from the going-to-need-lots-of-volunteers-to-build-the-block-list dept.
Rhode Island is the latest US state to discuss mandatory censorship of web content, at first targeting pornography:
Rhode Island Democratic state Senators Frank Ciccone (@senatorciccone) and Hanna Gallo (@hannagallo27) have proposed grandstanding, unworkable legislation, "Relating to Public Utilities and Carriers—Internet Digital Blocking" which would mandate the state's ISPs to identify all the pornography on the [I]nternet, and then block it for all Rhode Islanders, unless those Rhode Islanders specifically requested their porn to be unblocked and paid $20 for the privilege.
These proposals fly in the face of the observation that automated pornography filters don't work and that even the manual ones are neither practical, reliable, nor scalable.
Source : Rhode Island proposes blocking all online porn and charging $20 to unblock it. Boing Boing.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by BsAtHome on Friday March 09 2018, @02:32PM (19 children)
They should be blocking the letters F U C K Y and O from the internet and ask $20 to unblock those letters. It is much more easy and efficient to block letters than porn. While they are at it, they should block any number representing a color that may resemble skin too. That can be done just as easily with a streaming filter. Maybe they should be asking $1 per color range to unblock and have something like 20 ranges?
(Score: 2, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Friday March 09 2018, @02:54PM (4 children)
It works in China. President Xi is about to start his 6th year in office. He's doing great, he's President for Life. He has the Golden Shield, it blocks the letter "N" when it's by itself. Not in words. It blocks pornography. And when you go to China you can't bring porn magazines or videos. Unless you're a diplomat or a President. And the Chinese economy is great, they work very hard. They make steel. They make aluminum. And they make a lot of money. Instead of sitting in bed and looking at porn.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Friday March 09 2018, @03:13PM (3 children)
I can perfectly watch porn while standing, thank you. I can even stand in bed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @05:25PM (2 children)
I guess you can also make steel but can you make aluminium?
(Score: 3, Funny) by MostCynical on Friday March 09 2018, @08:28PM
Steel? No, that's wood.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Saturday March 10 2018, @12:15AM
If she's available then yes, I can make her too.
But, no, I'm not quite happy to pay 10% more for the services.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Touché) by Thexalon on Friday March 09 2018, @02:56PM (1 child)
I'm sure nobody will try to get around that, by, say, painting their porn stars blue or green or some other unnatural human skin color, throwing in some cosplay, and making it some sort of sci fi parody.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Friday March 09 2018, @07:58PM
Like this? http://www.sliceofscifi.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/trekbodypaint.jpg [sliceofscifi.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday March 09 2018, @03:04PM (8 children)
They ARE doing it wrong.
Instead . . .
Charge $20 to BLOCK pr0n instead of charging to unblock it.
People that don't want to see it could pay $20, or they could have that much touted "personal responsibility" and also exercise some parental control. Or pay $20.
One thing that should be enshrined into Net Neutrality is that that nothing can be blocked by default, but only at the customer's request.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Friday March 09 2018, @04:52PM (6 children)
People can already buy software to do that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @05:03PM
Yeah, and it works splendidly!
(Score: 4, Funny) by DannyB on Friday March 09 2018, @05:14PM
Yeah, but this would be doing it "In The Cloud!"
You pay $20, and you don't have to install anything, and it's blocked for you.
(maybe they should charge $20 / month?)
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 4, Funny) by cocaine overdose on Friday March 09 2018, @07:27PM (2 children)
Listen here, "Nuke." My name is Pizzarado, and I am a porn addict. I've been masturbating to porn since I was in my daddy's ballsack. When I came out of the womb, I was still jerkin the turkin, using the embryonic fluid as lube and my umbilical chord as a DIY belt for auto-erotic asphyxiation. For 40 years I've tried to kick this habit. I've tried internet blockers, host lists, "permanent" solutions that promised there was no way to undue it. I even tried to cut off my own johnson. But time and time again, I have found ways to bypass these barriers to an hour of pleasure and a lifetime of shame. I'm like a heroin addict, except I don't work other people's dicks to get a fix. I work my OWN dick and the fury of blue balls envigerates my body with super male vitality. My brain works at 120%, my typing speed goes up to 360 WPM, and my erection is at full mast until it gets what it wants. It takes control and I can't stop it. It's like a parasite, coming out to feed every day, and if it doesn't find anything, it takes over the host. I can't control it. It's too smart. Someone please help me. I've tried to cut it out, but slapped the scissors out of my hands and beat me up. Please, someone help me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @10:57PM (1 child)
Mix citric acid into your lube. Same principle as putting that nasty tasting shit on kids thumbs, whenever you lube up, your penis will burn. Or redirect all your internet traffic to goatse.cx with *.*.*.* goatse.cx in your hosts file. Don't pay your internet bill. Start taking steroids and make yourself impotent. Go to jail. You have many options.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @02:21AM
No good. He'll just learn to like it.
