Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
Mark J. Roberts (Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 07:47:41PM -0400): > -- > ### > ### > ### > ### > > > > ### > > ># > ### ### > ### > #### > #### > ## > ### ### > # # ## >## ## > ## > # > # > > > My sig can beat up your sig! no. not with _this_ font. use windings, at least. -- moritz kernel panic: hands went berserk and are typeing a lot of useless stuff. it's recommendet to send the system to few hours of sleep. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
Dear God! I admit, that's impressive. However, your sigdashes were incorrect. It's supposed to "-- "--you forgot the space. -- ____ / ) / ) /--/ __. __ / / __. , __o _ _ / (_(_/|_/ (_(_) / / <_ /__/_(_/|_\/ <__http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 09:32:16PM -0400, Mark J. Roberts wrote: > On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Travis Bemann wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 09:16:56PM -0400, Mark J. Roberts wrote: > > > On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Kataman wrote: > > > > > > > No shit sherlock. That's what we've been saying. > > > > > > I did not claim that being forced into slavery is good, and I don't know > > > where you got that idea. > > > > > > I am trying to understand how banning buying and selling helps the poor. > > > > Anarchism *can't* ban buying and selling, but it does remove all the > > state's support for capitalist property rights and support for the > > capitalists' power. > > Socialism must, however. > > Anarchism would also remove the property rights of the poor. Wouldn't they > be robbed by the rich (now unrestrained by law)? If the proletariat isn't > resolute enough to work within the law to combat the excesses of the rich > (in the ways I mentioned -- strikes, boycotts, competition), how will they > find the strength to do it outside the law? > > > -- > "...you have mistaken your cowardice for common sense > and have found comfort in that, deceiving yourselves." > Mark Roberts | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mark, your email nonsense bot has gotten really sophisticated lately. Congratulations. Don't you think you've let it argue with Travis long enough though? -- # tavin cole # # "The process of scientific discovery is, in effect, # a continual flight from wonder." # - Albert Einstein ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Travis Bemann wrote: > On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 09:16:56PM -0400, Mark J. Roberts wrote: > > On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Kataman wrote: > > > > > No shit sherlock. That's what we've been saying. > > > > I did not claim that being forced into slavery is good, and I don't know > > where you got that idea. > > > > I am trying to understand how banning buying and selling helps the poor. > > Anarchism *can't* ban buying and selling, but it does remove all the > state's support for capitalist property rights and support for the > capitalists' power. Socialism must, however. Anarchism would also remove the property rights of the poor. Wouldn't they be robbed by the rich (now unrestrained by law)? If the proletariat isn't resolute enough to work within the law to combat the excesses of the rich (in the ways I mentioned -- strikes, boycotts, competition), how will they find the strength to do it outside the law? -- "...you have mistaken your cowardice for common sense and have found comfort in that, deceiving yourselves." Mark Roberts | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 09:16:56PM -0400, Mark J. Roberts wrote: > On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Kataman wrote: > > > No shit sherlock. That's what we've been saying. > > I did not claim that being forced into slavery is good, and I don't know > where you got that idea. > > I am trying to understand how banning buying and selling helps the poor. Anarchism *can't* ban buying and selling, but it does remove all the state's support for capitalist property rights and support for the capitalists' power. -- Yes, I know my enemies. They're the teachers who tell me to fight me. Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission, ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite. All of which are American dreams. - Rage Against The Machine PGP signature
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Kataman wrote: > No shit sherlock. That's what we've been saying. I did not claim that being forced into slavery is good, and I don't know where you got that idea. I am trying to understand how banning buying and selling helps the poor. -- "...you have mistaken your cowardice for common sense and have found comfort in that, deceiving yourselves." Mark Roberts | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Travis Bemann wrote: > >> On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 04:56:54PM -0400, Mark J. Roberts wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Kataman wrote: >>> > Why wouldn't poor people turn to charity, as they do now? Have you ever tried living on charity? Plus some too much pride for that. >>> >>> And selling oneself into slavery is a more "proud" thing to do than asking >>> for help? >> >> What if selling oneself into slavery is your only choice? > > > Then one is fucked! > > No shit sherlock. That's what we've been saying. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Aaron Guy Davies wrote: > ____ >/ ) / ) > /--/ __. __ / / __. , __o _ _ > / (_(_/|_/ (_(_) / / <_ /__/_(_/|_\/ <__http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Travis Bemann wrote: > On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 04:56:54PM -0400, Mark J. Roberts wrote: > > On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Kataman wrote: > > > > > > Why wouldn't poor people turn to charity, as they do now? > > > > > > Have you ever tried living on charity? Plus some too much pride for > > > that. > > > > And selling oneself into slavery is a more "proud" thing to do than asking > > for help? > > What if selling oneself into slavery is your only choice? Then one is fucked! -- "...you have mistaken your cowardice for common sense and have found comfort in that, deceiving yourselves." Mark Roberts | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 12:20:41PM -0400, Mark J. Roberts wrote: > On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Mark J. Roberts (Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 01:22:47PM -0400): > > > On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Travis Bemann wrote: > > > > > > > Wasn't it Marcel Popescu, who is a self-avowed "anarcho"capitalist, > > > > say that striking is theft (for the workers have given the capitalists > > > > their work in return for pay, and therefore striking is stealing > > > > continued work from the capitalists). Also, doesn't the > > > > "anarcho"capitalist doctrine of Utilitarianism allow slavery (for one > > > > has the right to sign away their freedom and liberty). > > > > > > If the strikers were paid in advance, then yes, it would be theft of > > > whatever amount of work they were paid for and did not complete. The > > > corollary is that the workers may refuse to do any work they have not been > > > paid for (and refuse payment for more work, of course). > > > > > > I believe that "anarcho"capitalism would permit slavery. Why anyone would > > > ever sell themselves into slavery is not apparent to me. > > > > poverty > > Why wouldn't poor people turn to charity, as they do now? Try living on charity. -- Yes, I know my enemies. They're the teachers who tell me to fight me. Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission, ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite. All of which are American dreams. - Rage Against The Machine PGP signature
