Comments on: Minty, fresh [CENSORED], or your money back!

Minty, fresh [CENSORED], or your money back!

cheaily — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 23:01:10 -0800

Internet nasties affecting network freshness? Try Censordyne!

The latest campaign to shine a light on the Australian Government mandatory internet filtering initiative, supported by GetUp! See also: No Clean Feed and some background to the saga on Wikipedia

By: Item

Item — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 23:16:54 -0800

Voluntary euthanasia is a good thing that should be made available to everyone on the planet. See you later, Australian Mefites!

By: Pinback

Pinback — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 23:33:16 -0800

Even the people who Think Of The Children are thinking of the children.

By: bhnyc

bhnyc — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 23:38:34 -0800

The strange thing to me is the disconnect between the Australian self-image as an easy going (small L) liberal culture and the incredible conservative reality of the place. This is a left wing government. Both left and right in Australia support extreme censorship.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 23:44:30 -0800

Does anyone think the filter will ever actually happen? Conroy has dug himself into a hole with this, and I think he's hoping people will just forget about it so he can just sort of never implement it, rather than having to publically admit he's been a total tool. The most fucked up thing, for me, is not just that censorship will take place, it's that the censorship will be based on a secret list, produced by a private organization in another country. That's just rude.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 23:46:47 -0800

This is a left wing government. Well, it's a left wing government in about the same way as Labour in the UK is a left wing government, or the Democrats in the US are a left wing party. That is to say, not really at all.

By: tellurian

tellurian — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 23:56:51 -0800

[related] and yes, we heard you the first time bhnyc.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:03:03 -0800

bhnyc, you confuse "easy going" with "small L liberal". People can be easy going, but there's no history of "civil liberties" and personal freedom, as in the US. That can be a great thing... it means Australian's are very, very happy to have relatively tight controls on gun ownership, for example. It also means that when they look at issues like this, Australians tend to be "easy going" and think "oh well, it won't affect me, no great loss". Until it does affect them, in which case the government will swiftly be torn a new arsehole.

By: cheaily

cheaily — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:09:23 -0800

Jimbob: my understanding was that ACMA was maintaining their own (un-challengable, un-regulated) blacklist. Has that changed?

By: pompomtom

pompomtom — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:09:44 -0800

This is a left wing government. Both left and right in Australia support extreme censorship. Wait, what? This is a Centrist govermnent. A Centrist government that got to be the government by nicking loads of Tory policies and attitudes. We do not have the simplistic freedom of speech system the US does. We've lived with that for a while. Just because it would contravene the US constitution does not make it 'extreme'. ...and as I always say when this issue comes up: Conroy's an idiot who's been playing along with the toys he found (left behind by a bigger idiot) when he got the office. The submissions to the previous government are still being taken seriously, even though they could be dismissed as wasted money with a cursory inspection. Anyone trying to convert the bullshit they've collected so far into legislation is going to show up, in a number of ways, how broken the original plan was (you should see they dance around the issue of ssh). So, 'extreme censorship'? Well, no. Big waste of dosh: yes, certainly, but aren't we all about Keynesian stimulus these days?

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:21:28 -0800

cheaily, the blacklist will be a combination of the ACMA one (for sites that a scary specifically for Australians), and the IWF one (for sites that are cause for more general moral outrage).

By: harriet vane

harriet vane — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:31:03 -0800

I always like GetUp's parody ads - the clean coal one was good too. Does anyone know who writes them?

By: bystander

bystander — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:40:41 -0800

Irene Graham is the expert on opposing this. She has cataloged every duplicitous contradiction all the way through.

By: turgid dahlia

turgid dahlia — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:45:52 -0800

Guess I'll just have to import all my websites from overseas, the same way I import all my music, films, games and books from overseas. By which I mean, pirate.

By: turgid dahlia

turgid dahlia — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 02:01:31 -0800

Uh, as opposed to importing from the same place I already am, I guess.

By: nonspecialist

nonspecialist — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 05:38:55 -0800

By: tellurian

tellurian — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 08:43:38 -0800

There's little to no chance the filter will get implemented in the current infrastructure; but with the proposals for the NBN (National Broadband Network) going full steam ahead, I have to wonder whether a key component will include a choke point just right for slotting in something like, say, a filter ... If the NBN goes ahead, my money is on iinet and the stance that they have consistently maintained. They (in my experience, both business and residential) are very transparent. They have dropped in and out of government trials when they feel that compromises are expected and have strongly attacked the government's internet filtering plan. I would be suprised, nay, highly surprised if they employed any sort of filter implementation.

By: d-no

d-no — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:24:11 -0800

When Beazley first pitched the idea, it was optional. Somewhere along the line it was twisted into a mandatory filter. I really hope GetUp's campaign gets more traction than the NoCleanFeed campaign seems to have gotten to date.