Have you tried bsdm? No? Then how do you know you don't like it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @04:37PM
hey, i hate to tell you this, but only a few people buy those programs.
besides the law is nothing about blocking porn, despite that is what it is about. its the intent behind the law's introduction. its about focusing on a different topic besides gun control. same with the north korea and trump dialog news.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday March 10 2018, @10:37PM
People don't know, net neutrality is going away very soon. Federally, we're repealing it in April. We're leaving it up to the states. Thanks to the very courageous work of @AjitPaiFCC [twitter.com]! He won a beautiful award for that from our NRA. But the lawyers say there are many legal problems in the way of him getting his award. Too many regulations on our officials!
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday March 09 2018, @03:12PM (2 children)
I am a member of FUCKU [lewisblack.com].
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday March 09 2018, @04:44PM
I have said for awhile that Kathleen Falk should start a university. They could call it something catchy, like...I dunno...Falk U.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday March 09 2018, @05:16PM
Just for that, here's a way to crash your Java compiler. But you have to use five Inner's for xyzzy instead of four as I have done.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @02:35PM (53 children)
Not long ago, the governments of the United States also outlawed beer.
People, the government is not your friend; the government is not you. The government is a violently imposed monopoly to which are drawn psychopathic power-trippers who get themselves off by controlling other people's lives.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday March 09 2018, @03:23PM (52 children)
This country has *never* been "land of the free", it's just jingoist BS someone made up. Alcoholic drinks were illegal not that long ago as you point out. Around that time, black Americans were third-class citizens and generally couldn't vote, and were routinely murdered with no due process. Shortly before that, women weren't allowed to vote, and it wasn't until the last 50 years that women were allowed to hold most jobs other than teacher, nurse, or secretary. Back in the 1800s, Native Americans were rounded up and forcibly deported, causing the deaths of thousands. And for quite a while, different States actually had official state-sanctioned religions. Even "freedom of speech" has been BS here for much of the country's history: it wasn't until the 20th century that that Amendment (and the others in the Bill of Rights) was re-interpreted to mean that no level of government in the country could suppress your speech. Before that, it was perfectly legal for states or localities to do so, just not the Federal government.
There's arguably far more freedom, in general, in this country than at any time in the past. In older days, you only had more freedom if you were white, male, rich enough to own land, and belonged to the correct Christian sect.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @03:40PM (6 children)
Democratic voting is all about one group taking stuff from another group.
I'll note that not long after women got the vote, beer was outlawed.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @04:26PM (3 children)
See how you're not just routinely downmodded these days? Thanks for not spamming ad much / anymore.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @04:37PM (2 children)
Not the other way around.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @05:22PM (1 child)
> The "Spam" follows the downmodding.
'Cause throwing a tantrum when the society points out you're being rude is a completely normal thing that non-crazy people do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @05:39PM
That's the deal.
(Score: 4, Funny) by rcamera on Friday March 09 2018, @05:03PM (1 child)
i wonder if those two concepts are somehow tied together [cuny.edu]... that single image has caused countless millions to become alcoholics.
/* no comment */
(Score: 3, Informative) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday March 09 2018, @08:10PM
The first part of Ken Burns' Prohibition [wikipedia.org], “A Nation of Drunkards,” covers how the temperance and women's suffrage movements were related.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @04:52PM (6 children)
Grishna,
If you maintain an absolutist standard, then there has never been nor will there EVER be a free country in the entire world.
This doesn't seem to a useful standard. Better is one that recognizes that freedom is an ideal that we strive towards so that we can make progress towards attaining that ideal. If judged by that standard, the U.S. has done quite well. Notice all those negatives things that you listed, the U.S. NO LONGER DOES. Think about it from that point of view: we are getting better over time.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @04:57PM (2 children)
I will also add that you can't apply TODAY'S moral standards to centuries past and expect everyone to have held them. That's asking too much. If you go by that standard, then people who were held as moral EVEN 10 YEARS AGO would now be considered oppressive ogres because, as one example, they didn't recognize gay marriage as a universal human right. Standards change and you have to judge people somewhat by the standards of the time. We live IN history, not OUTSIDE it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @05:04PM (1 child)
So, your premise is wrong.