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 04:56:54PM -0400, Mark J. Roberts wrote: > On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Kataman wrote: > > > > Why wouldn't poor people turn to charity, as they do now? > > > > Have you ever tried living on charity? Plus some too much pride for > > that. > > And selling oneself into slavery is a more "proud" thing to do than asking > for help? What if selling oneself into slavery is your only choice? -- Yes, I know my enemies. They're the teachers who tell me to fight me. Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission, ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite. All of which are American dreams. - Rage Against The Machine PGP signature
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Kataman wrote: > >>> Why wouldn't poor people turn to charity, as they do now? >> >> Have you ever tried living on charity? Plus some too much pride for >> that. > > > And selling oneself into slavery is a more "proud" thing to do than asking > for help? > > To some, yes, for at least as a slave you are earning your keep. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Seth Johnson wrote: > "Mark J. Roberts" wrote: > > > > Why wouldn't poor people turn to charity, as they do now? > > Because if you're not at least a wage slave, you're worthless. > > Or so the story goes. Giving to the poor is widely held to be a good thing. Why would that change if restrictions on capitalism were lifted? How does forbidding free trade encourage giving to charity? (I might add that gifts to charity would logically be forbidden--it is obvious that givers derive pleasure from giving; thus, givers are nothing more than glorified whoremongers!) -- "...you have mistaken your cowardice for common sense and have found comfort in that, deceiving yourselves." Mark Roberts | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Kataman wrote: > > Why wouldn't poor people turn to charity, as they do now? > > Have you ever tried living on charity? Plus some too much pride for > that. And selling oneself into slavery is a more "proud" thing to do than asking for help? -- "...you have mistaken your cowardice for common sense and have found comfort in that, deceiving yourselves." Mark Roberts | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
"Mark J. Roberts" wrote: > > Why wouldn't poor people turn to charity, as they do now? Because if you're not at least a wage slave, you're worthless. Or so the story goes. Seth Johnson ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> I believe that "anarcho"capitalism would permit slavery. Why anyone would >>> ever sell themselves into slavery is not apparent to me. >> >> poverty > > > Why wouldn't poor people turn to charity, as they do now? > > Have you ever tried living on charity? Plus some too much pride for that. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Mark J. Roberts (Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 01:22:47PM -0400): > > On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Travis Bemann wrote: > > > > > Wasn't it Marcel Popescu, who is a self-avowed "anarcho"capitalist, > > > say that striking is theft (for the workers have given the capitalists > > > their work in return for pay, and therefore striking is stealing > > > continued work from the capitalists). Also, doesn't the > > > "anarcho"capitalist doctrine of Utilitarianism allow slavery (for one > > > has the right to sign away their freedom and liberty). > > > > If the strikers were paid in advance, then yes, it would be theft of > > whatever amount of work they were paid for and did not complete. The > > corollary is that the workers may refuse to do any work they have not been > > paid for (and refuse payment for more work, of course). > > > > I believe that "anarcho"capitalism would permit slavery. Why anyone would > > ever sell themselves into slavery is not apparent to me. > > poverty Why wouldn't poor people turn to charity, as they do now? -- "...you have mistaken your cowardice for common sense and have found comfort in that, deceiving yourselves." Mark Roberts | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
Mark J. Roberts (Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 01:22:47PM -0400): > On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Travis Bemann wrote: > > > Wasn't it Marcel Popescu, who is a self-avowed "anarcho"capitalist, > > say that striking is theft (for the workers have given the capitalists > > their work in return for pay, and therefore striking is stealing > > continued work from the capitalists). Also, doesn't the > > "anarcho"capitalist doctrine of Utilitarianism allow slavery (for one > > has the right to sign away their freedom and liberty). > > If the strikers were paid in advance, then yes, it would be theft of > whatever amount of work they were paid for and did not complete. The > corollary is that the workers may refuse to do any work they have not been > paid for (and refuse payment for more work, of course). > > I believe that "anarcho"capitalism would permit slavery. Why anyone would > ever sell themselves into slavery is not apparent to me. poverty -- moritz ..-. --- .-. - ..- -. . Everybody has something to conceal. -- Humphrey Bogart ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Travis Bemann wrote: > Wasn't it Marcel Popescu, who is a self-avowed "anarcho"capitalist, > say that striking is theft (for the workers have given the capitalists > their work in return for pay, and therefore striking is stealing > continued work from the capitalists). Also, doesn't the > "anarcho"capitalist doctrine of Utilitarianism allow slavery (for one > has the right to sign away their freedom and liberty). If the strikers were paid in advance, then yes, it would be theft of whatever amount of work they were paid for and did not complete. The corollary is that the workers may refuse to do any work they have not been paid for (and refuse payment for more work, of course). I believe that "anarcho"capitalism would permit slavery. Why anyone would ever sell themselves into slavery is not apparent to me. > You expect an individual person to earn enough money to make a > corporation that can compete with huge multinational corporations?! Yes. History is full of examples. > > Why is starting a collective more difficult in a capitalist society? > > A capitalist society does not lend itself to the creation of > collectives (for the