Uk Govt. Censoring Extremist Material

[Grimes]

https://gigaom.com/2014/11/14/uk-to-stop-its-citizens-seeing-extremist-material-online/

 

This is some V for Vendetta shit right here.

 

 

 

The U.K.’s big internet service providers, including BT, Talk Talk, Virgin Media and Sky, have agreed to filter out terrorist and extremist material at the government’s behest, in order to stop people seeing things that may make them sympathetic towards terrorists.

 

The move will also see providers host a public reporting button for terrorist material. This is likely to be similar to what is already done with websites that may host child pornography – people canreport content to the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), an organization that maintains a blacklist, to which that site could then be added.

In the case of extremist material, though, it appears that the reports would go through to the Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU), which is based in London’s Metropolitan Police and has already been very active in identifying extremist material and having it taken down. CTIRU told me in a statement: “The unit works with UK based companies that are hosting such material. However the unit has also established good working relationships with companies overseas in order to make the internet a more hostile place for terrorists.â€

Government sources also told me that Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Twitter have agreed to “raise their standards and improve their capacity to deal with this material.â€

Jim Killock, executive director for the Open Rights Group, said in a statement: “We need transparency whenever content is blocked for political reasons. Companies have a duty to protect free speech, and should be extremely wary of taking responsibility for deciding whose views are acceptable. It is better left to the courts.â€

The decision comes a year after the British government said it would force ISPs to block “extremist†websites. On Friday Prime Minister David Cameron, who is visiting Australia, told that country’s parliament:

A new and pressing challenge is getting extremist material taken down from the internet. There is a role for government in that. We must not allow the internet to be an ungoverned space. But there is a role for companies too. In the UK, we are pushing them to do more, including strengthening filters, improving reporting mechanisms and being more proactive in taking down this harmful material. We are making progress, but there is further to go. This is their social responsibility, and we expect them to live up to it.

The Australian government will also get its ISPs to filter out extremist material, sources told me, adding that the aim is “to prevent children and young people coming across radicalizing material.â€

I’m not sure which internet Cameron is talking about, as the one I’m familiar is anything but “ungovernedâ€. Indeed, it’s frequently subject to multiple overlapping jurisdictions – for example, U.S. copyright laws affect what the rest of the world can see through services such as YouTube and its Patriot Actclaims dominion over data stored all over the world, the U.K.’s DRIP Actmandates that foreign web firms retain data on their users, and some people even want Europe’s privacy laws to affect what everyone in the world can findon major search engines.

Anyhow, there aren’t many details of the new policy floating around yet — the ISPs are at the time of writing still preparing their statements, and the ISP Association refused to comment – but I am extremely worried about the idea of CTIRU maintaining a blacklist for what can and can’t be viewed online.

Even the IWF has shown itself on occasion to be worryingly unaccountable â€” an obscure anti-terrorism unit is hardly likely to be better. And, if ISPs maintain their own censorship systems, their anti-pornography filters’ propensity for false positives is also less than reassuring.

 

When new GCHQ spy chief Robert Hannigan said 10 days ago that the internet was a haven for terrorist recruitment, I suspected that this was a prelude to a new wave of censorship. I’d rather that I hadn’t been right about that. Now the U.K. can sit less-than-proudly alongside Russiaas a country that won’t let its citizens see material that might make them think bad things.

[BlaqkAudio]

Tor browser.

 

Easy way to bypass that.

[Heated Bread]

I'm not clicking that. 

[Grimes]

I'm not clicking that. 

 

quoted it in the OP

[There]

Tor browser.

 

Done.

 

Anyone who is willing to use Tor browser to look at this probably was probably sympathetic towards terrorists anyway. I think their concern is that people will accidentally stumble into this material, and this does prevent that.

 

I don't see much of a problem with it to be honest. We (the US, at least) already take down information/pictures/videos if they violate laws (like copyright laws), and I don't think that's harmful. I don't see how this is really different.

[Grimes]

Anyone who is willing to use Tor browser to look at this probably was probably sympathetic towards terrorists anyway. I think their concern is that people will accidentally stumble into this material, and this does prevent that.

 

I don't see much of a problem with it to be honest.

 

"Terrorist material" is prettys subjective.

 

They could start censoring news about terrorism.

[There]

"Terrorist material" is prettys subjective.

 

They could start censoring news about terrorism.

