Seeing as it looks like every single one of you is too lazy to read my essay on page one, here's an abridged version, facts only:
- Only "Refused classification" (RC) content will be blocked
- This includes some illegal business like CP and beastiality, but also includes any non-mainstream pornography (ie. fetish material)
- RC also includes 'grey area' subject matter, like abortion, euthenasia, safe drug use, graffiti art, war videos, fringe religions, etc (essentially anything that's difficult to classify otherwise)
- The black list is costing **** tons to make and will cost **** tons more to maintain
- The end result will be ineffective, incomplete, and easy to circumvent with use of a proxy or vpn
- The filtering will slow internet use to a maximum of 8mbps rather than the soon-to-be-introduced 100mbps of the national broadband scheme
- most websites with illegal material become inactive after several hours and move elsewhere; a blacklist would not work here
- most illegal content is shared via P2P networks, not the web
- "Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks said secret censorship systems were "invariably corrupted", pointing to the Thailand censorship list, which was originally billed as a mechanism to prevent child pornography but contained more than 1200 sites classified as criticising the royal family."
- Most of the people who are for this plan are under the impression that it will protect kids from anything on the internet that they shouldn't be exposed to (such as pornography and child predators). this is a lie
- this misconception has created a false sense of security about the idea. Only RC content will be blocked; R and X rated pornographic content will remain available to anybody who looks for it, children included
- predators cannot be stopped by a goddamn internet filter what the **** is wrong with these people
- senator conroy is a son of a bitch and can't take criticism; he dismisses it all as “misleading information” spread by “an organised group in the online world”.
Greens Senator Scott Ludlam said: “To characterise sustained opposition by individuals and groups as diverse as EFA, Google, SAGE, Yahoo, Save the Children, Reporters without Borders, Justice Kirby, Choice Magazine, leading online academics and industry associations and the United States Department of State as ‘an organised group in the online world’ is a remarkably naive misreading of how unpopular this proposal is.”
tl;dr:
conroy is spending **** tons of tax payer money to make a list of websites that either don't need or can't be blocked, in order to block them, using an ineffective and easy to get by method, and in the process is forcing us to be stuck with shitty internet speed and opening up possibilities for the government to **** with what we're allowed to see.
i think i got most of the important points in there. does that help?
