Responce to BG

BG said on a reply to my Everything is Private? post :
"Think about the other countries in the world that are already going into this direction. For example, Tibet has a ban on youtube. Tibet is not the only one as the list is growing. For those citizens, that is what they have been used to so it is nothing new not to have direct access to youtube.

If we start heading into this direction will the government start banning too many websites? Should the government be tasked with this job or should it be some sort of third party agency?"


Why should there be any need for some organization be tasked with policing the internet? The internet is the wild west, even if people decide that they want some kind of web monitoring going on, it is not in their right to force it on the rest of us. Granted there are businesses that make tons of money by supplying handy internet censorship for almost every corporation in America, but those are fundamentally different. Or are they? Technically they work exactly the same, by blocking certain websites from a specific set of ip addresses.

The same argument that corps use to defend their web restrictions are the same as those used by whole nations.

The difference is that when you're at work you may not be allowed to see something, but you can just go home and look at any of those websites that you couldn't whilst at work. However, if you can't look at those sites at home, there is no way you can go to work and see them.