Ban the Internet

[ravage]

My last couple of posts on this. See this. If you want to continue and expect a response, please feel free to PM me, and I will respond when I find the time.

@picoico

What’s your speciailization, out of curiosity? Regardless, the point remains; there is no single Internt as such.

Google itself relies on ISPs to get its content out. These ISPs can loosely be described as the heart of the Internet. IBM, Qwest, UUNET, etc. Google isn’t in that game, afaik.

Yar. This is a lot like Ted Steven’s description of the internet. Google it. I have clarified what I meant ‘internet’. I mention google in particular not because I believe Google hosts websites but because it is the gateway to the web for most people.

You missed the part about seeking perfection. Also, the chain of reasoning is still broken, specificially because of the distinction between content and medium. It’s for this same reason why the Google analogy doesn’t work…you gloss over the fact in your initial post that Google doesn’t actually host content.

Did I gloss over it? How does noting that google doesnt host content gloss over it?

That facebook hosts the site versus provides access to it has not been a factor in the considerations. Evidenced by the fact that Google WAS banned.

The analogy I therefore constructed was that google allows the construction of offensive search queries, returns highly offensive results, despite having the ability to filter these out, and despite filtering them for other search queries. Note that nowhere is hosting an issue, but the provision of access to offensive content.

Second, you also falsely reason that sites are “hosted” on an Internet. The Internet, and WWW specifically, is infrastrucutre. Specific companies and organizations host content, and interlink through the Net. Yes, you may know this, so spare me a credential flash. Other readers may not.

Yea yea the internet is a series of tubes. You’re making distinctions without a difference. The same level of specificity the court applies in banning facebook, google, wikipedia, youtube and now twitter applies to the ‘internet’ in general. Good and bad content (regardless of which server the binary files are fetched from). Ban the good and the bad.

If your intent was to show that the wholesale ban on facebook is nonsensical, I actually agree…it really should be specific content that is banned or not. Why pick on facebook as a whole? Because that’s the finest grain organization that is ultimately responsible for disseminating published content. Occam’s razor…doesn’t make sense to bring in Google, or the Internet as a whole. It adds no value in persuing specific content that is objectionable, and it is my understanding that this is in strict response to the Draw Muhammad (pbuh) Day. If not, then I digress…

Great we agree on the lack of specificity issue.

Unprincipled ? Hardly. Arbitrary…the extent to which laws are applied often seem so. What of it? As I said, not all speeders get speeding tickets. So what of it?

The speeding analogy is completely wrong. Only reason speeders dont get tickets is if they’re not caught. When I say PTA can easily ‘catch’ them you switch the analogy to say oh but the others are walking.

On the contrary; what you miss out is that a single court case sets the precedent. And in no way does this take us down the slipper slope of banning the Internet…or air for that matter.

Hah. The irony of saying that when within two days our wonderfully vigilant authorities have subsequently banned google, twitter, wikipedia, youtube. Infact certain providers, unable to comply with banning just facebook bans, had to turn their internet services completely off.

But sure, make your arguments.

Keep yer shorts on. Google et all being shut down because they refuse to abide by local laws…that’s a-okay. Side effect I suggested (half in hest) is that such events can actually help local business…e.g. Chinese companies swooped in and took market share from google. The only drawback I see is that inferior products and services may supplant existing ones; and local companies will loose any motivation to improve.

Yes, I was a glorified code monkey, who now resides in a comfy ivory tower.

Great then as a glorified code monkey, do you honestly think Pakistan’s domestic internet/CS industry is sizable? Im glad you acknowledge that any products you replace will be inferior. I further hazard that not only will these products be inferior they will be ill adopted because of their inferiority.

Any number of ‘pakistani’ search engines have come and gone. Because they were simply pathetic, and the information they gave access to was very limited. I dont know what magic wand you think will be waved if google is banned that the reality of that will change.

Reason? Site X has illegal content. Site X blocked until it takes action on any such content. End of story. Perhaps a bit of a heavy handed approach (should have probably approached face book first), but I don’t really know how things unfolded except from what we read in the papers.

So if there’s any problem with the situation, it’s how things were done, not why.

Great so you acknowlege the ‘how’. As for Site X has illegal content, Site X is blocked, thats about as banal an argument as can be made. The sky is blue so it is blue.