I dont think it would be fair to say 'filtering will make mistakes so
dont use them', because that argument would therefore logically extend
your morality to 'police make mistakes, so get rid of them'
also this thread should be in slug-chat.
Dean
Rev Simon Rumble wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Kyle wrote:
Is this possibly for real?
Yes. Our political overlords realise it will cost a fortune, will slow
down our internets and won't work. They're being successfully wedged by
the shrill wowsers like Hetty Johnstone that being anti-filtering is
equivalent to being pro kiddy porn.
Our job is to get across why it's a bad idea, and most importantly that
it won't work: it will not prevent bad people from viewing bad things,
but it will block innocuous things. Of course we're told it won't be
used to block unpalatable political ideas. Like the terrorism laws
that would never be used on peaceful protesters.
Does anyone here have any insight pls?
http://nocleanfeed.com/
--
http://fragfest.com.au
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