creation of collectives often has the same > problems as the creation of a plain old corporation). How would you start a collective in your ideal society? How does that differ from how you would start one in a capitalist society? > > So the commonplace charities - salvation army, etc - don't really give to > > the poor? Where does all that money go, then? > > I'm talking about the ruling class. And anyways, the Salvation Army > does give to the poor, for doing so helps it advance religion. Nobody at the Salvation Army really cares about the welfare of the poor? > > Yeah. The solution to that is to strike, or to quit and join a better > > company. Both of those are possible and effective. > > For lots of people, there really isn't the option of quitting and > joining a better company. Maybe in theory, but often not in > practice. What factors are most important in denying those people that option? > What I am saying is that the corporations and such can practically get > away with murder, even if it is technically illegal, for the people in > the government support capitalism and business and therefore are often > perfectly willing to overlook crimes committed for capitalism. So I've heard. That puts us in a rather dismal situation. The argument comes down to "if the government allows X, it will allow crimes to be committed to make X stronger." The same argument can be used against any proposed system. > > Would you be content pursuing the goals of collectivisation and equality > > within the framework of a fair, just, and minimal civic order which > > respected the rights to life, liberty, and property? > > The problem with this is property, which is a thoroughly capitalist > and authoritarian notion, for it allows stuff like landlordism and > shareholders and executives controlling the workers who actually do > the work. The replacement of property with possession/use rights > fixes this because it shifts ownership from some arbitrary owners to > those who live somewhere or uses something (instead of a landlord > owning an apartment building, the apartment building is owned by all > the people who live in it, and instead of shareholders owning the > means of production, the workers who use the means of production own > the means of production). But why would the people ever allow their property to fall into the hands of landlords and shareholders and executives if they did not want to? Absent criminal coercion, I don't see any explanation except that most people don't mind landlords, shareholders, and executives. Or perhaps most people are just too stupid, fearful, and obedient to do anything about them. -- "...you have mistaken your cowardice for common sense and have found comfort in that, deceiving yourselves." Mark Roberts | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Sam Joseph wrote: > Tavin Cole wrote: > > > > What is it with this? Are you telling me that I couldn't set up a > P2P > > > network that stored cryptographically hashed content and did routing > > > > like freenet, but where the nodes blocked input of non > natural-language > > > text files? > > > You could do this, but it would obviously mean the nodes would be > dealing > > with unencrypted files. > > I don't think so. The interface for entering the files would screen out > things that weren't natural language, and then encrypt the files before > storage. > > If the files are thus encrypted the system can be as secure as Freenet > is now, right? And if your system is open-source (which it would have to be to be remotely secure) someone just writes a non-filtering client. Since everything has to be encrypted before going out into the net, it can't be filtered anywhere but at the inserting client, so you're screwed anyway. See, it's completely infeasible! -- ____ / ) / ) /--/ __. __ / / __. , __o _ _ / (_(_/|_/ (_(_) / / <_ /__/_(_/|_\/ <__http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 11:59:18AM -0400, Mark J. Roberts wrote: > On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Travis Bemann wrote: > > > > The first two are not possible without the corruption of the government. > > > Why is government corruption more likely under a Libertarian regime, as > > > opposed to a Democratic or Republican regime? > > > > They can still happen under a Democratic or Republican regime, and > > have happened under Democratic and Republican regimes in the past. > > But this is more likely under a Libertarian regime because of the > > no-holds-barred stance towards business and industry. > > So we have a choice. We can be: > > * Fucked by capitalists. > * Fucked by government. > * Fucked by both. > * (Unless we destroy both at once.) > > Doesn't seem very promising. I hope the premise is wrong. > > > As for freedom to strike and such, I thought that striking is theft > > according to the views of at least some Libertarians and > > "anarcho"capitalists? It might not be your idea, but I wouldn't be > > surprised if the government viewed striking as such under a > > Libertarian regime. > > Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Wasn't it Marcel Popescu, who is a self-avowed "anarcho"capitalist, say that striking is theft (for the workers have given the capitalists their work in return for pay, and therefore striking is stealing continued work from the capitalists). Also, doesn't the "anarcho"capitalist doctrine of Utilitarianism allow slavery (for one has the right to sign away their freedom and liberty). > > Starting new corporations: easier said than done. Where do you get > > the capital? Where do you get the starting resources? And even if it > > You earn it, or ask people who have money to lend some. You expect an individual person to earn enough money to make a corporation that can compete with huge multinational corporations?! > > is originally run for everyone's benefit, how long do you think it > > will be before people concerned with profit and screwing anyone and > > everyone who gets in the way of profit gain control (unless it is a > > collective, which in an otherwise capitalist society is technically a > > corporation, but is rather different and usually behaves differently > > from normal corporations because it is worker-owned and > > worker-managed)? > > Why is starting a collective more difficult in a capitalist society? A capitalist society does not lend itself to the creation of collectives (for the creation of collectives often has the same problems as the creation of a plain old corporation). > > And do you really think that you can rely on charity?! It is not in > > the interests of the ruling class to provide charity for charity sake, > > for poor people are a good source of cheap labor; the only sort of > > corporate charity that I see today is stuff that is meant to result in > > tax reductions and stuff that is really in the interests of the > > corporation providing charity (such as giving schools a whole bunch of > > computers with Micro$oft Windows, so all the kiddies grow up using > > Micro$oft software). > > So the commonplace charities - salvation army, etc - don't really give to > the poor? Where does all that money