tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs: | Freedom isn't free.
But censorship sure as hell is! |
|
expert007
join:2006-01-10
Buffalo, NY
| Content Filtered?
Sounds so un-American. Remember how some wanted Harry Potter to be removed from school libraries? Who is in charge of slapping the smut label on content?
Perhaps Guv Palin could be in charge of that, she seems to be on the straight and narrow.  |
|
Neyland
join:2003-02-04
USA | You know, anything with a *.xxx domain name... |
|
SuperJoker
join:2005-11-21
Yermo, CA
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Verizon west (ex G..
| reply to expert007
said by expert007  :Sounds so un-American. Remember how some wanted Harry Potter to be removed from school libraries? Who is in charge of slapping the smut label on content? Perhaps Guv Palin could be in charge of that, she seems to be on the straight and narrow. The religious prudes who think that something that is different is harmful, When It's their extremist views that are wrong.
--
Simple Nudity doesn't equal Sex or being Sexual in any way shape or form and is not obscene. It's the thoughts of the Religious Prude that's obscene. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  Anticipated speeds at 10 yrs pathetic
a lot can go wrong with M2Z's plan to deploy 384kbps free (content filtered) service and a $20-$30 3Mbps tier to 95% of the country in ten years. 10 yrs out even a "free" tier that only delivers 384kbps is pretty bad. And a pay tier of 3 mbps will not be competitive with LTE & Wimax rollouts taking place over the next 10 yrs.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
lvlorpheus
join:2008-02-17
Eureka Springs, AR
| reply to expert007
Re: Content Filtered?
The important thing here is that our childrens right to watch video that have people killing each other, and being able to play games where they play killing people must not be filtered.
As long as we protect everyone from looking upon the most beautiful creation of all time everything should be fine.
But wait maybe they should filter killing too. Maybe they could filter controversial opinions too.
filtering if needed should come into play at the end users location, not on the network. If the look at it the right way they make more money this way. Why have one filter for an area instead of selling a filtering device to 100's of customers. |
|
expert007
join:2006-01-10
Buffalo, NY
| I'm all for filtering what reaches my computers at home. Thats MY responsibility as a Dad. I'll make the determination what is acceptable and what isn't. Some people might find certain lyrical content offensive, is the netwerk going to screen that for me?? I hope not.... |
|
FutureMon
OW My Eyes
Premium,ExMod 2002-05
join:2000-10-05
Colorado Springs, CO
clubs:
| reply to Neyland
said by Neyland :You know, anything with a *.xxx domain name... lol... Are "they" still trying to go for that? Personally, I wouldn't mind if they did - it seems like a smart way to make filtering easy for parents and anyone who wishes to block that type of content from reaching their computer(s)...
- FM
--
Undisputed BBR Karaoke Champion! Care to challenge me? |
|
eco
Premium
join:2001-11-28
Wilmington, DE | ..
$20-30 for 3Mbps in 10 years? In 10 years that kind of speed will be like 56k.. I'm paying about $40 a month now for 20Mbps service.. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Anticipated speeds at 10 yrs pathetic
said by TKJunkMail :10 yrs out even a "free" tier that only delivers 384kbps is pretty bad. And a pay tier of 3 mbps will not be competitive with LTE & Wimax rollouts taking place over the next 10 yrs. That's a good point, in 10 years 5 mbps will be a "lite" tier and 30 mbps will be no more than mid-tier at best. |
|
Corehhi
join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC
| reply to FutureMon
Re: Content Filtered?
said by FutureMon :said by Neyland :You know, anything with a *.xxx domain name... lol... Are "they" still trying to go for that? Personally, I wouldn't mind if they did - it seems like a smart way to make filtering easy for parents and anyone who wishes to block that type of content from reaching their computer(s)... - FM I agree. Also if its free they can do whatever, you don't need to get it. |
|
StreetSpirit
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Roslyn, NY
·Optimum Online
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to expert007
said by expert007 :Sounds so un-American. Remember how some wanted Harry Potter to be removed from school libraries? Who is in charge of slapping the smut label on content? Perhaps Guv Palin could be in charge of that, she seems to be on the straight and narrow. The key word there is seems.
It's always the privileged folks who enjoy things (perfect example is Governor Palin's use of marijuana - she smoked weed when it was legal, but the rest of us? F* U basically. Her family made a CHOICE when Bristol got preggers out of wedlock, but for the rest of us? F* U, no choices for you proles. I mean if anyone here expects LESS censorship from the Gooberment, they're sadly mistaken.
Boobs are a very ugly thing dontcha know - it could cause a 12 year old to, well, be irreperably damaged!
But a person being shot up with a machine gun or smashed to bits by a huge monster is perectly acceptable for your 6 year old.
Sad that we live in such a prudish country. Filtered content.. The founding fathers must be spinning in their graves by now. |
|
StreetSpirit
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Roslyn, NY
·Optimum Online
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Corehhi
said by Corehhi :said by FutureMon :said by Neyland :You know, anything with a *.xxx domain name... lol... Are "they" still trying to go for that? Personally, I wouldn't mind if they did - it seems like a smart way to make filtering easy for parents and anyone who wishes to block that type of content from reaching their computer(s)... - FM I agree. Also if its free they can do whatever, you don't need to get it. Who pays for it? If it's free to the users, that is. Wanna take an off hand guess?
You and me. |
|
StreetSpirit
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Roslyn, NY
·Optimum Online
·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | reply to FutureMon
said by FutureMon :said by Neyland :You know, anything with a *.xxx domain name... lol... Are "they" still trying to go for that? Personally, I wouldn't mind if they did - it seems like a smart way to make filtering easy for parents and anyone who wishes to block that type of content from reaching their computer(s)... - FM FM I can see your point, but think about this:
Responsible parents don't need the government's help with filtering content that is reaching their kids. I have two kids, one of whom is an avid computer user. I've tried different ways of filtering, and it can work without the FCC's help.
Besides, why should the tax payers who don't have children, or have grown children pay for free filtered broadband for parents who don't want to take the time to properly secure & filter their kid's computers.
And who decides what's filtered? Let's say my 9 year old needs to do research for biology, and finds a certain page filtered on this "free" service. Can I unblock it without writing to the FCC? Probably not.
This idea is fraught with problems and problematic thinking. Again, relying on the government to do something that you yourself should be doing is not a wise idea.
Dave |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| reply to expert007
said by expert007 :Sounds so un-American. Remember how some wanted Harry Potter to be removed from school libraries? Who is in charge of slapping the smut label on content? Perhaps Guv Palin could be in charge of that, she seems to be on the straight and narrow. Kind of like the smut-free TV that will soon no longer be running on those airwaves. Anti-American. |
|
FutureMon
OW My Eyes
Premium,ExMod 2002-05
join:2000-10-05
Colorado Springs, CO
clubs:
| reply to StreetSpirit
I'm not advocating the filtering aspect of this discussion.
All I'm saying is that if ICANN did go ahead and create the .xxx domain, there would be no need for a "man in the middle" filtering system. All filtering would/could be done at the PC (or router/firewall) receiving the content.
The pron industry is against .xxx simply because it makes it too easy to block them, and in many cases they rely on obfuscation and typo's in web URL's to draw people to their domains.
Also, if someone is browsing an .xxx domain, there's pretty much no question that they want to be there if once they arrive (by whatever means), they don't leave.
- FM
--
Undisputed BBR Karaoke Champion! Care to challenge me? |
|
