Advertisement



  1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

Cookies. Do you usually "Accept" or "Reject" them?

Discussion in 'off topic' started by wulbert, Nov 24, 2021.

  1. Darth Vader

    Darth Vader From the Dark Side

    Just to clarify the Internet is not the WWW. We first had the Internet as a means of long distance communication and then the WWW was layered on top to enable the academic institutions to access each others libraries easily using hyper-links. The appearance of browsers and ease of use plus ADSL threw open the doors to ultra cheap web access. The rest is history.

    Feel lucky that you don't live in N Korea. A student has just been sentenced to death for bringing a copy of the Squid Game in from China and watching it with a few friends.

    Cheers,

    DV
     
  2. Joe P

    Joe P Memory Alpha incarnate / mod

  3. Joe P

    Joe P Memory Alpha incarnate / mod

    Darth,

    That has the be the most Squid Game thing ever.

    Joe
     
  4. Jim Audiomisc

    Jim Audiomisc pfm Member

    Erm, that's what societies do when them create what we call 'Laws' and then apply them. Ditto for rules that decide things in ways regard as 'fair'. If you don't like that, then only one of the ultra-right or ultra-left ideals of 'Libertairianusm' would suit you.

    And in the past you've repeatedly stated your own view of "State bad, Private good' when it comes to the division of who needs to be controlled by Law when it comes to things like information, etc.

    In a working society we all get to discuss and decide - ideally democractically in on an informed basis - what we regard as 'good' and what 'bad', then then make laws in accord. This is never perfect, but still necessary as a 'best approximation' to what we as a society think best.

    I'm trying to optimise what makes most sense in terms of benefit to people. You seem to be ducking away from the idea of applying corporate responsibility and holding those in power via 'business' acessible by the Laws we devise to protect us as individuals.

    The reality is that for farcebook, etc, etc, *we* are the 'product'. If we can apply no Law to control how they exploit us, then that leads to the problems we have now. Tax dodging is just one facet. Monopolising whole areas of enterprise is another. Ask the relevant workers like drivers, warehouse workers, etc... if they dare give an honest answer.
     
    Sue Pertwee-Tyr likes this.
  5. Jim Audiomisc

    Jim Audiomisc pfm Member


    But you're essentially adopting their mindset when you reject the thought of any regulation of the 'big tech' enterprises and what they get up to.
     
    Sue Pertwee-Tyr likes this.
  6. Jim Audiomisc

    Jim Audiomisc pfm Member

    The point about regulation hinges on the rest of us being able to clearly and openly see who the regulators are, who chose them - and why, and what evidence and laws/rules are used to make their decisions. i.e. an open quasi-legal process open to challenge - via the ballot box and those who set all the rules, chose the regulators, etc. They also generally need to have a satisfactory 'track record' as experienced by their peers which backs up them being chosen.

    The point again being democratic scrutiny and accountabilty.

    You can argue that this is often not the case. Where so, the response should not be to throw the baby out with the bathwater and give up bothering with any law. It is to apply democratic pression to get it sorted.
     
  7. Tony L

    Tony L Administrator

    If we lived in anything even remotely close to a ‘working society’ you might have a point. We don’t. Like so much of the world (and please remember the internet is a global thing) we live in something that is not a democracy in any meaningful sense. We very narrowly escaped having a racist far-right gutter-press editor parachuted into the role of Ofcom regulator. This is our reality. Had the whole Paterson corruption thing not blown up the Tories would very likely have been successful here too. Even so I’m prepared to bet an ultra-conservative right-winger gets the role in time, albeit one far less well known than Dacre. There is nothing more I can add really beyond pointing out that Nadine Dorries is the Secretary Of Stare For Digital, Culture, Media & Sport. Nadine Dorries FFS. Seriously, Nadine Dorries.

    Don’t kid yourself that we are that much ahead of Iran, China, Belarus etc. We are there already and I will take truly global consumer-driven market forces over this kind of oppressive authoritarian shit every day of the week. That is the main choice that is on the table, though obviously countless independent sites also exist in all corners of a wonderfully open and free internet. I will fight internet regulation with everything I have until the whole world is an open, free and democratic place.

    Not at all. I just recognise the lesser of two evils and I grasp that the internet is a global thing that at its best speaks truth to power right across the world. You seem utterly fixated on Facebook, Twitter etc whilst publicly admitting you have zero knowledge or experience of either. My advice is to look closer to home. We live in an increasingly isolated, increasingly authoritarian and right-wing political environment. Don’t be so keen to throw what little tools we have for free expression away, especially without even understanding them or their global scope!

    PS If things keep moving in the direction of regulation how long do you think it would be before sites like Good Law Project, Black Lives Matter, Another Angry Voice etc were blocked by an increasingly enabled and powerful authoritarian government?
     
