🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 23 Feb 1998 07:26:33 +0000, peter@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter
Ceresole) wrote:

>In article <34f7910d.17788137@news.demon.co.uk>,
>malcolm@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) wrote:
>
>>In the sense that the authorised proxies could do that? The point is
>>that this is not an option while there is no significant use of rating
>>here. They can, and do, block specific sites for their whole population
>>but, for the most part, they have to accept or reject the web as a
>>whole.
>
>No. The point is that for the idea of ratings to work, it's not necessary
>to take any account of what *other* nations do. All that's necessary is for
>enough providers to make available enough rated sites to make it worth
>while for *users* to use the Net that way. That's all it takes.  
>

You think we have no responsibility for the effects of our actions on
other nations?

>>Ratings are not censorship but they _enable_ censorship. Indeed, that's
>>what they are really for.
>
>Unless you are talking about self-censorship carried out by users (which
>isn't censorship by any normal definition of the term) that's ansolute
>nonsense. What evidence *at all* do you have for that silly statement?

Censorship of what you're children view, whether you consider it right
or wrong, is still censorship.

The idea that lots of people are going to set PICS filters for
_themselves_ seems incredible to me. What you've got to understand is
that moral outrage is an emotional reaction which people _enjoy_.