This is usually the problem with arguments about things like "rights". The premises are wrong.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday March 09 2018, @10:34PM
Contracts are very underrated. Folks can have beautiful lives without ever looking at porn -- look at @VP [twitter.com] Pence, he doesn't even know what porn is. But life is a series of contracts. Without contracts, you can't be much. Maybe a homeless bum. If you don't have contracts, you don't have a SOCIETY. If our government ever says consenting adults or corporations can't make a contract, very sad day!
I'm a very traditional guy. But if two people dig each other, they dig each other.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @05:33PM
Expecting that the government respect basic liberties is not an "absolutist standard"; it's the desire of any non-authoritarian. You must have very low standards indeed.
Correct.
Those specific ones, anyway. Now, the US government engages in unconstitutional (not declared by Congress) and unjust (not in self-defense or even sensible defense of allies) wars overseas, conducts unconstitutional democracy-crippling mass surveillance on the populace in several different ways, ruthlessly attacks whistleblowers and journalists who challenge it, violates the first amendment in various ways, unconstitutionally steals people's money on a routine basis and calls it "asset forfeiture", creates draconian copyright laws, hires thugs to violate the rights of anyone who tries to get on a plane, imprisons people who put certain substances into their bodies, etc. Many of those were also problems in the past, and they're not any better now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @01:01PM (1 child)
Of course not. Country implies government, government implies unfree. Dissolve the borders and the system of rule by authority, and what's left is free. Sadly, domination is instinct, and domination is oppression.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @04:44PM
Wrong. What immediately happens without fail is that the thugs see your lack of government and steal your stuff, beat, or kill you.
To fight this, you are forced to organize and form paid defense forces. How to pay for this? Local taxes. Look at Colombia, Mexico, Afghanistan or any of a number of places for what happens when there is no government control. Government of some sort must arise in the vacuum.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 09 2018, @05:03PM (36 children)
And we're done. The US was pretty good back then, and it got better. But since it isn't perfect, it isn't "land of the free". Well, your argument isn't perfect either.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @05:07PM (22 children)
The trajectory of the U.S. is correct, but that doesn't mean the underlying system is correct—you can be right, but for the wrong reasons.
You have an increasingly free society built around an organization that can outlaw (and indeed has outlawed) beer for an entire continent. That's not something to scoff at; that's a serious problem worth deliberation.
(Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Friday March 09 2018, @05:17PM (10 children)
No, it didn't. That took a constitutional amendment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @05:25PM (7 children)
Nobody said that the Federal Congress can outlaw beer for an entire continent; rather, somebody said an organization can outlaw beer for an entire continent. The Federal Congress, along with the State governments, etc., constitute an organization.
That's why people can simply say "the government", whether it be a State issue or a Federal issue, or a municipal issue.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 09 2018, @05:40PM (6 children)
They constituted 58 such organizations (50 states, 5 US territories, Washington DC, and two branches of Congress). Don't confuse group with organization.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @05:47PM (5 children)
I'm baffled why you think you have a point.
Are you saying that outlawing beer (which did happen) is completely consistent with a system intended to foster a free society, where individual rights are protected, especially the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Genuinely, I don't know what you're trying to say, or how it is that you think you've countered the point in question.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 09 2018, @05:52PM (4 children)
It was done by constitutional amendment not by an organization.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @05:55PM (3 children)
As far as I can tell, you've just now made a senseless remark.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 09 2018, @06:50PM (2 children)
Finally, a constitutional amendment is not merely a law. It is a restructuring of the laws of the US at a fundamental level. For example, any law which runs counter to an amendment is void. So it wasn't just outlawing beer, but restructuring the federal government so that it could outlaw beer and enforce that regulation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @07:38PM (1 child)
There's still Mexico and Canada: Redherring.
A group or collection is not an organization: Worse than No True Scotsman; the argument remains unchanged.
No mere law: Straw man. Redherring. No True Scotsman.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Friday March 09 2018, @10:00PM
The point is that you said "entire continent", but the US is less than half the North American continent by land area and a little under 60% by population. It is far from an entire continent.
