Poll: hmu
Poll Options
View poll results: hmu
open
66 96%
controlled
3 4%
Voters: 69.
#1
Should be an unmonitored and open platform that serves as a benefit to society due to the plethora of knowledge and entertainment; and so should not be controlled at all by parties such as government despite large amounts of negative materisl

Or

Should be a closed platform that is carefully moderated by parties such as the government due to it being a detriment to society because of the wealth of negative material available like drugs and cp despite the benefits of knowledge and other content

Pick one, discuss.
Last edited by Spaztikko at Sep 7, 2013,
#2
porn


nothing more


nothing less




#4
Quote by StewieSwan
The pros far outweigh the cons

This of course means you're OK with people viewing things like child porn, yes?


I'm not trolling, well, much anyway. This argument happened recently in regards to a surveillance bill being passed in NZ, and this was essentially the argument this guy at school gave me, who does model UN and shit.
#5
Aren't there options available to parents and schools etc. to censor Internet access for their kids?
Quote by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
#7
Quote by JustRooster
Unmoderated? Even 4chan doesn't have CP.

Take unmoderated as "exempt from external interference" the holsters of the website are allowed to moderate to whatever degree they want, but its purely up to them, and other dubious sites (being careful to try be unbiased as possible w/ language here) CAN exist too, without persecution from say, a government.
#8
Quote by Spaztikko
This of course means you're OK with people viewing things like child porn, yes?


I'm not trolling, well, much anyway. This argument happened recently in regards to a surveillance bill being passed in NZ, and this was essentially the argument this guy at school gave me, who does model UN and shit.



Won't somebody think of the children!!?
Check out my band Disturbed
#9
Quote by StewieSwan
Won't somebody think of the children!!?

I think that's the problem.
West Ham United
#10
Quote by Spaztikko
This of course means you're OK with people viewing things like child porn, yes?


I'm not trolling, well, much anyway. This argument happened recently in regards to a surveillance bill being passed in NZ, and this was essentially the argument this guy at school gave me, who does model UN and shit.



they can veiw all they want but making it is the ****ed up part
#11
let freedom ring

Quote by emad
jthm_guitarist
Warned for trolling!


Quote by metal4eva_22
Didn't you say that you had a stuffed fox that you would occasionally fuck?

Quote by Axelfox
It's not a fox,it's a wolf.
#12
Quote by supersac
they can veiw all they want but making it is the ****ed up part

But by viewing it they're creating a market for it, which isn't too brilliant in stopping the makers.
West Ham United
#13
Quote by King Donkey
But by viewing it they're creating a market for it, which isn't too brilliant in stopping the makers.


you can't "stop" the market of pedophilia even if you wanted to. Just like being gay, pedophiles probably can't help but to like children.
#14
Quote by VillainousLatin
you can't "stop" the market of pedophilia even if you wanted to. Just like being gay, pedophiles probably can't help but to like children.

I won't dispute that. But if a pedophile lost such a lucrative and widespread outlet like the internet, they would have to be at least a little discouraged about bothering to make and distribute the child porn in the first place.

Then again, I don't even know why people bother to distribute child porn. Is it to make themselves feel recognised or respected?
West Ham United
Last edited by King Donkey at Sep 7, 2013,
#15
you can take my mouse and keyboard from my cold, slightly orange from cheetos, dead fingers
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers

If women can be annoyed there arent any women incongress I should be allowed to be pissed off there are no members of pink floyd or the beatles in congress.
#17
All of you voting for the first option could be considered terrible people for being OK with child porn occuring for this situation.
#18
Quote by Spaztikko
All of you voting for the first option could be considered terrible people for being OK with child porn occuring for this situation.


hey, it's either child porn or child rape... I choose the first one.

I just realized this makes me sound sooo much like a pedophile rapist.... That's not what I meant though.


FBI pls don't come for me!
Last edited by VillainousLatin at Sep 7, 2013,
#19
Quote by Spaztikko
All of you voting for the first option could be considered terrible people for being OK with child porn occuring for this situation.

If not on the internet then it'd be on the black market.
The internet didn't create child porn, or porn in general.
#22
Open, because at least one aspect of society shouldn't be controlled by big brother.
-The Crimson Fucker, aka PonyFan #376121
#23
Spaz made a coherent thread?

He's posting seriously?

...


Are you okay?


Anyway, without getting into it, 'open'

people are going to do messed up shit regardless and the idea of a completely 'closed' system is just as impossible as a truly free one.
O.K.

“There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want.”
~ Bill Watterson


O__o
#24
Inb4 you close it just to keep up with pretences

The logic presented to me was basically, if you aren't doing anything illegal you shouldn't worry about it being restricted and so they were OK with it and if you weren't OK with it you're basically condoning cp and shit
#25
What is 'illegal'?

Who would decide that? Good luck getting a balanced and fair decision.

The government? lol.

An unelected think-tank? lol.

An elected panel/process? 'tyranny of democracy' much? & prone to lobbying and biased promotion in the media.

If it was possible to come to a complete consensus about what should and shouldn't be allowed, (ignoring cp, obviously, that's just fallacy trolling 101), then shouldn't we be self-moderating in that regard in an 'open' system anyway?
O.K.

“There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want.”
~ Bill Watterson


O__o
#26
Porn. If there are (in your absurd world) no ways to cut out child porn, than still porn.
BOOM-SHAKALAKALAKA-BOOM-SHAKALAKUNGA
#27
Quote by Spaztikko
The logic presented to me was basically, if you aren't doing anything illegal you shouldn't worry about it being restricted and so they were OK with it and if you weren't OK with it you're basically condoning cp and shit

this is one of the dumbest arguments used in lots of debates regarding privacy/intrusive policing.
mugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmug
#28
Quote by theguitarist
What is 'illegal'?

