2009/3/25 <WJhonson(a)aol.com>om>:
In a message dated 3/25/2009 1:34:36 PM Pacific
Standard Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
I don't think the IWF will make that mistake
again. I never thought
I'd see so many people being so outspokenly against a charity
dedicated to fighting child pornography!>>
That response misses the point.
This "Charity" operates as a black box, not only censoring but refusing to
acknowledge that their acts are hidden, unknowable and possibly arbitrary.
We need this level of censorship? No. What this "charity" should do, is
operate in an open manner with appropriate levels of communication with the
public it claims to be serving.
Big brother is not what we crave. It's what we seek to destroy. It's what
we should all seek to destroy. This charity needs to step forward, apologize
for their indecency and change their method of operation.
No, I didn't miss the point. The point is that IWF will not block
access to Wikipedia again, so there is no problem with accessing it
being compulsory for school children. Censorship of the internet is a
completely different point and not one relevant to this thread.