Except that it becomes a more correct argument. Words have meaning and such large errors in your argument will detract from its persuasiveness. You do want better arguments, right?
Nuance matters. A legislative body didn't just outlaw beer. It took a supermajority of many such legislative bodies, all of them subject to public election, to do so. That indicates to us a lot more than just a number of "governments" of an "organization" outlawed beer, but that it was a substantial popular movement as well.
And at that point, mass democracy of any sort is susceptible to large scale popular movements destroying freedom. It's not that the US is not free, but that the public has made poor choices, such as outlawing beer, not protesting the internment camps of Japanese Americans, or allowing slavery to continue. Let us also keep in mind that these evils eventually were all revoked. So while the US of the past may not have been as aggressive as we would like with respect to such acts of tyranny, freedom did prevail.
This nuance is very important because the claim was made that US society was not free. But what free society couldn't choose collectively to make bad choices and harm the freedom of its citizens? In other words, how can you distinguish between a free society that occasionally makes bad, undemocratic choices and the US?
Recall that several of the founders emphasized that free societies were not automatic, but required constant maintenance in order to remain free (for example, Thomas Jefferson - "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."). In other words, they didn't expect perfection from the US, but a frequent and inevitable dipping of the toes into various sorts of tyranny against which they asked future US citizens to be vigilant.
TL;DR: There were several glaring errors with what was said which when corrected, will make the argument stronger. Those aren't "red herring" because such errors detract from the persuasiveness of the argument. Yes, it doesn't matter whether the US is a continent or not, but merely correcting that makes a silly problem go away.
Instead, the real problem is that you are simply in error about what a free society is. It is most certainly not a society where everyone is perfectly free. That society can't exist. Any real world free society will have flaws - injustices and occasional tyrannies in it, created from within or imposed from without. The determining factor of whether the society is free is whether in the long run these are successfully fought off or allowed to prosper.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Friday March 09 2018, @07:09PM (1 child)
You have recently been posting reasonable, informative comments. What have you done with the real khallow?
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday March 09 2018, @08:57PM
And whatever it was you did, THANK YOU.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by https on Friday March 09 2018, @05:24PM (7 children)
You have an amazingly incorrect definition of "continent" - once you realize the scope of your error, you might then wonder what else in your reasoning processes you're getting wrong.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @05:27PM
If that's all you've got, then I have even more confidence in my position.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Friday March 09 2018, @06:40PM (4 children)
He or she shows their true nature: to the AC, Latinos (Mexicans) don't count.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 09 2018, @06:51PM (3 children)
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Friday March 09 2018, @07:22PM (2 children)
As far as I can tell, Canada has had prohibition across the nation, between 1918 to 1920, leaving Mexico as the only North American country that has never had national prohibition.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @09:46PM (1 child)
Here's a list of all the countries in North Americahttps://www.countries-ofthe-world.com/countries-of-north-america.html/ [countries-ofthe-world.com]:
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Canada
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominica
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Grenada
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Trinidad and Tobago
United States of America (USA)
I think you need to extend your research a bit to see if any of the others listed have had prohibition during their existence as a country.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Friday March 09 2018, @11:11PM
I don't need to extend my research. The fact that there is one country that has never had nation-wide prohibition shows the lie that was posted before.
Also, excluding Canada and the USA, I think that all of those countries are predominantly non-white population. Mostly Latino, some Afro-Carribean.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @02:19AM
So, you are saying he is incontinent
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Friday March 09 2018, @06:38PM (2 children)
When was there a national ban on alcohol in Mexico?
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @07:45PM (1 child)
See here. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Friday March 09 2018, @08:16PM
You really are an idiot, aren't you.
You claim that there was prohibition across an entire continent, but this claim is simply false because Mexico has never had national prohibition.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @05:26PM (9 children)
You think that egregious violations of people's basic liberties - slavery, the oppression of women, Japanese internment camps, Jim Crow laws, etc. - is merely 'not perfect'? They are far, far worse than 'not perfect'.
Even now, we're conducting democracy-destroying unconstitutional mass surveillance on the populace, among other massive violations of people's liberties; that necessarily means we're not "the land of the free", as no place that is truly free would do such a thing. Maybe this is where people can break out the 'Not As Bad As' fallacy and point out that those countries over there are even worse.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @05:30PM
As pointed out here [soylentnews.org], democracy is not inherently promotional of freedom.