  8. Jim Audiomisc

    Jim Audiomisc pfm Member

    The points you make, Tony, don't negate the ones I'm making. They just show that we have other problems as well, often with bad hats supporting each other to our disadvantage. I used Farcebook as an example because the problems it inflicts on us for its gain are so clear now.

    I keep pointing out that a lot of what the net enables is great, but I also keep pointing out that societies make laws and enforce them to help define what gets done is beneficial for us, and to deter what works against us. Regulating the use of the net isn't really any different from having laws about how people due the roads when they drive around. They key point is that *we* as the voters in a democratic state have to have that power and then use it as *we* judge best.

    Be that for dealing with corruption by some (or many) in Parliament, or exploitation via the net. Treating either is something a democracy needs for it to be an actual democracy.
     
    Sue Pertwee-Tyr likes this.
  9. Tony L

    Tony L Administrator

    Again. The internet is a global entity. Much of this planet, in fact the vast majority of it, is not anything like a democratic entity in any real sense. I certainly define the UK as non-democratic as just 43% of a turnout of 67%* gave the current sham government absolute power and allowed them to place a bigoted partisan moron like Nadine Dorries into the ministerial role that controls our media. Screw that. I simply do not respect this government as an authority as it is not the view of anything but a minority. They do not IMHO have any legitimate mandate to dictate terms, let alone dictate how we communicate with the rest of the world.

    *Many don’t vote for all manner of reasons, obviously including having seen the system as the total sham it is.
     
  10. Darth Vader

    Darth Vader From the Dark Side

    No it isn't. Its a network of interconnected autonomous systems each of which has an owner. Thats how places like China can block access to whatever it wants. Some systems are owned by large organisations that can if they so wish control what can be accessed and when.

    Cheers,

    DV
     
  11. Tony L

    Tony L Administrator

    Like d’uh, I obviously understand that. As such a complex entity exists largely outside of China or any other authoritarian state’s ability to dictate and those who wish to will always find ways around local controls. It is way bigger than any petty nationalism, religion or other such human herding mechanisms and that is its core strength.
     
  12. gintonic

    gintonic 50 shades of grey pussy cats

    May be so, but state control is exceptionally easy
     
  13. Tony L

    Tony L Administrator

    Information will always get in/out. Regardless we should do everything we possibly can to prevent our governments reducing our freedoms in every respect. The internet is the best tool humanity has ever had to speak truth to power, whether it is brutality in China, Iran or Russia, or a policeman kneeling on a black guy in America, or a bunch of Tories stealing our money the truth eventually gets out and to a wider audience via TCP/IP and mobile phone technology. We need to value this and not allow oppressive authoritarian forces like May, Dorries, Dacre, much of Labour and others to slam shut the doors it has taken so many decades for the computer world to open.
     
  14. gintonic

    gintonic 50 shades of grey pussy cats

    no it wouldn't - off is off
     
  15. Tony L

    Tony L Administrator

    China, Iran etc aren’t ‘off’. Sure they have restrictions, but if there is a connection people will always find ways around it. IT guys tend to be rather brighter than politicians! Good article here on Wikipedia both about the sophistication of China’s authoritarianism and how people still manage to evade it.
     
  16. Jim Audiomisc

    Jim Audiomisc pfm Member

    Maybe that's why Putin helps some of them to get rich in exchange for them doing so much 'good' for us, eh? Smart about IT isn't a perfect overlap with being honest and decent as we'd apply the terms. Ask the people in the NHS a while ago when they got attacked by having machines locked and data encrypted.

    IT is neither always-good or always-bad. Nor are the people who code, etc. Think "Horizon", "Post Office", and "Fujitsu" for example. That took years to come out, and those at the top are still fending off any comback.

    This is why we have laws that are openly agreed and applied, and have to be able to scrutinise *and* call to account those who facilitate harm - regardless of if their motive is wealth or political control. The net means we can't limit this to only our country because the net connects them together.

    Cambridge Analytica really should have been a wake-up call for the unwary. All too often 'experts' fit Ambrose Beirce's definition of a lawyer: Constructed like a die to lie on any side - usually the wrong one! Hence the need for openly democratic and informed ways to make suitable laws, etc. Not to just leave it to all those lawyers in the HoC. :)
     
  17. Tony L

    Tony L Administrator

    Nadine Dorries.
     
  18. gintonic

    gintonic 50 shades of grey pussy cats

    if they genuinely wanted it off they could. I know full well of yhe Chinese controls and evading them.
     
  19. Whaleblue

    Whaleblue Southbound

    Not sure if already covered, but if you reject all cookies how do expect the site to remember that choice you made? You’ve told it not to remember!
     
  20. Jim Audiomisc

    Jim Audiomisc pfm Member

    There is an interesting comment about her in PE - either the current issue or the one before (not sure as I get it via post). On page 20, along with lots of reports about some dubious things about certain large 'net' companies. Well worth reading that page.
     

Share This Page





Advertisement


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice