> On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Matthew Gaylor wrote: > > >As I thought of "carnivore" I reflexively mentioned that the real > >threat doesn't lie with the FBI, but rather with the filtering that > >goes on in our schools and libraries. Censorware has got to be one > >of the most Orwellian concepts yet implemented. Not only does the > >software not work as advertised, but when it does work it frequently > >filters out information of a political nature. > > Fuck. > > That one word assures that this email will never be read by anyone > who lives behind such a filter. You know for a second I thought you were referring to the word "censorware", I think that's on the filter list too. ha. > I believe in the right of people to filter their own feeds however > the hell they want. Laws requiring them to do so are utterly > ridiculous and oppressive. Yep! If you don't trust your kids to use the internet, don't leave them unsupervised around it. (Evidently, a lot of people think whining for the state to take care of them is the better option...nothing new there I guess.) I don't have a problem with individual libraries choosing to have a special section of filtered computers for small kids, or requiring a note/call from the parents to access the regular machines. Like TV and video games, it's stupid to think of it as an electronic babysitter. But once you hit junior high it's another matter entirely. Maybe if parents did more to encourage their children to think for themselves this wouldn't even be an issue. In a way, I'm glad I was introduced to computers and basic programming without all the distractions: it's more satisfying and meaningful to really learn something rather than having a passive "point, click, and be a good consumer" experience. I'm 100% free market, but corporate commercialism is a soulkiller. > As a technical challenge, building better filterware (ie, stuff > that works) would actually be a good project. But I'd want to > release it with a license that absolutely prohibited its use in > any situation where filterware were required by law. I support > the right of people to filter their *own* pipe, not *other* > people's pipes. Nice intention, but unfortunately if a technology *can* be abused, it will. > Also, to the extent that filters bogotify your perception of the > world, using them too extensively can be damaging to your integrity > and your sanity. It's your right, of course, to become hypocritical, > or insane, or even naive, but for most it's not a pleasant mode of > being. > > Bear Amen! Even so, to a certain extent we all "filter" by what we choose not to click on. I don't spend time on Microsoft/Aol/Napster/Yahoo and never will: I find it sickening that these are the "big four", but can't see why I need to do anything about it other than keep on not clicking...Likewise, I don't read posts by certain people here because it's proven to be a complete waste of time. But I don't have a "filter file" because if the topic is interesting enough, I'd hate to miss it out of prejudice against a source. And what could be more useless than whining around about plonking somebody else's posts, just do it and shut the hell up. Life's too short! Having a real sense of curiosity about life is vital: maybe the only good thing that could come out of censorware is that it will make thoughtful and mature kids angry enough to seriously challenge the status quo. ~Faustine.
