Comments on: Filtering information on the internet

By: Kronos

Kronos — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:12:18 +0000

This is here because I forgot to check ‘notify of followup comments’.

By: Kronos

Kronos — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:11:27 +0000

I think the internet should have some filtering, but controlled by each user. In short, each user would control which categories he/she wants to see. Let everything be seen if a user so wishes and certain things be censored if said user also wishes, but only for that user.

This may cause some problems, but I didn’t put much an extreme amount of thought into it.

By: Riri

Riri — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:48:49 +0000

@Peter (you probably get who i’m talking to now, but i enjoy doing this )
i would get that book solely for the xkcd in it
but
there is now an xkcd book ^^
i’m hoping to get it as soon as possible just so i can read it in class

By: Peter Craddock

Peter Craddock — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:37:47 +0000

@Richard: that image was actually used for a book I now own, “Law and the Internet”, by Lilian Edwards and Charlotte Waelde. See here.
So now, for the first time ever, I have a printed version of an xkcd comic in my room

By: Riri

Riri — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:45:15 +0000

@Philip
‘I believe the internet is a continent, and the different categories of websites are like different countries.’

when you said that, the first thing that came to mind was http://xkcd.com/256/

if you don’t know xkcd, i suggest that you acquaint yourself with it. it’s your kind of humour.
and mine, for that matter.

By: Peter Craddock

Peter Craddock — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:17:46 +0000

Here’s a “basic” answer to one of those questions, based on my limited knowledge of distribution contracts.
In short, people try to apply national rights/duties to the (seemingly) international “world wide web”.

In Europe, many of the discrepancies in price between goods offered on .co.uk and .fr versions of a similar website have been eliminated through the use of the “free movement of goods”, enshrined in European law as a fundamental freedom.

However, this has not solved the issue of discrepancy in available products.
The reason for this discrepancy, as far as I can tell, is that the biggest right-holders (film producers, music labels, franchisors, …) only allow the sale of (copies of) their products within a given territory.

Still, this reasoning encounters a limit, in that I don’t see why “passive sales” should be hindered to such an extent. Passive sales concern the case where the consumer from another territory actively seeks to obtain a product from a given store (as opposed to “active sales”, where the store itself tries to reach the consumer from a customer from another territory – these are prohibited in most territorially-based distribution contracts).

Maybe the concept of “passive sales” only applies where the consumer deals with shipping himself… i.e. through the prohibition of active sales to another territory, a store may not offer shipping to the other territory, because it would amount to some form of active sales (one advertises the fact that one can ship to another territory).

In such a context, the current business model applied to the online world makes sense, though one might disagree with it.
Websites don’t lock you out of international stores generally – it’s “just” that you’re only allowed to ship to an address within a given set of territories. Passive sales are thus allowed, but only to a certain extent…

I’ll definitely have to give it more thought though

By: Drell

Drell — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:18:36 +0000

Why should there be limitations based on the perceived country of the person browsing ?
Why assume that anyone seen to be connecting from the UK speaks English, anyone from Belgium only has a choice between French or Dutch ?
In iTunes, the local market is limited, so not all choices are accessible… why should an apparently global market be forced to be so provincial ?
On the various Amazon sites (.co.uk, .fr, .de, .com) there are limitations on certain products ordered across borders, …..
What happens on the interface between virtual and real, in commerce, in information, in relations, ….. ?
How do people discern reality from hoax ? (See the latest anti-virus scams, for instance …)

By: Philou

Philou — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 17:25:25 +0000

I believe the internet is a continent, and the different categories of websites are like different countries.

Now, it’s not just a learning tool. You can have access to so many things that aren’t there for learning, such as means of direct communication or games (examples: msn, miniclip …).

When at the border between countries (categories of websites) there’s a barred access, the sites on the other side lose some of their rights as well as the people trying to access them. I personally think that a closed border, a wall of some kind, should be a thing of the past. Why? Because each and everyone is entitled to have universal freedom of speech in the world of today. Okay, if a site’s slogan is “Kill everyone you hate” and is advertised everywhere, maybe there should well be some kind of barring, but otherwise it’s just plain discrimination.

By: JacaByte

JacaByte — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 04:05:49 +0000

The internet is a learning tool. The same as a newspaper, television or the radio. It gives people access to new information that they can then use to form new ideas about the world they live in. If you control the information that people have access to and can make sure they have no idea that their knowledge is being limited then, in theory, you can control what they think. Which is perfect for a 1984/Anthem/Fahrenheit 451 style government brainwashing and indoctrination.

I have heard that the citizens of North Korea don’t know about the U.S. moon landings. Of course, we shall never know, having no contact with anybody in North Korea whatsoever, or they with us.