Tony Blair did not call for the introduction of 'Chinese style internet' controls.
Original article.
What The "Chinese Style" Internet Will Look Like
Electronic police state: Say goodbye to high speed broadband when everything goes through a government censor
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Control freaks the world over, including most recently Tony Blair, have called for the introduction of a Chinese style Internet, where the World Wide Web is tightly regulated and free speech stifled on the whim of a government censor.
Here's what Internet 2, the Chinese format, will look like.
Say goodbye to downloading your favorite music or videos in seconds via high-speed cable or ADSL. There is no high speed broadband Internet in China. Since every website you access has to first pass through a government approved list, even the likes of Yahoo and Google lag and stumble onto your monitor, as if you're using dial-up.
If you don't live in a major city then expect your Internet connectivity to be degraded to a speed slower than dial-up.
The Communist Chinese government blocks any website that is mildly critical of the state and that even extends to mainstream foreign news outlets such as the BBC. Under the new format that Blair and others are proposing, the function of the Internet as a forum for political debate, protest and freedom of speech will simply cease to exist.
Say goodbye to video blogging - since popular personal video upload sites are notoriously hard to moderate, they too will disappear. Despite the best efforts of Google to cozy up to Red China, Google Video is blocked.
Say goodbye to e mail as a reliable form of communication. If the person you're writing to has an account with a mail service that the government doesn't like, the mail is simply returned to you and you're informed that the recipient is an "illegal user".
Keyword logging is also employed to block out individual words - if you include them in the e mail then you've just wasted your time in writing it because it doesn't get through.
Say goodbye to Googling away to your heart's content. If you input too many sensitive words in one go, as I did with "Bush" and "Taiwan" - google.com ceases to be accessible at all and in some cases your Internet connection is instantly terminated."The Washington Post obtained a list of keywords used by a Chinese blog service provider to flag offensive material. Of 236 items on the list, 18 were obscenities. The rest were related to politics or current affairs," reported the Post in February 2006.
"Most words on this list can be posted on Chinese Web sites, but their presence quietly alerts editors to examine the messages that contain them and possibly take action. In tests, postings that included long sections of the list were allowed to remain on several sites, but quickly removed from others. One site also blocked the computer used to conduct the tests from posting anything else."
In conclusion, the new Internet will be nothing more than an electronic police state, merely acting as a tool for the authorities to track down and incarcerate dissidents who dare question the government.
Tony Blair did not call for the introduction of 'Chinese style internet' controls.
I don't live there so I aint fussed
As KAding said, Blair did nothing of the sort. If anything, it's that sort of article that rather proves his point!Control freaks the world over, including most recently Tony Blair, have called for the introduction of a Chinese style Internet, where the World Wide Web is tightly regulated and free speech stifled on the whim of a government censor.
I am so glad I don't live in china! Poor people.
In direct words no he didn't call for it, but....format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
As was pointed out in the link "Tony Blair" in first article that I posted, he feels that the indepedent media is "less balanced" and,Blair backs new online journalism regulator
By George Jones, Political Editor
Tony Blair hinted today at new restrictions on internet journalism, saying online news coverage had become "more pernicious and less balanced" than traditional political reporting.
Tony Blair: 'New forms of media can be even more pernicious'
In a farewell lecture on public life, he said that much of the British media behaved like a "feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits".
But he had particularly harsh words for non-traditional media outlets, particularly the internet.
"It used to be thought - and I include myself in this - that help was on the horizon," he said.
"New forms of communication would provide new outlets to by-pass the increasingly shrill tenor of the traditional media.
"In fact, the new forms can be even more pernicious, less balanced, more intent on the latest conspiracy theory multiplied by five."
The emergence of internet-based news and 24-hour television news channels meant reports were "driven by impact''. He said that there was a need for the distinction between news and comment to be reasserted.
With newspapers increasingly moving online, he said the regulatory systems for papers and TV needed to be revised. Currently they are monitored by separate watchdogs.
"As the technology blurs the distinction between papers and television, it becomes increasingly irrational to have different systems of accountability based on technology that no longer can be differentiated in the old way," Mr Blair said.
The outgoing Prime Minister said senior figures in public life had now become "totally demoralised" by the completely unbalanced nature of reporting.
He conceded that relations had always been fraught, but said the situation now threatened politicians' "capacity to take the right decisions for the country''.
The Prime Minister acknowledged that he had "contributed" to the deteriorating situation with the media by "spinning" too much in the early days of New Labour.
''We paid inordinate attention in the early days of New Labour to courting, assuaging, and persuading the media,'' Mr Blair said in a speech to Reuters.
''In our own defence, after 18 years of opposition and the, at times, ferocious hostility of parts of the media, it was hard to see any alternative.
''But such an attitude ran the risk of fuelling the trends in communications that I am about to question.''
While insisting that he was not complaining about the coverage he gets as Premier, Mr Blair claimed there was less balance in journalism now than 10 years ago.
Mr Blair insisted that there was still a genuine desire for impartial news coverage among the public.
"At present, we are all being dragged down by the way media and public life interact,'' Mr Blair said. "I do believe this relationship between public life and media is now damaged in a manner that requires repair.
"The damage saps the country's confidence and self-belief; it undermines its assessment of itself, its institutions; and above all, it reduces our capacity to take the right decisions, in the right spirit for our future.''
