News Cameron to announce block-by-default web filters

I don't mind filtered water though it's not really a coalition is it the conservative say jump and the liberals say which way sir

 

So when the question is asked by default to either accept or reject filtering are the devices put on different physical networks ? when you choose to have the filter on a particular device do you pay extra for that, or are the costs involved payed for by everyone else who isn't raising your children.

Hardly biased, you only have to look at the amount of both over and under blocking to see how ineffectual and dangerous it is. You admit your self to having an uncaring view of the filter so is it you that is totally biased, as you don't care that we have given control of the internet to the very people that want to restrict what information is available to people.
And unlike you, because i do care, i take the time to read a great deal about censorship creep and the impact that filtering information has on people, and then base my view on that.

So based on the very limited sample size of 1 person who doesn't care what private company's deem is suitable or unsuitable, i wouldn't call that fact, i would call that living in ignorance.
And like i have said just because you say no, does not mean you avoid the filtering systems and does not mean you are not having to pay for other peoples apathy.

That is until what the government deems to be extremists expands to encompass simple protest groups like tax justice organisation UK Uncut, BNP or UKIP, all of whom have been labelled extremist by some.
But then i forget that you don't care what gets blocked, well that is until it happens to target a majority rather than the minority that you don't care about.

The actual monetary cost involved is irrelevant as we don't need to know how much it costs, just that we are having to pay for a ineffectual and dangerous scheme, and that we wouldn't have had such a large increase in annual cost if they didn't have to pay for it somehow.

You don't, people who live in flood risk areas pay more.
And putting your obvious political bias aside we pay higher taxes for many more reasons than your rather simplistic view of the world.

 

1) no idea, nor do I care, yet. If I can still access my bank account, emails, gaming, and BT forums, I'm alright.
2) not yet, nor do I know of impending price increases from BT.
3) I don't think BT have increased their prices to pay for a filter, I'm unclear on that. Likewise you are unclear how much, if any, of that 6.7% is paying for the evil filtering at VM.

1) is it blocking a much higher majority of targeted websites than accidentally blocking the wrong ones? I am guessing yes. Do the errors get ironed out? Yes. Was it ever going to work without issues? No.
2) take a breath, relax a little. This world was built by rapists, murderers, thieves, fraudsters. Our kindness towards one another develops at a much slower rate than our inventions, technology and sciences - until our kindness and mindsets develop to truly incorporate a free world, free of war, famines and illness, free of rapists, murderers, thieves and fraudsters - then we just have to roll with the punches. You are powerless. You cannot take control of the world from the people who built it. Just enjoy what it is and what you have got. Be grateful and enjoy yourself. Build a happy and content life for you and your family. The tinfoil hat is reserved for when it hasn't happened yet.
3) You are scaremongering and picking and choosing your media hyperbole to create a little podium for yourself. You read something that supports your hatred of this filtering, and then post it here. You don't read and educate yourself. You just fuel your desire to hate and feel an emotion that makes you warm and fuzzy inside. Much like the feeling I get responding to you!

1) I explained to you how it works with BT and me, based on my experience of their system - and you say that isn't good enough? Ok.
2) don't care. Labour has cost pensions, investors, The Workers (love that union BS), public sector promises and lies; much more than a lifetime of broadband costs. The filtering we have already addressed - it's no biggie - yet.

1) really?! Go outside, look up at the sun (if you can find it today amongst the clouds), close your eyes, focus on your breathing. Come back inside after 20 minutes of doing that, and realise how far you are taking this debate.
2) we already talked about errors being corrected, and extremist sites - don't care. Etc.

1) it's irrelevant since you cannot produce the figures to back up your original apocalyptic claim.
2) says you.
3) oh, there you go again. Facts? Figures?

1) you sure about that? I was fairly (unfactually) sure the knock on effect of an insurance company suddenly getting raped by a load of flooded customers means that all premiums take a little hit long-term?
2) you are right of course, I am politically biased. You don't put a drunken teenager back in charge of driving a car-load of kids around, after he has taken a corner too fast; rolled the car several times; killed and seriously maimed his passengers. That is Labour. They took out a self-assessment mortgage based on future expected windfalls of cash - then scuttled out of the limelight (denying the holocaust as they went) when it all went to ****. Yeah, let's be thankful and get them back in - because they say they are no longer drunk ... MmmmmK!

As for the "we pay more taxes" than my "simplistic view of the world" comment.

You win. I might find some connection with you if you stuck to posting actual facts that negatively affect me. But otherwise, I look forward to your next media frenzied posting.

 

Actually it's more like:

Conservatives: "Lick my boots"
Lib Dems: "Your boots taste delicious, sir"

 

Lol it's ironic really the Libs was so desperate to get into power they gave all their power up by joining with the Conservatives

 

For someone who freely admits they don't care, you seem to have a lot to say the subject.
Maybe you should go put your head back in the sand and let the people who do care, stand up for your rights so you can continue to live in your blinkered world.

Or is it just that you prefer to de-rail a thread for your own political grand standing, maybe you should climb back under that bridge over there.

 

I don't think forum_user is being political here. He has some valid comments. You know that I certainly don't share his views on the need or effectiveness of filtering, or its insusceptibility to political abuse, but let's keep perspective and stick with the facts, and not get all ad hominem on each other's asses.

 

And you are free to think what you like, but so far forum_user has been the only one to use a thread about block-by-default web filters to stand on his soap box so he can take the opportunity to grandstand his political views, proclaim he doesn't care, accuse people of scaremongering, of not reading or educating them selves and accuse others of hyperbole.

Anyone would think forum_user is sowing discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, or in other words being a troll.

