The United Nations will this week talk about how the internet could be better run, but grabbing the wheel remains off the agenda despite US fears. Fifteen-hundred delegates will head to Azerbaijan to chat about the web and how to ensure it best serves the world's population. The talks will include questions on how, and if, …
What is this shit?
> Content filtering is a prime example; few companies subscribe the to the US model of unlimited free speech.
Unlimited free speech in the US? Just a political talking point. For one, there are legal limits [hell, you may go to prison for publishing lewd comics in Pennsylvania] and then there are "things you just don't say" unless you want several TLAs on your ass. Foreigner bashing and outright National-Socialism, even from the Prez and Prez hopefuls, is A-OK, I will grant that.
> Many countries worry what unrestricted access to knowledge will do to their population.
I would say that many countries worry what unrestricted access to knowledge will do to their STATE APPARATUS. Remember the shitstorm about Wikileaks and its pretty mild exposure of the nest of craven idiots that are in the bureaucracy? Yes, that kind of worry.
> demonstrates how citizen journalism can go wrong
Unfortunately the last ten years of unlimited warfare and clueless economic policy and the next four years which to all indication will be far worse, possibly with a few nukes being popped off [and not by Iran because it doesn't have any] show how mainstream journalism is consistently wrong in its message or assessments. Does anyone discuss that? Should we ban the Neocon Post and the War Street Journal from the Internets?
This looks like another discussion round of wankers who know they want more statist control but don't yet know how to sell this program. Or maybe they just want a nice holiday in Baku.
Re: What is this shit?
It depends on how you interpret the sentence. I suppose it would be correct to say the US takes an "unlimited free speech" approach to online content filtering. That is, we don't do it. I definitely consider that a good thing, as far as I goes. But the US government will do just about anything else to suppress certain content online. Such as arresting the people who publish it, arresting the people who download it, sending the FBI to raid locations in foreign countries, seizing domain names, or coercing offshore companies to block US users.
"most fixed ISPs use the Internet Watch Foundation to block the worse of the worst, "
No, they "block" (solving unproven problems for unclear motives) *anything* that the IWF says may be illegal under UK law. Not "worst of the worst"... just anything the non-judicial IWF fears may be illegal.
... few companies subscribe the to the US model of unlimited free speech.
Really, so how are those Gambling sites doing in the US?
I was hopeful for a moment there...
Reading quickly, I thought I saw "The IGF is just a talking shop, but ... at time of writing, it has crashed." That would be lovely.
- Vid Hubble 'scope snaps 200,000-ton chunky crumble conundrum
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Google offers up its own Googlers in cloud channel chumship trawl
- Windows 8.1 Update 1 spewed online a MONTH early – by Microsoft
- Interview Global Warming IS REAL, argues sceptic mathematician - it just isn't THERMAGEDDON