We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Yes Jimmy, ‘porn filters’ are ridiculous, but…

… this is not really about porn, other than very tangentially. And it is not even about pederasty or terrorism or any of those nasties that we tend to agree are Rather Bad Things and which get trotted out at the first sign of opposition to the rapidly coalescing Panopticon. No, it is about exactly the same things that induced the Chinese state to put the so called Great Internet Wall of China in place.

It is about political control, pure and simple, which a very substantial number of people support. Indeed most people who works in a government job think what they do is sufficiently important to justify having any information that they want about you.

So Jimmy, this is not really about porn at all.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on RedditShare on Google+Share on VK

5 comments to Yes Jimmy, ‘porn filters’ are ridiculous, but…

  • Perry Metzger (New York, USA)

    I was going to post a quote from “They Thought They Were Free” here, but it seemed more appropriate to blog it separately. It has relevance to dozens of distinct threads in the news right now — indeed, so many that it is almost impossible to keep track of all the little and large ways in which tyranny is slowly and quietly enveloping us in its suffocating blanket of “trust us, you have nothing to fear.”

  • Sam Duncan

    Exactly. If it was about porn, they wouldn’t be doing it this way (or, for that matter, at all, since there are perfectly adequate methods for filtering the stuff already).

    If I want to “protect my kids from porn” (or rather, not have to think about doing it), but also want uncensored access to the ‘net myself, what earthly use is blocking it at the ISP level to me?

    It can’t be about porn.

    However, if I’m a government who wants to control speech on the internet in the same way that I do in print and on the air, a national, mandatory, filtering infrastucture for ISPs that the majority of people can’t be arsed to opt out of is exactly what I’d want.

    Of course it’s not about porn.

  • Paul Marks

    The justification is about “porn” and “protecting the children” – but, yes, it is not really about that.

    The powerful do not want out of the “mainstream” POLITICAL speech – that is what this is really about.

  • Nick (nice-guy) Gray

    Actually, it could be about porn. Parties are big creatures, containing multitudes of members, not all of whom think exactly alike. Some parties probably contain anti-pornists, and the rest go along because its all about expanding government powers. And it always looks good on Telly! (I wonder how long before parties catch on, and only recruit TV stars as candidates?)