David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

Post by will_asouka » Mon, Jul 22, 2013, 5:59 PM UTC

will_asouka wrote: post #135

> "I have a very clear message for Google, Bing, Yahoo and the rest. You have a duty to act on this – and it is a moral duty. If there are technical obstacles to acting on [search engines], don't just stand by and say nothing can be done; use your great brains to help overcome them. >"You're the people who have worked out how to map almost every inch of the Earth from space; who have developed algorithms that make se…

Post by marshray » Mon, Jul 22, 2013, 7:03 PM UTC

bigiain wrote: post #215

marshray wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not possible for anyone to block access to https://www.google.com/?q=specific+thing over a long period of time without either custom modifications to every affected client or help from Google itself. Google's long rocky experience with China proves exactly that.

Not at a 100% level, but we know the Chinese government (and I suspect the UK government) are capable of deploying faked google.com SSL certs which'll pass unnoticed by just about anyone who's not using a certificate-pinning version of Chrome. And China(/Iran/Egypt) clearly has national-border level firewalls capable of using such faked SSL certs to MITM and deep packet inspect entire countries worth of internet traf…

Post by anigbrowl » Mon, Jul 22, 2013, 11:19 PM UTC

Udo wrote: post #337

Sven7 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have kids? If it offends your sensibilities censorship is always an option :)

Saying this is about offended sensibilities constitutes a gross and cheap misrepresentation of my argument, but it's also interesting that you're pro censorship when the government does it for dubious reasons, and at the same time you cry foul when someone complains about your methods on a private forum. Again, this is not necessarily about the opinions you're expressing, it's about your "commenting" style. Filtering…

Post by Udo » Tue, Jul 23, 2013, 1:12 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #355

Udo wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying this is about offended sensibilities constitutes a gross and cheap misrepresentation of my argument, but it's also interesting that you're pro censorship when the government does it for dubious reasons, and at the same time you cry foul when someone complains about your methods on a private forum. Again, this is not necessarily about the opinions you're expressing, it's about your "commenting" style. Filtering…

Surely you can see the irony is your expression of the hope that the user is banned.

Post by Udo » Tue, Jul 23, 2013, 1:50 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #358

Udo wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell me why people like Sven7 get away with pretty much any lazy rhetoric, including literally repeating the same senseless 4 word question several times in lieu of writing a real post? How is it that when he complained about my desire to "censor" him for spamming the thread nobody reminded him of the irony of being a staunch supporter of government censorship? Honestly, tell me how this works. Look at his behavior i…

It's not fine, that's why his repeated cheap shots about 'do you have kids' were removed. On the other hand, two wrongs don't make a right - the notion of permanently banning him from participating doesn't make a lot of sense either.