I would suggest that democracy should be replaced with capitalism (that is, voluntary trade; that is, law by contracts negotiated in advance of interaction).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 09 2018, @05:41PM (7 children)
So what? Those violations no longer exist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @06:00PM (2 children)
So what? The presence of such things automatically mean the US was not "pretty good" in the past. Even now, the US is far from merely 'not perfect' given the countless ways in which it is violating people's freedoms. I guess you just don't value liberty as much as I do.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 09 2018, @06:43PM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @07:28PM
Your reply is completely nonsensical. I do see liberty, which is why I vehemently object to violations of it, such as mass surveillance. Your standards are simply very low.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @06:04PM (3 children)
There's no reason why they couldn't be re-instituted or even enshrined; the system still allows for such a thing.
The trajectory is correct, but not because the system is sound.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday March 09 2018, @10:42PM (2 children)
That's the problem with a free society. We're free to make bad choices and sometimes we do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @05:19PM (1 child)
That has nothing to do with protecting the rights of the individual, especially the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The Soviet Union had plenty of mechanisms for people to participate in the shaping of society; was the Soviet Union just a free society that made a few bad choices?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 10 2018, @07:24PM
And nobody said it did. We can make collectively bad choices just like we can make individually bad choices.
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Friday March 09 2018, @05:36PM (2 children)
Didn't you hear? Perfect is the enemy of good.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 09 2018, @06:52PM (1 child)
I sure did. Now make a guess why I wrote what I wrote.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @02:12AM
Because you're an argumentative cockknocker?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @05:20PM
With regards to the first amendment, the US still has free speech zones, FCC censorship, draconian copyright laws, obscenity laws, anti-public nudity laws (which run afoul of free expression), NDLs, laws against whistleblowers, and other such things. We're still not fully respecting the first amendment.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Friday March 09 2018, @02:40PM (8 children)
This proposal is obscene! Who do I contact to get all mentions of it removed from the Series Of Tubes?
(AKA who decides what is "porn"?)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by looorg on Friday March 09 2018, @02:43PM (1 child)
There will be a loooong and hard academic study with experts that will evaluate it for years. Costing many billions of dollars. No stone unturned, no image unwatched. All to protect you from the evil pornographers and to keep your sacred bodily fluids safe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @05:27PM
> There will be a loooong and hard academic study with experts that will evaluate it for years.
That's what she said!
*snicker*
I mean, the real question is, where do I apply?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday March 09 2018, @02:52PM (1 child)
I don't know, but I'm guessing a lot of people will be happily lining up to work, for free, for whatever government bureau views all the smut to make sure the rest of Rhode Island can't.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @09:37PM
Uhm, Rule 34. *shudder*
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Friday March 09 2018, @02:57PM (1 child)
Everything, of course. The financial structure is its essentially a tax on internet access accounts for RI residents.
If you assume virtually everyone has internet access and all access will be cutoff unless they pay the tax and document themselves for some interesting purpose. Probably blackmail of public officials. Either you leave the internet entirely OR never take a job or elected position of any sort where headlines like "school teacher views pr0n" could cause job loss.
Its interesting that the summary has little to do with the bill. The specific term is "contain sexual content". Most people understand the Bible, PG-13 TV shows, any instant messaging-type service including plain SMS, biology textbooks, and wikipedia to contain sexual content and thus be blocked, not pr0n.
Also the summary implies its $20 per person, but the bill implies its $20 per access device. Its beyond mysterious how they'd handle devices behind a NAT. I suppose the secondary purpose is to create a "tv license" like taxation scheme where "its only $20, just pay up" but there's something like 60 devices on my LAN at home so thats $1200. Theoretically the raspberry pi that runs my openhab smart house stuff could be SSH'd into and IRC into some sexual content IRC channel, so pay up or become a tax dodging felon. I also have some ESP9266 microcontrollers (many, actually) that connect various sensors to a MQTT broker. There's also the conceptual mystery of I have several virtual images running on a beefy cluster in my basement. So do I need six licenses, or like 20-something? I have an essentially dead nexus 7 tablet in my desk drawer, so pay up $20 and keep it, toss it in the trash and be fined for illegal electronics dumping (electronics not officially allowed in my city trash per muni feel good law, and there are anti-hoarder laws so you can't even stockpile the stuff you can't legally throw away, and there is no electronics recycling collection program, essentially the law exists to arbitrarily punish anyone the police want to punish) The reason this is not a bug but a feature is it'll be nearly impossible for many, maybe most, people to be legal under this tax, so they can find and punish anyone they want.
