In a message dated 3/25/2009 1:34:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, thomas.dalton@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!>>
This is what you said, which misses the point. People weren't against them because they are dedicated to fighting child pornography, so this is a straw man position.
People were against them because they operate censorship inside a black box.
Quite a different situation. And why people were so vehement in their condemnation.
Will
************** Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)
2009/3/25 WJhonson@aol.com:
In a message dated 3/25/2009 1:34:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, thomas.dalton@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!>>
This is what you said, which misses the point. People weren't against them because they are dedicated to fighting child pornography, so this is a straw man position.
People were against them because they operate censorship inside a black box.
Quite a different situation. And why people were so vehement in their condemnation.
Ah, this is simply a misunderstanding! What I meant was that one would expect people to be thoroughly in support of a charity dedicated to fighting child pornography so the fact that there was such outspoken criticism shows how big a mistake blocking Wikipedia was.
I don't think people were against them due to the lack of transparency, I think it was the fact that they blocked an encyclopaedia that annoyed people. (The lack of transparency annoys us, but I'm not sure the general public/media know much about those details.)
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/3/25 WJhonson@aol.com:
In a message dated 3/25/2009 1:34:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, thomas.dalton@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!>>
This is what you said, which misses the point. People weren't against them because they are dedicated to fighting child pornography, so this is a straw man position.
People were against them because they operate censorship inside a black box.
Quite a different situation. And why people were so vehement in their condemnation.
Ah, this is simply a misunderstanding! What I meant was that one would expect people to be thoroughly in support of a charity dedicated to fighting child pornography so the fact that there was such outspoken criticism shows how big a mistake blocking Wikipedia was.
On the face of it, yes. However, when, presumably on the basis on an anonymous complaint, they pass forward a URL to the ISPs who use their services, without performing anything approaching "due diligence", that demonstrates to me that not only do they operate in a cultural and political vacuum, but also that they take on trust any and every report made to them. That cannot be objectively correct, and they were rightly pilloried for it. If they have had advice and training from CEOP, either they've ignored it or that advice they've received is flawed.
It's difficult to blame the ISPs for this, because they take the IWF reports on trust, and rightly so, to avoid forcibly-imposed regulation, and also to avoid liability under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby_v._CompuServe whereby knowledge is fixed if they actually make the decision themselves.
I don't think people were against them due to the lack of transparency, I think it was the fact that they blocked an encyclopaedia that annoyed people. (The lack of transparency annoys us, but I'm not sure the general public/media know much about those details.)
Not so much that the whole encyclopedia was blocked, more that the collateral effect as a result of blocking vandalism was that a bottleneck handful of re-routed proxy IP addresses was blocked; however, there was no block on the image page itself, and anyone who knows the basics of the http: protocol could work round it; and, of course, it only applied to en:wiki.
All in all, people should stick to things they understand, be it basket-weaving, medieval history, or drainage.
2009/3/25 Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk:
Not so much that the whole encyclopedia was blocked, more that the collateral effect as a result of blocking vandalism was that a bottleneck handful of re-routed proxy IP addresses was blocked; however, there was no block on the image page itself, and anyone who knows the basics of the http: protocol could work round it; and, of course, it only applied to en:wiki.
Yes, it was rather special that they (a) blocked encyclopedia text (b) failed to block the actual image they were intending to lblock.
Usually our press is sweetness and neutral light. This time we were angry and made it known. I think this was a completely sccessful approach. When used very sparingly indeed.
-d .
David Gerard wrote:
2009/3/25 Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk:
Not so much that the whole encyclopedia was blocked, more that the collateral effect as a result of blocking vandalism was that a bottleneck handful of re-routed proxy IP addresses was blocked; however, there was no block on the image page itself, and anyone who knows the basics of the http: protocol could work round it; and, of course, it only applied to en:wiki.
Yes, it was rather special that they (a) blocked encyclopedia text (b) failed to block the actual image they were intending to lblock.
Usually our press is sweetness and neutral light. This time we were angry and made it known. I think this was a completely sccessful approach. When used very sparingly indeed.
I think we came out of it not covered in excrement: result! I think we got our response exactly right, despite the difficulties of explaining the technicalities to a non-technical audience.
2009/3/25 Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk:
I think we came out of it not covered in excrement: result! I think we got our response exactly right, despite the difficulties of explaining the technicalities to a non-technical audience.
"These idiots are breaking the web for you, and you never knew they were nanny-stating you." Simple and clear story.
- d.