Telegraph.co.uk (original article)
Therefore Blair's solution is to bring in an online journalism regulator to decide what is "balanced" reporting and what is not. Such a move is exactly the kind of thing that has been witnessed in Communist China in an effort to crackdown on criticism of the government there.
It is not "exactly the kind of thing that has been witnessed in Communist China", which is direct censorship and blocking of search engines such as Google (with their co-operation, sadly).Therefore Blair's solution is to bring in an online journalism regulator to decide what is "balanced" reporting and what is not. Such a move is exactly the kind of thing that has been witnessed in Communist China in an effort to crackdown on criticism of the government there.
The implication is that the online news media be partially regulated in exactly the same way the printed and broadcast media already is. That does not involve censorship, but it does involve a route whereby complaints can be formally made after the event of publication (*)to a regulatory authority (which involves media representatives, as well as government and 'public' representatives). Should the case be decided against the paper/broadcaster (and, in future website, maybe) the regulatory authority - the existing one being the Press Complaints Commission can levy a fine and can require that a retraction or apology also be published. Historically government has very rarely made such complaints, the legislation is primarily for the protection of individuals who think they have been unfairly treated.
(*) Actually complaints can be made before, if the content of an article is known in advance, but the PCC has no power to prevent publication or broadcast. Only a Judge can do that, and that is the same in every country in the world to my knowledge.
I'd also point out in passing that as today is Blair's last as Prime Minister, his thoughts on the subject don't really matter much anyway!
Last edited by Trumble; 06-23-2007 at 01:25 PM.
But at this point, I would gladly launch a question:
How would Internet look like, if it was under control of Sharia or Taliban?
Any suggestions?
bannedformat_quote Originally Posted by guyabano
What I find most ironic is this is presented by someone with "Truth" in his name.
I find it amazing, how nobody like to ask on threads which are considered as 'uncomfortable'
or how would it look like it were ruled by catty people
To be controlled under sharia, that is true sharia, it would have to be in a true Islamic country. At this time there are no truly Islamic Countries and I do not believe any of us will live long enough to see one.format_quote Originally Posted by guyabano
Now if hypothetically if a true sharia country existed, yes there would be censorship, at least for residents of that country. However, the censorship would not be violating any residents rights as the censored material would be things that a Muslim would watch. To be truly Sharia rule an entire country would have to be 100% Muslim.
Huh? Do you mean things a muslim wouldn't watch? If so, then surely there would be no need for censorship?format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Quite true. I did not think of it in that way. If a country was 100% Muslim, there would be no need for censorship as there would be no audience or source for the haram material.format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Muslims are not humans?format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow. There will be no audience for pornography, political dissent or music because a country is 100% Muslim? You mean purely theoretically if all these Muslims would be true and strict Muslims? But such a place cannot exist of course.
All countries that today call themselves Islamic states have strict censorship. Which is not surprising, since in Islamic doctrine it is the purpose of the government to prevent people from sinning, regardless if they do this in private or public.
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
So the censorship would be there for the sole purpose of preventing non-muslims in the Shariah state from watching any material deemed inappropriate for muslims, who would not watch it anyway?
format_quote Originally Posted by KAdingMuslims are not humans?
All countries that today call themselves Islamic states have strict censorship. Which is not surprising, since in Islamic doctrine it is the purpose of the government to prevent people from sinning, regardless if they do this in private or public.since in Islamic doctrine it is the purpose of the government to prevent people from sinning, regardless if they do this in private or public.
That is true. However if a country were all Muslims we would have no problem with that. As the sharia law is no different from what we are supposed to do.
I have to agree with you. At the present time it can only be theoretical. As you pointed out it would be necessary for all the people to be true and strict Muslims, in order for a nation to be truly Sharia.
Now in the current Islamic countries in which the country is imposing censorship. I have little to comment on. That to me is an attempt to misuse sharia law for the benefit of the country leaders and not for the benefit of ALL of the people. The error is not so much as the imposition of the censorship, but a question as to how and why it is done.
format_quote Originally Posted by KAdingMuslims are not humans?
There may be people who do sins within the boundaries of their own homes, however - no-one is sent to spy on them.
All countries that today call themselves Islamic states have strict censorship. Which is not surprising, since in Islamic doctrine it is the purpose of the government to prevent people from sinning, regardless if they do this in private or public.
This has been explained by the Messenger of Allaah, peace be upon him:
Therefore, the answer is - we don't have an Islamic state yet, as it's been Prophecised.
"The Prophethood will last among you for as long as Allah (God) wills, then Allah would take it away. Then it will be (followed by) a Khilafah [caliphate] Rashida (rightly guided) according to the ways of the Prophethood. It will remain for as long as Allah wills, then Allah would take it away. Afterwards there will be a hereditary leadership which will remain for as long as Allah wills, then He will lift it if He wishes. Afterwards, there will be biting oppression, and it will last for as long as Allah wishes, then He will lift it if He wishes. Then there will be a Khilafah Rashida according to the ways of the Prophethood," then he kept silent.
[recorded in Musnad Imam Ahmad (v/273)]
We're under the underlined stage, and all the events before it have occured in our islamic history. Inshaa'Allaah the rest of the prophecy will soon come into effect.
According to the hadith, the prophet (peace be upon him) will be followed by rightly guided caliphs and after those caliphs (Abu Baker, Omar, Uthman and Ali) will come hereditary leadership (the other Caliphs) and after that will come tyrannical rule (today) and after that will come a rightly guided caliphs yet again inshaa'Allaah.
http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...mic-state.html
Peace.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks