Skybird
07-29-13, 01:12 PM
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130726-myth-of-online-porn-censorship
Indeed, the whole notion of an opt-in pornography register is in itself alarming. Would a list of households requesting an unfiltered internet remain secure and private – or could governments refrain from cross-referencing it with other potential indices of suspicion? How should citizens undertaking perfectly legal browsing of explicit materials feel about being listed on such a database – or about wanting to be free of arbitrary restrictions across countless sites and resources?
(...)
While it’s all very well to pour scorn on censorship, I have every sympathy for those who say that granting young people unrestricted access to the world’s most depraved outpourings demands action. It does. What it demands, though, is the same kind of preparedness that living among others has always required: the pursuit and prosecution of abusers; and the imperfect but steady effort to educate a next generation able to live within their era’s complexities. There are worse things out there than porn – and delegating your children’s safety, freedom and education to algorithms is one of them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/13/children-porn-starbucks
Consider a hypothetical internet of a mere 20bn documents that is comprised one half "adult" content, and one half "child-safe" content. A 1% misclassification rate applied to 20bn documents means 200m documents will be misclassified. That's 100m legitimate documents that would be blocked by the government because of human error, and 100m adult documents that the filter does not touch and that any schoolkid can find.
In practice, the misclassification rate is much, much worse. It's hard to get a sense of the total scale of misclassification by censorware because these companies treat their blacklists as trade secrets, so it's impossible to scrutinise their work and discover whether they're exercising due care.
Some weeks ago, Germany's Super-Angie, Merkel, stunned experts and young people and middle-agers alike by refering to the internet as something being so very new and young so that almost nobody could have grabbed an understanding of this new technology yet.
:haha: :haha: :haha:
For the record: the internet was invented and its technology demonstrated in the 60s, the academical use separated form the military use in the 80s, and the commercial boom began in the very early 90s.
It's all one quarter and even half a century ago, Angie. ;) Two generations. Are we talking of our royal majesty in plural these days, your incompetent Highness?
Or are you just judging some hundred million people by your own failing example?
The last word should be given to the Ministry of Truth blog:
http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2013/06/24/how-big-is-online-porn/
Indeed, the whole notion of an opt-in pornography register is in itself alarming. Would a list of households requesting an unfiltered internet remain secure and private – or could governments refrain from cross-referencing it with other potential indices of suspicion? How should citizens undertaking perfectly legal browsing of explicit materials feel about being listed on such a database – or about wanting to be free of arbitrary restrictions across countless sites and resources?
(...)
While it’s all very well to pour scorn on censorship, I have every sympathy for those who say that granting young people unrestricted access to the world’s most depraved outpourings demands action. It does. What it demands, though, is the same kind of preparedness that living among others has always required: the pursuit and prosecution of abusers; and the imperfect but steady effort to educate a next generation able to live within their era’s complexities. There are worse things out there than porn – and delegating your children’s safety, freedom and education to algorithms is one of them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/13/children-porn-starbucks
Consider a hypothetical internet of a mere 20bn documents that is comprised one half "adult" content, and one half "child-safe" content. A 1% misclassification rate applied to 20bn documents means 200m documents will be misclassified. That's 100m legitimate documents that would be blocked by the government because of human error, and 100m adult documents that the filter does not touch and that any schoolkid can find.
In practice, the misclassification rate is much, much worse. It's hard to get a sense of the total scale of misclassification by censorware because these companies treat their blacklists as trade secrets, so it's impossible to scrutinise their work and discover whether they're exercising due care.
Some weeks ago, Germany's Super-Angie, Merkel, stunned experts and young people and middle-agers alike by refering to the internet as something being so very new and young so that almost nobody could have grabbed an understanding of this new technology yet.
:haha: :haha: :haha:
For the record: the internet was invented and its technology demonstrated in the 60s, the academical use separated form the military use in the 80s, and the commercial boom began in the very early 90s.
It's all one quarter and even half a century ago, Angie. ;) Two generations. Are we talking of our royal majesty in plural these days, your incompetent Highness?
Or are you just judging some hundred million people by your own failing example?
The last word should be given to the Ministry of Truth blog:
http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2013/06/24/how-big-is-online-porn/