Hacker News Reader

Comment by bowlofpetunias | Hacker News Reader

Like most techies, you're focusing on the effectiveness. This is both missing the point and dangerously underestimating the intelligence of the people behind such measures.

Just like most of the anti-terror security theater, it's not about being effective in any way, it's about slowly getting the general population to accept increasingly repressive measures and a tighter grip of the "ruling class" on society in general.

Once filtering has been generally accepted, they can gradually start figuring out how to censor the things they really don't want us to see (and guess what, it isn't porn) without having to worry about further social or legislative hurdles.

There is no technological gap between "us" and "them". There's a gap in political savvy between "them" and "us", and we're on the wrong side of that gap.

View on HN

I think you're looking at this as too much of a conspiracy.

This is just attempting to gain the control they had before and have now over every other media. They can prevent hard porn on TV or in the window displays of high street video rental shops. Why not the internet?

From their perspective the internet is a loophole they are trying to shut down.

Internet freedom happened incidentally as a side effect of how the technology worked. It wasn't brought around by ideology like traditional "free press" was.

> I think you're looking at this as too much of a conspiracy.

I agree, but I think that you might be looking at it a little bit too much as of a conspiracy as well.

IMO it's not even about closing loopholes and stuff; it's about increasing their popularity to make sure they get reelected / get more money. That's it. I think short-sightedness of politicians explains pretty much all of it.

Current democracy as a system optimizes strongly for popularity, and optimizes people with any kind of long-term agenda out of the system.

"Current democracy as a system optimizes strongly for popularity..."

This is what democracy has always done.

I think you're mistaking the popularity of politicians, with the will of the people and vox populi.

I agree but it's still a big simplification.

It's not one or another. It's a group of people with diverse agendas. When their interests align enough then a change is introduced in the system. There might be a predominant reason but unless you're in politic groups I think we can only make guesses. I believe that we are as disconnect to them as they are to us.

It is arguable that traditional "free press" ideas were also technology-driven.

As well as creeping scope from non-porn people, there are pleanty of anti-porn and anti-sex campaigners out there. They want to ban all porn. They'll talk about extreme porn and simulated rape porn and child porn now. Then they'll talk about default-on filters, then people/polticians/etc. will be pressured into always having it on, etc etc.

Remember there have been court cases about whether contraceptives, pornography or abortion was legal. There are people who want to go back to the "good old days" when condoms, porn and sex outside marriage was illegal.

Idea 1: ignorant politicking; Idea 2: mass conspiracy. Is there evidence for either side?

IMO current democracy as a system of incentives supports Idea 1 much better than Idea 2. Weak evidence, but still.

It's not a conspiracy per se. It's more like a system of incentives that motivate this kind of behaviour. We have made the politicians into celebrities whoring for our votes so that they can get goodies from their sponsors. It's no longer about any actual politics on the top levels, politicians are trying to strike a balance between decisions that would bring them more votes and those that would bring them more benefits.

I am not saying that's true for every one of them, nor that it's everywhere like that. But I feel that this happens frequently enough to cripple the system.

Yes, it is all about power and control -- but porn is very much part of what the authorities do not want people to see.

Your sexuality is the most personal, most intimate part of your life. By enforcing "morality" - the state exerts control over your sexuality; it exerts control over the most intimate part of your life; for those in authority, it is the most potent symbol of their power possible - and the most intoxicating validation of their status.

Those in power are there because they are pathologically inclined to seek it. They cannot help but expand that power, to intrude and control others to the maximum extent possible.

I doubt there's a directed conspiracy on this. But I don't doubt this is how the technology will end up being used.

So, this is ... "porn theater"?

Gosh, can't understand how an MP and member of his community could possibly be in favor of that.

Exactly this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com