2008/12/9 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:
Well, it's probably the first decision of theirs anyone has ever noticed.
My prediction: they've been turned to mincemeat
every media interview
they've done on the subject, we've looked like stars. Everyone
despises them. They aren't standing up too well under scrutiny. So I
suspect they'll quietly unblock Wikipedia and not block again without
at least telling us first.
I agree.
The censorship mechanism will stay in place
- the ISPs feel they aren't free not to sign up to this "voluntary"
scheme - and probably be refined to see if they can block sites like
us again without breaking everything as they did this time.
And I support that - blocking child porn on the internet is a good
thing. What I'd like to see is a little more oversight in the system
and them notifying blockees (they'll probably say they can't do that
because the child porn people would then know to move their site, and
there is a point there, but I don't see a workable alternative -
they'll just have to work harder to find out where they've moved to).
It is possible the IWF will try to make the decision
stand. In which
case, party on.
In that case, the pressure will move to the ISPs, and the ISPs don't
have the advantage the IWF has due to being a "Won't somebody think of
the children?!" charity. People will be reluctant to criticise such a
charity, but no-one has any qualms about criticising ISPs.