|reply to Matt3 |
Well, if kids will be kids, then maybe the problem isn't porn, but kids. I say ban kids. Really, it's for their own protection since there are so many ways they can get into trouble.
|reply to Glaice |
Re: Boo hoo
said by Glaice:
He's probably a pro-AT&T/pro big business/paid shill like TK Junkmail is
Every time the accusation of industry shill is trotted out, this will be the reply
"This mode of reasoning is a logical fallacy
known as ad hominem
: attacking the person presenting the argument, instead of pointing out a flaw in their actual argument. It's a fallacy because even if the criticism of the person is true, his argument may still be valid. You can only tell if the argument is valid by examining the actual argument to see if it is actually valid.
Attacking the person instead of the argument they present is intellectually lazy. It's a substitute for thinking. It's also 100% flawed reasoning: you don't arrive at the conclusion from the argument presented."--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|reply to Jodokast96 |
said by Jodokast96:
Maybe it could be clarified in ALL
of these articles that all they are doing is dumping the stuff that is held on THEIR
servers. That in effect means they are providing the content, regardless of who actually put it there. The ISP's DO
have the responsibility to police that. They are not blocking access to third-party servers. It's really not very different than if it were posted on YouTube. If YouTube left it up there, they'd be just as resonsible. The difference is that YouTube would have it removed as soon as it was found or complained about. The ISP's in this case weren't doing that, and got caught by the AG.
you have no idea what you are talking about with respect to usenet or the internet and its implementation.
You are so wrong on so many points here my head hurts and i cant bring myself to write the novel it will take to correct the mistakes.
|reply to Matt3 | said by Matt3:
Is everything black and white in your world or are you just being apathetic?
Just going to point out how hypocritical this statement is with your first comment:
Good, alt.binary is full of nothing but porn, warez, movies, and music anyway.
I'll tell you why I am really mixed on this. It's not so much of what's legal or illegal, but rather the fact that once again, the internet is being shaped into what government or higher authorities what us to see. This easily opens the door for ISPs to go ahead and start blocking any material they deem to contain questionable material - well beyond alt.binaries.xxx What's next? You already saw it expand in this article - it went from child pornography to everything in alt.binaries.
And you all must be out of your mind if you think this "solves" anything. If alt.binaries are blocked around the word - you don't think that people won't just create new newsgroups to hold this material? Now, that is going to be pretty because you'll start to have IPS now have to determine what needs to be blocked rather than a blanketwide alt.binaries block. What if binaries pop up in different named groups? I mean, right now - binaries exist in a lot of groups that are not part of the alt.binaries realm. Will ISPs start to govern those? What about the same material that are on websites? Someone above said you might as well block the internet because the age verification crap doesn't work and that is only for those sites that even have that, and using the logic of these ISPs and the AG, you'd have to start considering that. Age verification doesn't work. Congress enacted that law that restricted internet gambling (more or less) because age verification was a crock - and that was with credit card verification.
The fact is that if you open the door, you give the opportunity for more blockage and if you don't think that is a problem that we'll ever see, then you need to get your head out of your ass and think outside the box and how this affects the whole internet rather than just thinking that this affects child pornography and the RIAA/MPAA.
The only reason Cuomo is all up on this is so that he can make his mark. Spitzer had his mark with the financial industry. Cuomo needs his.
TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
Hello Vote For Me
Hi there I am Andrew Cuomo New York Attorney General I just got a useless agreement from AT&T and AOL to block child porn. You fools out there will think I have done something that will make a huge difference. Just keep thinking this and vote for me in the next election.--
Send a prayer to Allah, eat Beans.
The real problem is...
The real problem is not porn on usenet, it really doesn't harm anyone. If you don't like it, don't seek it out.
The real problem is the sickos that force helpless little kids to have sex. The only real solution is to catch and euthanize them.
You can block all the content you want but the pedophiles will still be out there doing what they do.
Comcast has spoiled me rotten!
Jodokast96Stupid people really piss me off.PremiumReviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
|reply to hopeflicker |
Maybe it could be clarified in ALL of these articles that all they are doing is dumping the stuff that is held on THEIR servers. That in effect means they are providing the content, regardless of who actually put it there. The ISP's DO have the responsibility to police that. They are not blocking access to third-party servers. It's really not very different than if it were posted on YouTube. If YouTube left it up there, they'd be just as resonsible. The difference is that YouTube would have it removed as soon as it was found or complained about. The ISP's in this case weren't doing that, and got caught by the AG.
People will complain about censorship... but the guy who owns the news stand on the corner can decide that he doesn't want to provide child porn so why can't the ISP?
Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
Good, alt.binary is full of nothing but porn, warez, movies, and music anyway. Let the leechers who want access to that pay an external usenet provider.