Who would decide that? Good luck getting a balanced and fair decision.

The government? lol.

An unelected think-tank? lol.

An elected panel/process? 'tyranny of democracy' much? & prone to lobbying and biased promotion in the media.

If it was possible to come to a complete consensus about what should and shouldn't be allowed, (ignoring cp, obviously, that's just fallacy trolling 101), then shouldn't we be self-moderating in that regard in an 'open' system anyway?


Well the govt obviously that's why there's now this big ass bill floating over my country from now so woohoo.
Exactly, self moderation is the logical answer. I suppose then the largest problem with such self moderation would be that of copyright infringement. Think music and film torrents. What then? Self moderation requires a motive to do so, be it personal belief or whatever. The question is then, when someone uploads your stuff and its an "ideal" self moderation system where you control what you browse, upload and download, what happens when someone uploads your stuff for free?

Even a caveat like "do whatever as long as you aren't hurting anyone else" doesn't really work in today's society and only promotes a harsh response from the lawmakers.

Sidenote: if this could refrain from being another downloading music debate that would be cool, I'm more interested in the other things.

Because these can all be seen as problems which have a "solution" like enforced moderation.

Please keep posting, this is actually pretty interesting for me.

Edit: many of you may notice the parallel between my OP and Herzberg's Theory X and Y. This was partly based on such a concept, but I feel there's also the thought that as soon as we move slightly away from satisfying the first option we are automatically fulfilling the 2nd to a lesser degree, while still being completely off the "free" option.
Last edited by Spaztikko at Sep 8, 2013,
#29
Quote by jakesmellspoo
this is one of the dumbest arguments used in lots of debates regarding privacy/intrusive policing.


And your counter to the point would be? I think its used so much due to the short and final nature of it, because it automatically paints the opposition in a negative light. Hmu.
#30
Quote by TunerAddict
you can take my mouse and keyboard from my cold, slightly orange from cheetos, dead fingers

This shall be our battle cry
Quote by beadhangingOne
What happened to Snake?

Snake?

Snake?

SNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE?!


Quote by TunerAddict
you can take my mouse and keyboard from my cold, slightly orange from cheetos, dead fingers


Quote by Baby Joel
Isis is amazing
#31
Control everything
it should just be a platform for people to agree with me in a manner I find aesthetically appropriate
dissenters will be shut down
But boys will be boys and girls have those eyes
that'll cut you to ribbons, sometimes
and all you can do is just wait by the moon
and bleed if it's what she says you ought to do
Last edited by Hydra150 at Sep 8, 2013,
#32
Quote by Hydra150
Control everything
it should just be a platform for people to agree with me in a manner I find aesthetically appropriate
dissenters will be shit down

Woah compadre, you aren't a big boy mod yet 8]
#33
Quote by Spaztikko
This of course means you're OK with people viewing things like child porn, yes?


I'm not trolling, well, much anyway. This argument happened recently in regards to a surveillance bill being passed in NZ, and this was essentially the argument this guy at school gave me, who does model UN and shit.


The tools are already available to law enforcement and intelligence agencies to track deviants and subversives, believe me.

I have spent time in societies with heavily monitored internet (have always been able to bypass their blocks) and noticed that the first victims are usually whistleblowers and investigative journalists (vital to a free and democratic socitey).

The internet reflects the closest thing we have to the sum of humanity, it's vital that we see it through our own eyes, not what others decide we are able to handle. Even the haters/religious nuts should have their little pisspot to stand and scream from, we can use them to educate children on what abnormal really is.

Peace and love
#35
Quote by Spaztikko
And your counter to the point would be?

Our right to reasonable privacy
#36
I say there's no benefit to having a walled-garden internet.
People who want to get their hands on CP, drugs and weaponry will probably use more anonymized networks like TOR, which are damn near impossible to trace.

On top of that, people will be outraged if a government decides to limit access to the Internet in any way, so the introduction of a government-controlled internet is damn near impossible anywhere except in a dictatorship.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
#38
Quote by Spaztikko
Should be an unmonitored and open platform that serves as a benefit to society due to the plethora of knowledge and entertainment; and so should not be controlled at all by parties such as government despite large amounts of negative materisl

Or

Should be a closed platform that is carefully moderated by parties such as the government due to it being a detriment to society because of the wealth of negative material available like drugs and cp despite the benefits of knowledge and other content

Pick one, discuss.

Availability of better quality, purer, and overall more reliable drugs from The Silk Road is a negative?
Quote by element4433
Be subtle with it. Don't like molest him.

And cup his balls.


Quote by blake1221
If there's anything to take away from this thread, anything at all, it's to always cup the balls.
#39
I voted closed accidentally because I skipped over "completely closed". When working in dichotomies like that both ways will start shit, and it'll just cause people to form their own blocks and rules based on democratic votes in smaller communities. Either way would be bad but the government be nasty.

And people like Peter Sotos were getting hold of all that stuff before the internet was a thing
they're coming to take me away
ha-haaa
#40
Quote by Spaztikko
Dude the Irish bloke who hosted like half of TOR got arrested a while ago. Secure my arse.


Any source? I can't find any...
Quote by SlinkyBlue


The solution is simple and obvious.

We revolt against ourselves. Mass suicide. The ultimate revolution.