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Friday March 09 2018, @05:26PM
It sounds like your problem is unsolvable. Maybe you could, instead, plan for your final confrontation with the police. Try to make it newsworthy, like the Branch Davidians, so it brings more attention to the issue.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Friday March 09 2018, @03:32PM (1 child)
Peeing in public is obscene. Being obscenely rich is obscene. Heck, even being Donald Trump is obscene.
Thank God not everything that's obscene is pornographic, I couldn't stand going on my favourite porn sites and stumble across Trump news on Fox (the supreme level of obscenity).
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @04:42PM
wait did you say there's a video with him and stormy? pics of them not doing it or it did happen
(Score: 3, Informative) by looorg on Friday March 09 2018, @02:41PM (3 children)
What is Ciccone and Gallo doing on the internet? He hasn't updated his twitter-feed since September'16 and she hasn't updated hers since March 2017. Are they to busy watching all the porn before they take it away?
I don't see any kind of solution on their part on how this great Rhode Island pornblocking wall is going to work. What if I live right next on the border (shouldn't be hard considering how small Rhode Island is). What if I'm just passing thru the state and feel the urge? Will it only be for people that are residents of Rhode Island? Are tourists exempt?
So I have to apply IN WRITING to have the filter removed. I have to ID myself when I do that so I'm old enough. Can you technically sign up for internet access without being old enough? Are contracts with minors legally binding? I would assume #1 and #2 are there to try and scare people away, making them feel to embarrassed. I'm getting a written warning to that deactivating (or bringing back the porn) could be potentially dangerous? Spanking accidents are on the rise? Right, it's to stop all the underage hookers from being trafficked ... right.
Is there any way in hell this thing is ever going to pass?
(Score: 2) by lentilla on Friday March 09 2018, @03:02PM (2 children)
No, they are removing porn from websites by first downloading it, and then burning the hard drives.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @05:02PM (1 child)
That's excessive. A 3-pass, random bit disk overwrite should suffice.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @05:34PM
Well crap. I thought it was good enough to just run: wget https://www.pornhub.com/ [pornhub.com] -r -l inf -p -O /dev/null
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday March 09 2018, @02:42PM
I'll bet an automatic shotgun fired at the computer in question will stop the porn.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @02:57PM
How about we make it so that in order to obtain access to the internet we pay a company a fee. With that fee we gain access to their service and we can go to whatever website we want. I propose we call these companies Internet Service Providers, ISP for short, and we make information readily available for parents to block/monitor content in order to protect their children without infringing on the abilities of others to use the internet in the way they see fit.
Eh fuck it let's just block everything.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Justin Case on Friday March 09 2018, @03:03PM (1 child)
Once they've created the list of ALL web pages (and FTP sites, and............) containing porn, do I get a copy of that list for my $20?
For research purposes, of course. I need to teach my AI how to recognize which 1s and 0s are naughty.
BTW I saw something resembling an almost-bare boobie on Facebook*; let's get the entire site blocked right away!
* It might have been a man-boob; is that OK? What if there isn't enough context to be sure?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @04:21PM
I'mma gonna go with.... no. I surf away from those if I accidentally run into them.
Lady boobs, on the other hand... those are great.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday March 09 2018, @03:12PM (2 children)
It seems at this point that any legislator that proposes censoring anything should be required to pay a fee for even suggesting it.
Burning books. Preventing publication of anything. Blocking or interfering with internet connections. In any form. The mere suggestion of it, let alone introduction of legislation.
If legislators do not know what is unconstitutional, they are unqualified to be in office. I'm not talking about being a constitutional lawyer. I mean basic understanding like the 1st amendment and that free speech unimpeded by government is one of our foundational principles.
If you want to block obscenity, then block the president's Twitter.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday March 09 2018, @07:31PM (1 child)
That's a fine idea. We ought to have a basic qualifying exam for people that want to run for office. They must prove they have a workable grasp of the constitution. They must pass a brain scan to prove they're not psychopaths.