go, then? I'm talking about the ruling class. And anyways, the Salvation Army does give to the poor, for doing so helps it advance religion. > > As for corporate-run cities, do you know what a company town is? It > > is a town that is run as a company, usually to supply workers for a > > particular factory; if you work at that factory you must live in that > > town. In many areas where there are a not many jobs, people often end > > up needing to work in a company town, because of necessity. > > Yeah. The solution to that is to strike, or to quit and join a better > company. Both of those are possible and effective. For lots of people, there really isn't the option of quitting and joining a better company. Maybe in theory, but often not in practice. > > Finally, back in the bad old days of the late 1800s, there were laws > > against murder and such, but that did not stop vigilantes and police > > and soldiers from killing strikers and such. Do Haymarket Square and > > the Pullman Strike mean anything to you. > > Those were incidents where crimes were committed against strikers, and the > free market was interfered with. What I am saying is that the corporations and such can practically get away with murder, even if it is technically illegal, for the people in the government support capitalism and business and therefore are often perfectly willing to overlook crimes committed for capitalism. > > > I would like to live in a world where I can freely buy and sell things. > > > Maybe it's just a stupid fantasy. > > > > It is a stupid fantasy, for it is never going to happen without all > > the nasty baggage, as long as it is "anarcho"capitalism that you > > desire. On the other hand, you can shed all
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Travis Bemann wrote: > > The first two are not possible without the corruption of the government. > > Why is government corruption more likely under a Libertarian regime, as > > opposed to a Democratic or Republican regime? > > They can still happen under a Democratic or Republican regime, and > have happened under Democratic and Republican regimes in the past. > But this is more likely under a Libertarian regime because of the > no-holds-barred stance towards business and industry. So we have a choice. We can be: * Fucked by capitalists. * Fucked by government. * Fucked by both. * (Unless we destroy both at once.) Doesn't seem very promising. I hope the premise is wrong. > As for freedom to strike and such, I thought that striking is theft > according to the views of at least some Libertarians and > "anarcho"capitalists? It might not be your idea, but I wouldn't be > surprised if the government viewed striking as such under a > Libertarian regime. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? > Starting new corporations: easier said than done. Where do you get > the capital? Where do you get the starting resources? And even if it You earn it, or ask people who have money to lend some. > is originally run for everyone's benefit, how long do you think it > will be before people concerned with profit and screwing anyone and > everyone who gets in the way of profit gain control (unless it is a > collective, which in an otherwise capitalist society is technically a > corporation, but is rather different and usually behaves differently > from normal corporations because it is worker-owned and > worker-managed)? Why is starting a collective more difficult in a capitalist society? > And do you really think that you can rely on charity?! It is not in > the interests of the ruling class to provide charity for charity sake, > for poor people are a good source of cheap labor; the only sort of > corporate charity that I see today is stuff that is meant to result in > tax reductions and stuff that is really in the interests of the > corporation providing charity (such as giving schools a whole bunch of > computers with Micro$oft Windows, so all the kiddies grow up using > Micro$oft software). So the commonplace charities - salvation army, etc - don't really give to the poor? Where does all that money go, then? > As for corporate-run cities, do you know what a company town is? It > is a town that is run as a company, usually to supply workers for a > particular factory; if you work at that factory you must live in that > town. In many areas where there are a not many jobs, people often end > up needing to work in a company town, because of necessity. Yeah. The solution to that is to strike, or to quit and join a better company. Both of those are possible and effective. > Finally, back in the bad old days of the late 1800s, there were laws > against murder and such, but that did not stop vigilantes and police > and soldiers from killing strikers and such. Do Haymarket Square and > the Pullman Strike mean anything to you. Those were incidents where crimes were committed against strikers, and the free market was interfered with. > > I would like to live in a world where I can freely buy and sell things. > > Maybe it's just a stupid fantasy. > > It is a stupid fantasy, for it is never going to happen without all > the nasty baggage, as long as it is "anarcho"capitalism that you > desire. On the other hand, you can shed all the nasty baggage by When did I claim that I wanted "anarcho"capitalism? I meant what I wrote. I would like to be free to buy and sell things. From that freedom you can infer more freedoms I would like. > switching what you want from "anarcho"capitalism to individualist > anarchist (which is market-based but replaces capitalist property with > possession/use rights and hierarchial management with collective > worker management). Would you be content pursuing the goals of collectivisation and equality within the framework of a fair, just, and minimal civic order which respected the rights to life, liberty, and property? (I realize that such an order may not be attainable.) -- "...you have mistaken your cowardice for common sense and have found comfort in that, deceiving yourselves." Mark Roberts | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 01:19:20AM -0400, Mark J. Roberts wrote: > On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Travis Bemann wrote: > > > > The Libertarians would abolish the income tax and the war on drugs. The > > > government would be substantially weaker under Libertarian control. > > > > Under Libertarian control the government's sole purpose would be the > > protection of the capitalists and their property and fighting those > > people who wish to expropriate the bourgeoisie and breaking strikes > > and other stuff of that sort. A Libertarian world would be quite > > nightmarish. A world of corporate enforcers, right-wing vigilantes, > > lethal pollution, extreme poverty, corporate-run towns and cities, and > > just total unrestricted corporate power. You get the picture. It > > would be similar to fascism, in many respects. > > I was assuming that criminal things like strike breaking, corporate > enforcers, right-wing vigilantes, and polluting others' property would not > be permitted. The Libertarian platform does not include the legalization > of those crimes. > > [snip description of capitalist evils] > > In short, capitalists will: > > * Pollute my property severely. > * Kill me if I strike or dissent. > * Create dangerous working conditions for me. > > The first two are not possible without the corruption of the government. > Why is government corruption more likely under a Libertarian regime, as > opposed to a Democratic or Republican regime? They can still happen under a Democratic or Republican regime, and have happened under Democratic and Republican regimes in the past. But this is more likely under a Libertarian regime because of the no-holds-barred stance towards business and industry. Also, all of this stuff is in retrospect. I didn't make up any of this stuff; it all really happened back in the days of unrestricted, unregulated business back in the late 1800s. One of the main lessons of history is that unrestricted, unregulated business is NOT a good idea. If given freedom, the capitalists will run with it and use the opportunity to screw anyone that gets in the way of profit in any way. > I would propose simple, easy, legal ways to fix some of those problems, > but they assume that the government is not corrupt. For example, dangerous > working conditions can be fixed by striking. Extreme poverty can be fixed > by starting new corporations and/or asking for charity. Corporate-run > cities can be fixed by organizing new cities that are not corporate-run. > But without a free market (freedom to strike, to choose a competitor's > product, etc.) and sane laws (murder and destruction of others' property > are illegal, etc.), there is no hope. The problem with corporations is that they are inherently motivated by profit and profit only. As for freedom to strike and such, I thought that striking is theft according to the views of at least some Libertarians and "anarcho"capitalists? It might not be your idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if the government viewed striking as such under a Libertarian regime. Starting new corporations: easier said than done. Where do you get the capital? Where do you get the starting resources? And even if it is originally run for everyone's benefit, how long do you think it will be before people concerned with profit and screwing anyone and everyone who gets in the way of profit gain control (unless it is a collective, which in an otherwise capitalist society is technically a corporation, but is rather different and usually behaves differently from normal corporations because it is worker-owned and worker-managed)? And do you really think that you can rely on charity?! It is not in the interests of the ruling class to provide charity for charity sake, for poor people are a good source of cheap labor; the only sort of corporate charity that I see today is stuff that is meant to result in tax reductions and stuff that is really in the interests of the corporation providing charity (such as giving schools a whole bunch of computers with Micro$oft Windows, so all the kiddies grow up using Micro$oft software). As for corporate-run cities, do you know what a company town is? It is a town that is run as a company, usually to supply workers for a particular factory; if you work at that factory you must live in that town. In many areas where there are a not many jobs, people often end up needing to work in a company town, because of necessity. Finally, back in the bad old days of the late 1800s, there were laws against murder and such, but that did not stop vigilantes and police and soldiers from killing strikers and such. Do Haymarket Square and the Pullman Strike mean anything to you. > I would like to live in a world where I can freely buy and sell things. > Maybe it's just a stupid fantasy. It is a stupid fantasy, for it is never going to happen without all the nasty baggage, as long as it is "anarcho"capitalism that you desire. On the ot
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
> "MJR" == Mark J Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: MJR> I would like to live in a world where I can freely buy and MJR> sell things. Maybe it's just a stupid fantasy. Maybe it's just a trivial, mundane fantasy. Is that really the best that Libertarians can do? Because I'm not really that entranced with the idea. What would the folks back in the old country (Libertaria) think, if they knew that their progeny in America had no bigger dream than Free Actors in a Free Market? Is the best we can expect out of life really an Econ 101 homework assignment? If *I* were a Libertarian (which I'm not -- my family's Greek), I'd be promoting instead the true promises of freedom... * Designer drugs so spectacular that your brain physically levitates out of your skull, twirls around and shoots lasers everywhere * Personal jet pack * Using those 6'-tall stone donuts from Christmas Island for money * Giant robots the size of skyscrapers that eat cars * Raves with incredible DJs breaking out on city street corners for no apparent reason, lasting for days on end * Raucous sex with half a dozen oiled-up supermodels on live TV Fuck, man! Don't tell me the MECHANISM, tell me the RESULTS! ~Mr. Bad -- ~ Mr. Bad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Pigdog Journal | http://pigdog.org/ freenet:MSK@SSK@u1AntQcZ81Y4c2tJKd1M87cZvPoQAge/pigdog+journal// "Statements like this give the impression that this article was written by a madman in a drug induced rage" -- Ben Franklin ~ ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Travis Bemann wrote: > > The Libertarians would abolish the income tax and the war on drugs. The > > government would be substantially weaker under Libertarian control. > > Under Libertarian control the government's sole purpose would be the > protection of the capitalists and their property and fighting those > people who wish to expropriate the bourgeoisie and breaking strikes > and other stuff of that sort. A Libertarian world would be quite > nightmarish. A world of corporate enforcers, right-wing vigilantes, > lethal pollution, extreme poverty, corporate-run towns and cities, and > just total unrestricted corporate power. You get the picture. It > would be similar to fascism, in many respects. I was assuming that criminal things like strike breaking, corporate enforcers, right-wing vigilantes, and polluting others' property would not be permitted. The Libertarian platform does not include the legalization of those crimes. [snip description of capitalist evils] In short, capitalists will: * Pollute my property severely. * Kill me if I strike or dissent. * Create dangerous working conditions for me. The first two are not possible without the corruption of the government. Why is government corruption more likely under a Libertarian regime, as opposed to a Democratic or Republican regime? I would propose simple, easy, legal ways to fix some of those problems, but they assume that the government is not corrupt. For example, dangerous working conditions can be fixed by striking. Extreme poverty can be fixed by starting new corporations and/or asking for charity. Corporate-run cities can be fixed by organizing new cities that are not corporate-run. But without a free market (freedom to strike, to choose a competitor's product, etc.) and sane laws (murder and destruction of others' property are illegal, etc.), there is no hope. I would like to live in a world where I can freely buy and sell things. Maybe it's just a stupid fantasy. -- "...you have mistaken your cowardice for common sense and have found comfort in that, deceiving yourselves." Mark Roberts | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 09:14:38PM -0400, Mark J. Roberts wrote: > On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Travis Bemann wrote: > > > > > It is likely that the initial reports of genocide were false. If I am > > > > correct, Serbs did attack Kosovars in various places in Kosovo after > > > > the beginning of the NATO intervention. > > > > > > The genocide either happened or it didn't happen. Which one? > > > > A bunch of people were killed, and whole lot more people were chased > > into Albania and Macedonia. That did probably actually happen. I was > > just stating that the conclusion that the initial reports of genocide > > were probably false was generally suppressed by the corporate media. > > So the genocide took place entirely after NATO intervened. Did NATO > encourage the genocide (or at least turn a blind eye to it) in order to > justify their intervention (and their evil motives of stealing the > resources of Kosovo)? Possibly. I wouldn't be surprised if this was true, but I have no way of telling whether or not. > > > But, under a Libertarian government, you must think that the capitalists > > > would gain more power than the government would lose. What evidence to you > > > have in favor of this view? > > > > The only thing that government loses is the power to regulate > > business. On the other hand, government still has law enforcement and > > military power, which it uses to cement its own power and the power of > > the capitalists and the security of the capitalists' property. > > The Libertarians would abolish the income tax and the war on drugs. The > government would be substantially weaker under Libertarian control. Under Libertarian control the government's sole purpose would be the protection of the capitalists and their property and fighting those people who wish to expropriate the bourgeoisie and breaking strikes and other stuff of that sort. A Libertarian world would be quite nightmarish. A world of corporate enforcers, right-wing vigilantes, lethal pollution, extreme poverty, corporate-run towns and cities, and just total unrestricted corporate power. You get the picture. It would be similar to fascism, in many respects. > If the Libertarians did win the presidency, in what ways would the > expansion of capitalism impact my life? What misery would I endure? Cite > specific examples of how I would be fucked by powerful capitalists. The capitalists will have the freedom to pollute all they want. That might not seem like much, but you'll find that it is quite a problem when your water is chock full of PCBs and dioxin and your air is thick with sulfur and nitrogen oxides and people start getting chloracne and leukemia. Let's just say that your chances of dying of cancer will probably be quite likely (maybe even more likely than dying of a heart attack). The capitalists will essentially be able to create their own police and military forces, which will probably work with the government police and military forces to suppress any opposition to the capitalists (look back at the history of strikebreaking in America - it is quite instructive). You'll see corporate enforcers and government police and military working together to protect the property and power of the capitalists. If you strike, you'll probably end up getting a bullet in the head (if you don't believe me, read up on early union history - vigilantes and police often shot good numbers of striking workers). It may even be worse than fascism in this respect. This is one reason why I'll be perfectly willing to wage full scale war if necessary to keep Libertarian government from coming into being (and corporate globalization may be the road to Libertarian government, as it seeks to remove all restrictions upon capitalism). Workplace conditions will really suck, and the pay will also really suck. We'll go back to the days of working in really dangerous factories, but instead of just having dangerous machinery, we'll also have really toxic chemicals all over the place. Yay! Factories are already often bad (look at the semiconductor industry), and they'll get infinitely worse with Libertarian government. If you work in anything resembling a factory, plan to die of cancer after about twenty or thirty years (if you aren't killed by some piece of machinery before that point). -- Yes, I know my enemies. They're the teachers who tell me to fight me. Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission, ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite. All of which are American dreams. - Rage Against The Machine PGP signature
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Travis Bemann wrote: > > > It is likely that the initial reports of genocide were false. If I am > > > correct, Serbs did attack Kosovars in various places in Kosovo after > > > the beginning of the NATO intervention. > > > > The genocide either happened or it didn't happen. Which one? > > A bunch of people were killed, and whole lot more people were chased > into Albania and Macedonia. That did probably actually happen. I was > just stating that the conclusion that the initial reports of genocide > were probably false was generally suppressed by the corporate media. So the genocide took place entirely after NATO intervened. Did NATO encourage the genocide (or at least turn a blind eye to it) in order to justify their intervention (and their evil motives of stealing the resources of Kosovo)? > > But, under a Libertarian government, you must think that the capitalists > > would gain more power than the government would lose. What evidence to you > > have in favor of this view? > > The only thing that government loses is the power to regulate > business. On the other hand, government still has law enforcement and > military power, which it uses to cement its own power and the power of > the capitalists and the security of the capitalists' property. The Libertarians would abolish the income tax and the war on drugs. The government would be substantially weaker under Libertarian control. If the Libertarians did win the presidency, in what ways would the expansion of capitalism impact my life? What misery would I endure? Cite specific examples of how I would be fucked by powerful capitalists. -- "...you have mistaken your cowardice for common sense and have found comfort in that, deceiving yourselves." Mark Roberts | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 08:07:20PM -0400, Mark J. Roberts wrote: > On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Travis Bemann wrote: > > > You can portray protesters as both violent people randomly destroying > > stuff and passive sign-wavers and