 

I'm sorry, forum_user is being a troll for disagreeing with you (us)?

I'm sorry, byt that is BS. You (reasonably) commented on the political dimension of this issue right from the start, and posted a link to an e-petition in post #43. From there on your argument has been not just about the effectiveness of the filter, but also how it interferes with freedom of information, the right to privacy (in that sites visited are logged) and the potential for political abuse. All very valid arguments, no problem there.

forum_user did not join the debate until post #211, and his stance throughout has been that as a concerned parent he thinks it is good for the kids, that the filter is reasonably effective and that the potential for political abuse is exaggerated. I do not get the impression that his argument is a political one. I think that he just happens to have an opinion which disagrees with ours. That does not make him a troll.

 

As long as you can disabled it then I don't see the issue.
I think TalkTalk switched on "HomeSafe" by default a few years back.
2 clicks and it's off no biggie.

 

Sowing discord by starting arguments or upsetting people is a long way from politely disagreeing with someone. You see I'm about to disagree with you, but notice how I'm going to do it without resulting to emotive attacks, accusations or disrespecting you (i hope).

I fail to understand why posting an e-petition would be considered political grand standing as both main party's have said they support this block-by-default web filters, IIRC forum_user has been the first person to use this thread as a platform to show his disdain for one particular party.

 

Sorry, but having re-read all forum_user's posts in this thread (you owe me 10 minutes of my life), I still don't see how he was starting arguments, upsetting people or engaging in political grand-standing. The only political comments he made was that Labour was not any better than the Tories are now. And he would be kind of correct on that one.

 

Greetings!

Ok, so I am curious.
Is this internet filtering being discussed by the common UKer? Or just by tech people?

 

In reality very few non-geeks give much of a toss. There are substantially bigger problems in the world and most people prefer to concentrate on those.

Not saying that's the right approach, just that from my experience it isn't a hot topic whatsoever.

 

To clarify my stance in all tech debates regarding politics - I don't start with a political view regarding tech. However when I see a poster blaming the Conservatives, or the Liberals, or the Coalition of being evil-doers, then I react accordingly. Seems it's all too easy for posters to bring in politics with regards personal freedoms etc, except try looking as far back as the Blair/Bush years. It isn't party politics - it's the same decisions made by different politicians.

 

So you wouldn't consider this post and this one, where he says "I am politically biased" as political grand-standing, and using forum_user's own words creating a little podium for himself ?
As for starting an argument and or upsetting people, would this post do, where he admits that he doesn't care about the subject being discussed and only post here because "It is entertaining me", or how about this one where he accuses me of scaremongering, hyperbole, creating a little podium, that I'm not reading or educating myself, or that "you just fuel your desire to hate and feel an emotion that makes you warm and fuzzy inside. Much like the feeling I get responding to you

Sorry please do show me this post that i made, where i blamed a particular political party.
Or would you just be imagining things ?

 

I'm not sure you did make any statements regarding the coalition or anyone else - maybe that is why I didn't accuse you of doing it?!

However, I do know that SOMEONE or even a few people (whoever that may be, I don't care right now) has suggested the filters and loss of freedoms is party political based, ie. those pesky blues, it's all their fault. Am I trawling through the thread to find my evidence - heck no.

Know what I did this beautiful morning? Fixed the puncture on my bike. Got on it. Rode down to the river bridge. Raised my gaze up towards the sun. Stood there for 10 minutes with my eyes shut. soaking in the red heat. Finally, I opened my eyes to find the happy hormones had kicked in!

I highly recommend it.

 

No, I wouldn't.

He is basically saying that you are as emotionally involved in this debate as he is (see bold). And yeah, we basically debate on these forums for fun (I mean, why else would we do so?).

You are blaming the government, which de facto is the Tory/Lib-Dem coalition. There is nothing wrong with that, like there is nothing wrong with forum_user arguing that Labour (would have) acted the same.

Now you know that I mostly agree with you on this whole issue, but I like to argue from fact and logic, and avoid ad nominee slanging matches. forum_user's political views or personal reasons for taking part in this thread have nothing to do with the facts and logic of the case.

 

I think maybe I need to spend more time explaining myself; a common issue of mine. And if you agree that I could explain myself better, you should meet my missus. Jesus!

True.

As for the previous accusations of trolling (thanks for the defence!) - people need to be reminded of what a troll is. Commenting on the content of a poster's post is not trolling. Nor is commenting on the emotions or attitudes that a poster might post with. Bickering, and badly debating is not trolling either.

 

So even when told...

You still don't see this as turning a thread about block-by-default web filters into a podium for him to espouse his views on a particular party.

No. He posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in order to fuel his desire to hate and feel an emotion that makes him warm and fuzzy inside.

No. I am arguing that a block-by-default web filter is a bad idea on so many levels. In fact i have even said in other thread that it doesn't matter who you vote for because Labour support the exact same thing, i have also posted details either in this thread or another on the same subject that the Lib-Dems may save us from this block-by-default web filter.

And what you describe forum_user doing is the accepted definition of a troll.
And why i ignored the majority of this post as it is plainly obvious he is posting inflammatory, extraneous or off-topic messages.

Yes they do need to be reminded, here let me help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

So while you are party correct by saying commenting on the content of a poster's post is not trolling.
Accusing someone of biased, not based on facts, scaremongering, take a breath, relax a little, picking and choosing media hyperbole, creating a little podium, don't read and educate yourself, don't care, media frenzied posting.
Maybe if you dropped the inflammatory posting and stuck to the facts we could have a grown up debate on the subject, but all the time your post contain inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic, i will see you the generally accepted definition of a troll.