I would add a rider to this argument. Innovation can't be assumed to come from existing "business" entities. So making an argument that businesses can be safely left outside filters whilst filtering into the rest of the userbase has zero or low cost for UK wealth generation interests is wrong.
To broaden the scope for innovation and economic inclusion means promoting an open Internet to maximise connectivity for all users in the UK. Christian On 2 May 2012, at 13:05, Graeme Fowler wrote: > On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 12:07 +0100, Marcus Taylor wrote: >> Slippery slope, thin wedge - call it what you like - the net result is >> this is a backward step for this industry. > > s/industry/country/ > > HMG are very keen to make policy decisions based on "what is good for > business is good for the country". Here's a lobbying point to consider: > > If it is perceived to be relatively easy[0] to go before a judge and > request blocking (in whatever technical way is currently flavour of the > month) of certain types of content such that the general public can no > longer access said content in a trivial way, then it is a small step to > apply that in patent disputes and other commercial disagreements. > > Censorship of the type handed down by the High Court is likely to damage > the confidence of international businesses to operate in the UK, rather > than provide confidence in those operations. > > Graeme > > [0] For "relatively easy" read "if you're a large enough organisation > with immense amounts of cash". > > >
