tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post4770710900494464159..comments2023-10-23T09:51:37.441-05:00Comments on Blog of Pro-Porn Activism: Update: "Free But Porn-Free" Wireless Internet Plan Stalled By FCCRenegade Evolutionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17905949172886730262noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post-51941685980192215832008-12-16T14:38:00.000-06:002008-12-16T14:38:00.000-06:00I'm not disagreeing at all with 'ya. Trin...but I ...I'm not disagreeing at all with 'ya. Trin...but I was talking about the kind of filtering software that was installed by end users at their end, not those filters installed by ISP's at the behest of government and imposed on users.<BR/><BR/>I understand fully that such filtering systems are so arbitrary and can be easily beaten by motivated and knowledgable kids, too. <BR/><BR/>Stil, all in all, I'd much prefer having individual users maintain the right to have filters in their own programs, and to have ISP's have that option given to users, rather than have the ISP or the government do the censorship for them.<BR/><BR/>I'm not so down on the use of filters in libraries (especially public libraries), where they can block out useful as well as harmless information in the process of blocking out "porn"; but that's all the more reason why we should boost home Internet usage and affordability of access.<BR/><BR/>Inexpensive but unlimited content for all will beat this system of "free yet censored" + "uncensored but out of reacy" two-tier". Now free AND uncensored, though....that would be the best, but I'm not going to wait 50 lifetimes for that to happen.<BR/><BR/><BR/>AnthonyAnthony Kennersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post-64215830515242918862008-12-16T10:27:00.000-06:002008-12-16T10:27:00.000-06:00"(Filters and other means of addressing inappropri..."(Filters and other means of addressing inappropriate and objectionable content imposed by end-users on their own computers and by parents on their own children, of course, get absolutely no opposition from me or any other fair-minded progressive.)"<BR/><BR/>Actually, I think that filters are generally quite poorly implemented. They are often set up to filter out content that I'd say most "fair-minded progressives" would consider harmless, like information about the reproductive system.<BR/><BR/>They may be necessary evils in places like school libraries, sadly, given the many ways unscrupulous spammers try to trick absolutely anyone into clicking. But I think that's a rather regrettable state of affairs.<BR/><BR/>And I think that very often, the kind of people who use NetNanny type software are the sort who want a substitute for talking to their children about the Internet and the things on it, monitoring their kids' Internet use themselves, etc.<BR/><BR/>Also, do these parents know enough about their kid and their kid's technological savvy to know whether he can circumvent the filter easily? Are they engaged enough in their kid's life to know if it's totally useless anyway?<BR/><BR/>Yeah, not so sure that's "no opposition."<BR/><BR/>Perhaps it's that I'm not a progressive? :)Trinityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06846032433424879965noreply@blogger.com