 

I believe they were more concerned about extremist material. I don't think news is extremist material, and I don't think a democratic government has any incentive to censor news about terrorism.

[Heated Bread]

Anyone who is willing to use Tor browser to look at this probably was probably sympathetic towards terrorists anyway.

 

wat

[BlaqkAudio]

Anyone who is willing to use Tor browser to look at this probably was probably sympathetic towards terrorists anyway. I think their concern is that people will accidentally stumble into this material, and this does prevent that.

 

I don't see much of a problem with it to be honest. We (the US, at least) already take down information/pictures/videos if they violate laws (like copyright laws), and I don't think that's harmful. I don't see how this is really different.

Aye. My post meant that the people that were intentionally looking for extremists sites, they'd just head over to Tor instead. But I get your point about accidental viewing, that's really true.

[There]

wat

 

I think the UK government is more concerned with people accidentally stumbling into extremist material. I don't think anyone who could actually be radicalized by extremist material is going to download Tor browser to circumvent the censorship.

[Heated Bread]

I think the UK government is more concerned with people accidentally stumbling into extremist material. I don't think anyone who could actually be radicalized by extremist material is going to download Tor browser to circumvent the censorship.

 

Or maybe people might just want to see something for themselves without being afraid of punishment for doing so.  We're human beings with our own minds and we have a right to know about things instead of simply being told what to think and feel about them.  This is why it is wrong to censor and squeeze off the flow of information (yes even if you think it is the right thing to do), and I guarantee you this will backfire at some point.

[There]

Or maybe people might just want to see something for themselves without being afraid of punishment for doing so.  We're human beings with our own minds and we have a right to know about things instead of simply being told what to think and feel about them.  This is why it is wrong to censor and squeeze off the flow of information (yes even if you think it is the right thing to do), and I guarantee you this will backfire at some point.

 

Yes, it can be bad to restrict the flow of information, but in this particular case, I don't think it's harmful at all. First off, you can still quite easily find information on the terrorist's cause, and I would even say that's less biased than whatever gets written by the terrorists about themselves. But if this information is truly radicalizing, truly causes people to view heinous acts of terrorism in a positive light, and can drive individuals to commit other acts of terrorism, I don't see how it's not beneficial to censor it. 

[Heated Bread]

Yes, it can be bad to restrict the flow of information, but in this particular case, I don't think it's harmful at all. First off, you can still quite easily find information on the terrorist's cause, and I would even say that's less biased than whatever gets written by the terrorists about themselves. But if this information is truly radicalizing, truly causes people to view heinous acts of terrorism in a positive light, and can drive individuals to commit other acts of terrorism, I don't see how it's not beneficial to censor it. 

 

The problem with extremists and fundamentalists isn't that they were exposed to information that is harmful, it's that they were conned into a harmful ideology because they were ill-equipped to defend themselves against it.  The solution is not to restrict information, it's to inoculate people by educating them on how to think critically.  Restricting information will only make the problem worse as people have an instinctive curiosity about what it forbidden for them to know, and it automatically makes people suspicious of whoever is trying to conduct the censorship in the first place.

[Grimes]

 Restricting information will only make the problem worse as people have an instinctive curiosity about what it forbidden for them to know, and it automatically makes people suspicious of whoever is trying to conduct the censorship in the first place.

 

^^^^^

[There]

The problem with extremists and fundamentalists isn't that they were exposed to information that is harmful, it's that they were conned into a harmful ideology because they were ill-equipped to defend themselves against it.  The solution is not to restrict information, it's to inoculate people by educating them on how to think critically.  Restricting information will only make the problem worse as people have an instinctive curiosity about what it forbidden for them to know, and it automatically makes people suspicious of whoever is trying to conduct the censorship in the first place.

 

I don't think the Streisand effect will occur to any dangerous degree here. When we censor child pornography, does that cause more and more people to go looking for it? The people who are unable to think critically probably don't even know about this censorship going into place. Teaching people to think critically is a better alternative long term, but censorship will have a much greater effect short term. Additionally, how do you teach multiple generations to think critically?  I think that the threat of terrorist attacks is both a short term and long term issue, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take action on it now.

[λngelღмander]

It's not that it matters that they're censoring this material, it's that censoring one type of material is a gateway to censoring more kinds of material, and a complete censorship.

[Heated Bread]

When we censor child pornography, does that cause more and more people to go looking for it?

 

I don't know.

