Max's Miscellaneous Musings

I am, of course, referring to the "clean feed", in which people in the Australian government make decisions on my behalf, about what I should and shouldn't be able to see on the interwebs. The government seems to think that imposing web filtering on everyone, without their consent, is a good thing.

I call it censorship. I call it paternalism. I call it an insult to my intelligence. And I call it WRONG.

The internet in Australia is already shit-slow. According to stopthecleanfeed.com (admittedly, a biased source), imposition of the filter at its strictest setting imposed as much as an 87% slowdown, and still managed to let objectionable sites through. Should your own site be blacklisted, you'll get no notice of it, and no way of appealing the decision. So if someone in Canberra doesn't like my dykey, nerdy, cyclist, weight-loss, greenie blog, it can be blocked at the drop of a hat. Exactly what makes a site objectionable anyway?

Does anyone see the irony of the Australian government, a supposely intelligent group of people, simultaneously objecting to the Chinese firewall during the Olympics but looking to create its own? I note that since the Olympics, the discussion of the Chinese government seeking to blind its people to the rest of the world is conveniently absent.

Actually, I think Amnesty International said it best:

Amnesty International recognises that there are some limits to freedom of expression and that this includes blocking access to certain content; for example, child pornography or content that incites violence. What is essential, however, is transparency -- a clear communication of what is to be blocked, and why this is in the broader social interest, and under what legislation.

It is stated that this proposal will protect children. However, there are already technical options available for ensuring that harmful content is not accessible to minors - Government-developed software has been made available free of charge for such purposes. The proposal for blanket censorship makes decisions for all web users regardless of their age.

No other Western democracy operates a system such as the one proposed by the Australian Government. When the Government refers to other nations having such systems, it omits the fact that elsewhere the involvement of the ISPs is completely voluntary and take-up is very low. In those other countries, the ISP has a choice and so, therefore, does the Internet user. The Australian proposal effectively makes the Internet Service Provider a tool of censorship and would decide for each Internet user what they can or cannot read and discuss online.

EDIT: Here's a leaked list of sites so far blacklisted under this scheme.