still bias things in favor of the > > capitalists. I bet they biased things by saying stuff like "the > > protesters *believe* that free trade is bad". That is a often used > > tactic which subtly but signficantly downplays opposition to things > > like the FTAA. > > Yes, they said things like "the protesters are anti-free-trade." How is > such a statement biased? Saying that the protesters are or believe downplays the protesters more than saying that the protesters are against because , because the former says that the protesters think something while the latter says that something is something and that is why the protesters are against it. > > Marxists in general oppose the abolition of government control before > > free trade (and capitalism in general) is abolished. Anarchists just > > view authority and exploitation and intrinsically linked and that you > > can't just fight authority and that you can't just fight > > exploitation. They must be both fought and defeated together, not > > separately. Anarchists oppose corporate globalization because > > corporate globalization is the path towards total unrestricted global > > capitalism; total domination and total exploitation. The elimination > > of trade barriers is freedom for only the corporations; it strengthens > > corporations' domination and corporations' exploitation. > > And allowing government to regulate capitalism increases government > domination and exploitation. If you first destroy government, capitalists > will grow too strong. If you first destroy capitalism, governments will > grow too strong. Looks like you're fucked! No, because government and capitalism are directly linked to each other, and must be destroyed and replaced together with libertarian socialism. The government supports capitalism by supplying the force which enforces property and such. To destroy capitalism you must destroy government, and you don't need to replace capitalist government with socialist government. > > It is likely that the initial reports of genocide were false. If I am > > correct, Serbs did attack Kosovars in various places in Kosovo after > > the beginning of the NATO intervention. > > The genocide either happened or it didn't happen. Which one? A bunch of people were killed, and whole lot more people were chased into Albania and Macedonia. That did probably actually happen. I was just stating that the conclusion that the initial reports of genocide were probably false was generally suppressed by the corporate media. > > What happened is a transition from a supposedly socialist autocrat to > > a capitalist elected president. Not much has really changed except > > that now the US and NATO supports the Serbs instead of opposing the > > Serbs. > > Will the quality of life in Serbia improve? I bet that it really won't change much. > > > In what ways do the Democrats fight off the capitalists? Have they been > > > effective? (I still see Walmart and McDonalds thriving under the > > > democratic regime!) > > > > The Democrats are capitalists (didn't I say that they are liberal > > capitalists)! > > But, under a Libertarian government, you must think that the capitalists > would gain more power than the government would lose. What evidence to you > have in favor of this view? The only thing that government loses is the power to regulate business. On the other hand, government still has law enforcement and military power, which it uses to cement its own power and the power of the capitalists and the security of the capitalists' property. -- Yes, I know my enemies. They're the teachers who tell me to fight me. Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission, ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite. All of which are American dreams. - Rage Against The Machine PGP signature
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Travis Bemann wrote: > You can portray protesters as both violent people randomly destroying > stuff and passive sign-wavers and still bias things in favor of the > capitalists. I bet they biased things by saying stuff like "the > protesters *believe* that free trade is bad". That is a often used > tactic which subtly but signficantly downplays opposition to things > like the FTAA. Yes, they said things like "the protesters are anti-free-trade." How is such a statement biased? > Marxists in general oppose the abolition of government control before > free trade (and capitalism in general) is abolished. Anarchists just > view authority and exploitation and intrinsically linked and that you > can't just fight authority and that you can't just fight > exploitation. They must be both fought and defeated together, not > separately. Anarchists oppose corporate globalization because > corporate globalization is the path towards total unrestricted global > capitalism; total domination and total exploitation. The elimination > of trade barriers is freedom for only the corporations; it strengthens > corporations' domination and corporations' exploitation. And allowing government to regulate capitalism increases government domination and exploitation. If you first destroy government, capitalists will grow too strong. If you first destroy capitalism, governments will grow too strong. Looks like you're fucked! > It is likely that the initial reports of genocide were false. If I am > correct, Serbs did attack Kosovars in various places in Kosovo after > the beginning of the NATO intervention. The genocide either happened or it didn't happen. Which one? > What happened is a transition from a supposedly socialist autocrat to > a capitalist elected president. Not much has really changed except > that now the US and NATO supports the Serbs instead of opposing the > Serbs. Will the quality of life in Serbia improve? > > In what ways do the Democrats fight off the capitalists? Have they been > > effective? (I still see Walmart and McDonalds thriving under the > > democratic regime!) > > The Democrats are capitalists (didn't I say that they are liberal > capitalists)! But, under a Libertarian government, you must think that the capitalists would gain more power than the government would lose. What evidence to you have in favor of this view? -- "...you have mistaken your cowardice for common sense and have found comfort in that, deceiving yourselves." Mark Roberts | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 05:32:05PM -0400, Mark J. Roberts wrote: > On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Travis Bemann wrote: > > > > Travis, I think it would be great if Congress cut President Bush's throat. > > > Am I implicitly supporting Congress? Am I implying that the U.S. is free? > > > Would you denounce a fellow anarchist as a "liberal capitalist" for making > > > that statement? > > > > You're "anarcho"capitalist, not anarchist, for you do not reject the > > capitalist notion of property (and replace it with possession/use > > rights). If you did reject the capitalist notion of property, you'd > > probably be categorized as an individualist anarchist. > > I wasn't referring to myself. > > > You are not explicitly supporting Congress, but you do