Then we fit people who are successfully elected with electric belts that deliver a painful shock every time the politician's approval rating drops below 40%. If they drop below 30% they must submit to a semi-annual pillory.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday March 09 2018, @09:18PM
A lot would be fixed if we simply ended the corruption merry-go-round.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday March 09 2018, @03:15PM (15 children)
As a Bernie fan, I'm continually amazed at how incredibly stupid many Democrat politicians are, and how happy they are to shoot themselves in the foot, and also to make themselves unpalatable to voters. They do stupid shit like this, and then wonder why they lose elections. Incredible.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Friday March 09 2018, @03:31PM
Stupidity is bipartisan.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Friday March 09 2018, @03:58PM (10 children)
For this? You make a fuss for this?
Do you now what SIFI [wikipedia.org] is? The "too big to fail", the ones you bailed out from your pocket last time.
Most of them are about to get a reprieve [politico.com] from the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act [wikipedia.org] - they'll be no longer scrutinized if they have under $250B in assets.
With the blessing of Heidi Heitkamp (D) [wikipedia.org], Jon Tester (D) [wikipedia.org] and Joe Donnelly (D) [wikipedia.org] - all three standing for reelection and in need of political donations.
I bet if you look into their donation sheet, you'll find quite significant contributions from the banking sector.
In exchange for these donations they'll be happy to shoot you in the foot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 09 2018, @05:09PM (9 children)
So what? I recommend giving all of them that reprieve, not just the small banks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @05:27PM (3 children)
Because, of course, khallow is the ultimate authority, his recommendation must reign supreme.
Not only that, but he moved his money in a bank impervious to financial collapse.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 09 2018, @05:37PM (2 children)
Oh look, a snowflake triggered by a different opinion. By definition, recommendations don't reign anything.
Which is probably true. Plus, why would you think that Dodd–Frank actually changes that any? Theater doesn't usually do that.
(Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Friday March 09 2018, @08:05PM (1 child)
The obvious rebuttal is that "reign" is an intransitive verb, although it can also be a noun. And, hardly a snowflake, majority opinion? Verily and forsooth, all are aware that a "khallow recommendation" is no recommendation at all. It is more like an opinion, not a different opinion, just a wrong opinion. So, obvious, expected, and not at all useful or interesting.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 09 2018, @11:47PM
Intransitive, intransigent and anti-commutative.
(Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Friday March 09 2018, @11:50PM (4 children)
Oh, man, you are not in the position to make recommendations that matter on S/N.
Try to get into one of the Senate's commissions for that, here we just waste time with inconsequential comments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 10 2018, @12:19AM (3 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 10 2018, @12:21AM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Saturday March 10 2018, @12:40AM (1 child)
Oh, no, your opinion matter to us, the soylenters, we are an all -nclusive organization (a non-for-profit one; more like anti-income actually, if we look on the "Funding" progress. But I digress...). So I was saying that we are an all -nclusive organization and we recognize that even khallow is an unique snowflake and we do pay attention to his feelings, even more so when they are inadvertently hurt by his own misunderstanding.
It is the recommendation part that is inconsequential - usually the term imply that somebody could benefit from the recommended course of action by, you know, applying it in the actual course of action. "Recommendation" is like an advice or something, only more pretentious.
As such, it is wasted here on S/N - I doubt that the congresscritter press secretaries monitor S/N to communicate to their employers the recommendations posted here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 10 2018, @03:31AM
Well, I like using five dollar words. Just be thankful, I'm not randomly pulling words out of the dictionary and deliberately inserting them into my posts. But perhaps we ought to canvass the SN population to see if they approve? I think that would be next to saintliness to do that, right? Or maybe it's time for absentation from this discussion?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday March 09 2018, @04:38PM (1 child)
I mean, I can see both Democrats and Republicans trying to do this. The Democrats, because as liberals they know better than us how we should live our lives and want to forcibly "help" us in that regard, the Republicans because porn is dirty and unBiblical so ban it while they all secretly are addicted to porn themselves behind closed doors.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday March 09 2018, @07:20PM
Florida Republicans Believe Porn Is More Dangerous Than Guns [gq.com]
(Score: 1) by cocaine overdose on Friday March 09 2018, @07:39PM
Rhode Island's a blue state and all the politicians are on the same page. IIRC, Providence is almost as bad as NYC was. And not a thing will be done about it. Just like the legalized prostitution they took away from the hardworking, opiod-avoiding, tax-paying citizens. No hookers, no porn, are they really trying to turn Rhode Island into Rural Island?