anderson quotes - 'When internet user's think of government censorship, they often think of China, which runs the world's largest filtering operation. But Iran's not far behind and a recent spate of new blocks have now cut off access to Wikipedia, the Movie Database, YouTube and Amazon for most Iranians.' Despite China claiming they don't censor the internet at all, Harvard Law School found 19,032 Web sites that were inaccessible inside China. This is proof that the ability to censor the internet is possible, but is it really worth it?
For many people, the answer is simply no. The main thing to concern is that controlling and censoring the internet is invasion of people's privacy. If emails were to be censored or modern-day instant messaging applications such as Windows Microsoft Messenger, hell could break loose! The internet is an important source of information, and is also a form of entertainment with websites featuring hobbies, selling products and uniting communities. The internet is also educational with sites devoted to learning. However, one thing you will find on almost every internet site is adverts. Some of these are disgraceful because they promote things such as debt and gambling. Websites advertising gambling entices you into joining up and trying it out. All these websites do is take away people's money. What are worse are the countless adverts giving help with debt by offering loans. All these do is get people into more debt and promote the lending of money, which is bad.
In conclusion, the censoring of the internet can be seen as correct, however it arises many problems at the same time. The internet contains offensive and unsuitable material for many that shouldn't exist. However, not everyone is a paedophile, pervert or hater; in fact these numbers are minimal. The internet is seen as a way of communication, receiving news and also as a form of entertainment. If the internet was controlled and censored, then who would do it? This idea could raise many disputes and the action of controlling the internet is an invasion to personal privacy in itself.
Thanks for reading,
- Recon -