 

I do think it's massively unfair for you to try and equivocate 1) the censorship of child pornography with 2) the censorship of religious and political views/ideology that the state deems dangerous.  The reason I think it's a false equivocation is that the censorship of real cp is something which is almost universally agreed upon by all levels of society in many western countries.  As for fake cp, there are still debates about that.

 

I have a tangential theory about it, and it's not something I came up with on my own. SIMULATED child pornography (drawings and cg animations) might have the same effect on child molestation/rape and circulation of real child pornography which simulated violence has on real violence, which is to curtail it.  I think if someone looks at fake cp, they're probably less likely to seek out real cp and less likely to go molest or rape a kid, just as someone who plays violent video games is far less likely to go out and commit violent acts in the real world.  So if that's true, it may be harmful to censor the fake stuff.

 

I don't know if that's actually the case though.

 

I think that the threat of terrorist attacks is both a short term and long term issue, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take action on it now.

 

I just want to point something out here real quick.  Any power granted to a government poses a threat.  Even if the current government is completely benign and would never abuse the power being granted, that is absolutely no guarantee that the next batch of people elected will refrain from abusing it.

 

So if you want to grant the government new powers in order to deal with something in the short term, you'd better have those powers expire.  The longer time goes on, the more likely it is that someone will come into office who will abuse those powers.

 

Additionally, how do you teach multiple generations to think critically?

 

The older generations might be hopeless, but if you teach it in schools, the problem begins to sort itself and will get better as time progresses.  I don't understand why it's not taught in public schools now.  Skepticism and logic should be required curriculum.  I think maybe the reason they aren't taught is that people are afraid of offending religious parents, because an application of skepticism and critical thinking to religious claims tends to undermine faith and dogma.

[λngelღмander]

I don't know.

 

I do think it's massively unfair for you to try and equivocate 1) the censorship of child pornography with 2) the censorship of religious and political views/ideology that the state deems dangerous.  The reason I think it's a false equivocation is that the censorship of real cp is something which is almost universally agreed upon by all levels of society in many western countries.  As for fake cp, there are still debates about that.

 

I have a tangential theory about it, and it's not something I came up with on my own. SIMULATED child pornography (drawings and cg animations) might have the same effect on child molestation/rape and circulation of real child pornography which simulated violence has on real violence, which is to curtail it.  I think if someone looks at fake cp, they're probably less likely to seek out real cp and less likely to go molest or rape a kid, just as someone who plays violent video games is far less likely to go out and commit violent acts in the real world.  So if that's true, it may be harmful to censor the fake stuff.

 

I don't know if that's actually the case though.

 

 

I just want to point something out here real quick.  Any power granted to a government poses a threat.  Even if the current government is completely benign and would never abuse the power being granted, that is absolutely no guarantee that the next batch of people elected will refrain from abusing it.

 

So if you want to grant the government new powers in order to deal with something in the short term, you'd better have those powers expire.  The longer time goes on, the more likely it is that someone will come into office who will abuse those powers.

 

 

The older generations might be hopeless, but if you teach it in schools, the problem begins to sort itself and will get better as time progresses.  I don't understand why it's not taught in public schools now.  Skepticism and logic should be required curriculum.  I think maybe the reason they aren't taught is that people are afraid of offending religious parents, because an application of religious claims skepticism tends to undermine faith and dogma.

I don't think things found on the internet like fake CP and shooting games have bearing on real life crimes and events. 

[Heated Bread]

I don't think things found on the internet like fake CP and shooting games have bearing on real life crimes and events. 

 

At least with violent games, there have been studies suggesting that they actually have a positive effect in reducing the instances of real world violence.

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=violent+video+games+may+reduce

[Дебра]

they censor everythign, they used to censor stuff like gay rights websites.

[There]

I don't know.

 

I do think it's massively unfair for you to try and equivocate 1) the censorship of child pornography with 2) the censorship of religious and political views/ideology that the state deems dangerous.  The reason I think it's a false equivocation is that the censorship of real cp is something which is almost universally agreed upon by all levels of society in many western countries.  As for fake cp, there are still debates about that.

 

I have a tangential theory about it, and it's not something I came up with on my own. SIMULATED child pornography (drawings and cg animations) might have the same effect on child molestation/rape and circulation of real child pornography which simulated violence has on real violence, which is to curtail it.  I think if someone looks at fake cp, they're probably less likely to seek out real cp and less likely to go molest or rape a kid, just as someone who plays violent video games is far less likely to go out and commit violent acts in the real world.  So if that's true, it may be harmful to censor the fake stuff.

