In this page of Associated Press they are mention something related to copyright infringement but for You Tube.
The article is only 7 hours old.
Google discloses demands for censorship, user data
Printable View
In this page of Associated Press they are mention something related to copyright infringement but for You Tube.
The article is only 7 hours old.
Google discloses demands for censorship, user data
For members interested in following up what it is going on in the internet including censorship the Berkman Centre at Harvard University have a very good site with a lot of documentation.
Cheers
this said censorship was due to "Reasons include violations of Google's own policies regarding extreme violence, profanity and hate speech."Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucaro
But who defines hate speech. For example Roman Catholics define a book called Great Controversy by Ellen White as hate against the Catholic Church.
If this best selling book, 30 million copies sold, is defined as hate, would it be removed from the internet so you could not read it to make up your own mind. I did find an online copy several years ago.
This article also said:--
"After Brazil, the most requests to edit material came from Germany, at 188. The country has laws that restrict the online display of content connected to the Nazi regime."
So we should not research the Nazi regime for ourselves from original sources, but can only learn what others want us to know from their books.
I'm totally against censorship BUT you could hardly call the internet an original source.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnF
The internet is not "an original source" - it is a communications channel, which in fact does allow you to access quite a few original sources - increasing every day. (for example, most current or recent scientific research is on the internet and in some cases a lot of older research - for example, virtually all geophysical research ever published is available. Admittedly, some of this is behind a paywall, but a lot isn't)Quote:
Originally Posted by VladTepes
But a key problem with much "original research" today, which does not, in my view, receive adequate recognition, is the attitude "if it isn't on the internet, it doesn't exist". A prime example is in today's thread on influential cars, where someone gave the Cord as the first US front wheel drive car - the one that is appears not to have made it to the internet, or at least not to Wikipedia and is not in the first couple of pages of Google. But I do have a print reference to it. Actually, there is a good chance that my print reference has actually been scanned and is available, but not as searchable text.
John
"Someone" eh? :p :)Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
I'd actually read that years ago in an old fashionedbook, but of course that also doesn't mean it's true. The author of the wiki articl emight have read the same book as me for all we know.
Anyway that's a good point of clarification John, cheers.
On the censorship issue:
http://media.apnonline.com.au/img/ne...udd-l_t325.jpg
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...010/04/476.jpg
http://www.chairmanrudd.com/pics/conroybook03eo2.jpg
It certainly happens. I read that during the current troubles inThailand the Thai Government has shut down more than 150 websites, including some popular online Thai news sites. Australia could be next.
Dear Mr censor, if you are reading this post, please buzz off!
Even if it is not original sources, it will sometimes reference original sources where you can track down references to look up elsewhere. And the net has historical photos, etc., as text is not the only thing a researcher may be after. Also on the net I can find things like the Encyclopedia Britannica, etc., which would be considered sound reference material.
I do have a 1911 edition encyclopedia Britannica [also online], considered by many the Scholars edition. However a certain religious organisation did no like some of the historical articles in the 1911AD Encyclopedia Britannica, as these did not agree with what she claimed history teaches, so she purchased Encyclopedia Britannica, and changed that history.
What if she convinces Kevin Rudd to ban the 1911 online version, to only teach us what she wants taught?
Censorship is a difficult thing for any society to grapple with.
Essentially censorship is the imposition upon society of a certain section of society's beliefs about what is appropriate for that society to have access to.
Censorship is everywhere, and it is often not obvious. For instance, political correctness is a form of censorship. Preventing the teaching of (you name it - creation, evolution, certain religious expressions, sexual preferences, etc etc,) in schools is a form of censorship. Banning the displays of nativity scenes is a form of censorship. Banning the wearing of headscarves is a form of censorship. Banning displays of public nudity is a form of censorship. Banning the viewing of child pornography is a form of censorship. Even having a policy of no censorship is a form of censorship, if you think about it for a minute! It imposes the view of one part of society upon another. And we can go on ad infinitum.
Quite obviously some forms of censorship are essential for society to be able to operate properly. There has to be a standard operating within a society, or it becomes anarchic. So all societies censor in some form or another - there is no way they cannot. So the real question then becomes 'What censorship is appropriate for a society? And who decides? On what basis?' That is the difficulty!
That is really difficult in a pluralistic society, but there is always an ongoing attempt at it or our society will soon disintegrate. Finding enough common ground within a society to agree on what should and shouldn't be censored is the trick. That will always be an area of conflict and tension in any society.
There are no easy answers. I think Rudd's and Conroy's idea of censoring the internet, tho well intentioned, is unworkable. I think that the censorship there is the responsibility of parents teaching their children to self censor.
No easy answers, but an ongoing commitment of a society to have standards that work.
Willem
The Encyclopædia Britannica, 1911 Ed. is not considered scholarly in events like the assassination of the Arch Duke Ferdinande, the October Revolution, The Great War, the Versailles Treaty 1919, League of Nations, Sino Japan War, Wall Street Crash, The great Depression, the Weimar Republic, appeasement, anschluss, Invasion of Poland, Operation barbarossa, Atlantic Conference, Japanese Pearl Harbour attack, Wannsee conference, invention of the programmable computer, Tehran Conference, Manhattan Project, Yalta Conference, Potsdam Declaration, Trinity test, dropping of "Little Boy", the Marshall Plan, the Macarthur Plan, Korean Police Action, Rock N Roll, Bay of Pigs, invention of the microprocessor, assassination of JFK, Apollo program, Détente, Woodstock festival, sacking of the Whitlam Governemnt, Assassination of John Lennon, development of the internet, etc etc etc in fact in the absence of all those facts the 1911 edition looks pretty pale as a scholarly reference today.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnF