Bordering the Borderless?

  ezypcy 21:29 31 Oct 2006

It's Google for China
click here

It's Gambling for USA click here

It's Sex (maybe) for UK click here

It's Language for PCA click here

In China many know the secrets for bypassing the controls. (failure?)
In USA is it for protection of homeland gambling?(mafia?)
In UK is it simply too smutty?(typical?)
In PCA is it too well refereed (na baw'ver? )

Will governments/businesses achieve censorship of
the borderless internet?
And should they try to?

  anskyber 23:06 31 Oct 2006

Its a nice idea, the net without borders and there is a lot of me wanting just that; the freedom to access information.

Its not real though, and whilst I admire the likes of spikeychris for his stand on China and Google,(in another long running thread) reality soon invades my thinking. The reality for me is should there be an environment which is outside of the law, totally unregulated? Setting aside the debate about whether the type or style of regulation is the right type can we really think the net should be exempt from regulation?

My view (sadly for my more egalitarian side) is we must submit to some controls. Why should cyberspace be any different to real space? There are aspects of the net which I would be very happy to see controlled rather better than it is currently, child pornography being one clear example in my eyes.

I know there will always be ways for the really determined to get around controls, but its worth the effort for the cases which are successful.

  woodchip 23:21 31 Oct 2006

“The reality for me is should there be an environment which is outside of the law, totally unregulated?”.

Just like a city without Traffic Laws. can you imagine the mayhem would you like to live there or try to cross the street

  Forum Editor 00:29 01 Nov 2006

Well, is it?

You decide. If you think I exercise too great a degree of control here, tell me so, and I'll leave you all to get on with it. I might get some more rest and relaxation that way.

The reality of life is that people - all people - need some degree of external control if they are to function collectively as a society, or within one. If we were all simply left to our own devices the resulting chaos would be unbearable - imagine a busy city without any traffic lights, as woodchip says, or an international airport without any form of air-traffic control. The same applies to personal conduct; not all of us have the same set of values, so society has decided that we must all observe certain rules. In that way we can all live in fairly close proximity without undue stress or risk to our personal an ideal world, that is. The problem is that we don't have an ideal world, and some individuals see fit to break the rules, ignore the codes of conduct, and behave just as they please. The rest of us have to deal with this, and in the context of society as a whole we have a judicial system set up so that we can investigate rule-breaking, and if necessary mete out punishment.

The problems really arise when governments (or individual despots) overstep the mark, and start applying rules which are contrary to the inherent sense of 'fairness' which is in all of us. People instinctively know when they're being denied what they feel is their right as a human being, and they'll try to beat the system, or in severe cases overthrow it completely.

I may come under the 'individual despot' heading - some people certainly try to beat the system here, which is why I delete, and in some cases ban. If enough of you feel I'm denying you a human right by doing that you could always rise up and overthrow me I suppose, but beware - I have a strongly-developed sense of survival. Ray Mears would be impressed.

  lisa02 08:30 01 Nov 2006

Why did I hear "Eye of the tiger" in my head when I read the FE's post?

  anskyber 10:18 01 Nov 2006

Well you have asked so here are my thoughts. You mention human rights and freedom of speech, this is not the place to expect such things. The site is offered to us all as a free service to allow us all to benefit from the expertise of others and, if we can, help others. Its not a democracy.

Anarchy would ensue almost immediately without a framework in which the site functions, it would from the start fail in its main function of information exchange.

The rules are clear and encompass a code of conduct that most of us would recognise as the sort of behaviour we would wish to see in our normal everyday lives. The thread originator has in my view "teased" away at the rules and your interpretation of the rules in various posts. This thread could be seen as a "toe to toe" confrontation on that narrow point or as a platform to discuss "borderless internet" In a generous mood I would choose the latter, but I'm sceptical. Maybe, you have inadvertently (or perhaps deliberately) sprung the trap.

To your point. It is in the nature of personal interaction by text alone there will be misunderstandings. I have seen it endlessly here. I think the room for error is always there and as a result and I do not think that anyone, and I mean anyone, can claim immunity. Any regulator is therefore open to the charge of unfairness or even unreasonableness; you have the added burden of being the final arbiter and having the ultimate sanction of exclusion.

At times I have thought "ouch", your response has been direct and has probably resulted from your style of applying a very analytical interpretation to the words you have read from others. In the everyday world such an analytical approach is not always easily understood. On other occasions I have thought some have been given too much freedom and it would not happen on my watch.

Having made allowances for the potential for misunderstanding I am happy with the balance you have struck, even if on an individual case basis I might wish you had done something different. We should all be very grateful to you, I for one congratulate you. Visit many other sites and the rather pathetic approaches can make life difficult for someone simply wanting help.

Its my honest view, some might say its toadyism, fine let them think it if they wish. My thoughts will always be, if you do not like this site there are many others out there with different editorial styles, use them. Or at least use them if you have no satisfation with this site having made a reasonable attempt to ask for changes.

  namtas 14:58 01 Nov 2006

"You decide. If you think I exercise too great a degree of control here, tell me so, and I'll leave you all to get on with it".

I think FE, by stating conditions, you have effectivly closed the borders on this topic.

  anskyber 15:10 01 Nov 2006

Well yes, in a way. The FEs response as I read it was to a particular point and I have offered my thoughts on that issue. There is the broader issue in terms of internet control, but I suppose it has been well covered here in the past.

  woodchip 17:55 01 Nov 2006

As you pointed out above it is a well run site, though not perfect. But we all keep coming back so there but be something hear worth coming back for.

  namtas 18:00 01 Nov 2006

This is not a forum, it's a community. and long may it continue.

  anskyber 18:07 01 Nov 2006

Yes. I could have this all around my ears (not for the first time) but silence in the context of this thread is capable of a few interpretations.

One is, we are all too frightened to speak following the FEs comment highlighted by namtas, surely not and surely it just would feed the critics. Or perhaps it could be that silence is a simple way of saying we are happy.

I have said too much, I'm off to haunt another thread.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Galaxy Note 8 vs iPhone X

This is what design agencies will look like in 2032

How to update iOS on iPhone or iPad

WhatsApp : comment lire vos messages sans que l’expéditeur le sache