 

In both cases, the government is simply censoring stuff that they believe could result in harms done to the people. But are they truly censoring religious and political views/ideology, or censoring material that aims to recruit people into dangerous terrorist organizations? I don't know if it's fair to make this distinction, but, for example, say the government only takes down forms of CP that they believe cause individuals to commit rape or molestation, but leaves some "harmless" CP up (which I don't think exists?). Is CP being censored, or is "dangerous" CP being censored.

 

I don't know about your tangential theory, because it seems like you are saying simulated violence is to real violence as simulated CP is to real CP (both of which are not real). Additionally, pornographic material makes people want to have sex in real life, but simulated violence doesn't make people violent in real life.

 

 

I just want to point something out here real quick.  Any power granted to a government poses a threat.  Even if the current government is completely benign and would never abuse the power being granted, that is absolutely no guarantee that the next batch of people elected will refrain from abusing it.

 

So if you want to grant the government new powers in order to deal with something in the short term, you'd better have those powers expire.  The longer time goes on, the more likely it is that someone will come into office who will abuse those powers.

 

I agree 100%. From what I have read about this specific censorship, I don't see any problem with it. Censorship can easily be taken too far or abused.

 

The older generations might be hopeless, but if you teach it in schools, the problem begins to sort itself and will get better as time progresses.  I don't understand why it's not taught in public schools now.  Skepticism and logic should be required curriculum.  I think maybe the reason they aren't taught is that people are afraid of offending religious parents, because an application of skepticism and critical thinking to religious claims tends to undermine faith and dogma.

 

I don't think everybody is even capable of critical thinking, nor will everybody make any effort to become good at it, nor will everybody retain the skill after finishing their education. Either way, even if it were to make a difference, adding critical thinking to the curriculum will take months to years to have an effect. If people are being persuaded by this material to join terrorist groups now, adding it to the curriculum won't solve anything.

[Heated Bread]

In both cases, the government is simply censoring stuff that they believe could result in harms done to the people.

 

You are talking about 1) an obvious collective view being reflected by law vs 2) a law that is trying to enforce/police views within the public.  They are fundamentally different.  One arises from popular consent and the other is Orwellian.

 

But are they truly censoring religious and political views/ideology, or censoring material that aims to recruit people into dangerous terrorist organizations?

 

In this case, they may be the same.  Both ways of describing it could be equally correct.

 

I don't know about your tangential theory, because it seems like you are saying simulated violence is to real violence as simulated CP is to real CP.

 

I'm saying they might be analogous.  I don't know for sure.

 

Additionally, pornographic material makes people want to have sex in real life, but simulated violence doesn't make people violent in real life.

 

WARNING: the next paragraph will be slightly graphic in a sexual way.

 

Porn makes me want to jerk off.  That's almost its entire purpose.  I say "almost" because some couples like to have sex while watching porn.  I have never been watching porn and thought to myself "gee I am now going to stop watching this and go out and find someone to have sex with".  Porn is about fantasy, not real life.  I masturbate, I ejaculate, I clean up, I close the browser window, and I get on with my life.  I think it's fair to say that's how the vast majority of people use porn.  I have never heard of anyone using it to get themselves excited before going out to troll for a sex partner, willing or unwilling.  I'm dubious to the idea that such people even exist.

 

Just as violent video games help to purge aggression, likewise porn helps to purge sexual urges.

 

I don't think everybody is even capable of critical thinking, nor will everybody make any effort to become good at it, nor will everybody retain the skill after finishing their education. Either way, even if it were to make a difference, adding critical thinking to the curriculum will take months to years to have an effect. If people are being persuaded by this material to join terrorist groups now, adding it to the curriculum won't solve anything.

 

I'm more optimistic.  I think that critical thinking is within the reach of anyone as long as they're exposed to it early in life.  That is unless someone has a mental disorder which prevents them from being able to think clearly.

 

Perhaps what needs to happen is that instead of censoring the stuff, there needs to be an honest debate within the public about this material and why it is wrong and why it is harmful.  The trouble with that is I think media and government are too corrupted by identity politics and political correctness, and so an honest discussion of these things cannot take place without people screaming that they are being victimized and persecuted (I'm looking at you, muslims).