somewhat imply > > that you like Congress better than President Bush. However, you don't > > imply that the U.S. is free by saying that. > > I would like Saddam Hussein to kill Dianne Feinstein. Do I like Saddam > more than Dianne? Unqualified, one may think that you like Saddam more than Dianne. > > One of the main things about the corporate media is that they often do > > not completely hide something, but instead distort and downplay it. > > This is a dubious allegation (anyone could forward it). Read the next paragraph in my response. > > While the first approach seems to have been favored at and after the > > "Battle of Seattle" and throughout year 2000, the second two > > approaches seem to be now favored. Because the protests at the > > American presidential inauguration could not be ignored, they were > > downplayed to appear to be a whole bunch of passive sign-waving (the > > fact that protesters had forced security forces to retreat and then > > smashed their way through the security perimeter was almost completely > > ignored). On the other hand, it seems like the corporate media is all > > but completely ignoring the massive mobilization in Quebec City to > > crush the Summit of the Americas and the Free Trade Area in the > > Americas. > > So CNN is not the corporate media? Their coverage of the protests > recognized both the violent aspects and the > sign-waving/freedom-of-association aspects. You can portray protesters as both violent people randomly destroying stuff and passive sign-wavers and still bias things in favor of the capitalists. I bet they biased things by saying stuff like "the protesters *believe* that free trade is bad". That is a often used tactic which subtly but signficantly downplays opposition to things like the FTAA. > > the inclusion of Cuba if Cuba becomes capitalist). Of course, one > > thing that they do not at all tell you about the FTAA is that it will > > include the privatization of all services currently carried out by > > governments and the elimination of all trade barriers, including all > > labor and environmental protections, and the elimination of the last > > vestiges of labor power. The FTAA is the capitalist Death Star; it is > > of the last steps toward total unrestricted global capitalism. The > > corporate media is helping this sneak up on everyone; when most people > > realize what is happening it will probably be too late. Of course, > > the only thing that can save us now is social revolution (which is > > quite unlikely at the present). > > So anarchists in general oppose the abolition of government control before > free trade is abolished? Why? Marxists in general oppose the abolition of government control before free trade (and capitalism in general) is abolished. Anarchists just view authority and exploitation and intrinsically linked and that you can't just fight authority and that you can't just fight exploitation. They must be both fought and defeated together, not separately. Anarchists oppose corporate globalization because corporate globalization is the path towards total unrestricted global capitalism; total domination and total exploitation. The elimination of trade barriers is freedom for only the corporations; it strengthens corporations' domination and corporations' exploitation. > > One thing that really didn't get reported is that the first reports of > > "genocide" which sparked NATO intervention in Kosovo were probably > > actually fake. A whole bunch of bones were found in the ground, as > > Are you saying there was actually no genocide, or that it started after > NATO intervened? It is likely that the initial reports of genocide were false. If I am correct, Serbs did attack Kosovars in various places in Kosovo after the beginning of the NATO intervention. > > this was used to say that genocide has occurred, which was used as a > > convenient excuse to justify NATO intervention. In addition, NATO > > intervention in Kosovo really wasn't about protecting Kosovars from > > retaliatory attacks by the Serbs, but rather about increasing western > > capitalist control of the rich mineral deposits in Kosovo (this is > > something that the corporate media didn't even
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Travis Bemann wrote: > > Travis, I think it would be great if Congress cut President Bush's throat. > > Am I implicitly supporting Congress? Am I implying that the U.S. is free? > > Would you denounce a fellow anarchist as a "liberal capitalist" for making > > that statement? > > You're "anarcho"capitalist, not anarchist, for you do not reject the > capitalist notion of property (and replace it with possession/use > rights). If you did reject the capitalist notion of property, you'd > probably be categorized as an individualist anarchist. I wasn't referring to myself. > You are not explicitly supporting Congress, but you do somewhat imply > that you like Congress better than President Bush. However, you don't > imply that the U.S. is free by saying that. I would like Saddam Hussein to kill Dianne Feinstein. Do I like Saddam more than Dianne? > One of the main things about the corporate media is that they often do > not completely hide something, but instead distort and downplay it. This is a dubious allegation (anyone could forward it). > While the first approach seems to have been favored at and after the > "Battle of Seattle" and throughout year 2000, the second two > approaches seem to be now favored. Because the protests at the > American presidential inauguration could not be ignored, they were > downplayed to appear to be a whole bunch of passive sign-waving (the > fact that protesters had forced security forces to retreat and then > smashed their way through the security perimeter was almost completely > ignored). On the other hand, it seems like the corporate media is all > but completely ignoring the massive mobilization in Quebec City to > crush the Summit of the Americas and the Free Trade Area in the > Americas. So CNN is not the corporate media? Their coverage of the protests recognized both the violent aspects and the sign-waving/freedom-of-association aspects. > the inclusion of Cuba if Cuba becomes capitalist). Of course, one > thing that they do not at all tell you about the FTAA is that it will > include the privatization of all services currently carried out by > governments and the elimination of all trade barriers, including all > labor and environmental protections, and the elimination of the last > vestiges of labor power. The FTAA is the capitalist Death Star; it is > of the last steps toward total unrestricted global capitalism. The > corporate media is helping this sneak up on everyone; when most people > realize what is happening it will probably be too late. Of course, > the only thing that can save us now is social revolution (which is > quite unlikely at the present). So anarchists in general oppose the abolition of government control before free trade is abolished? Why? > One thing that really didn't get reported is that the first reports of > "genocide" which sparked NATO intervention in Kosovo were probably > actually fake. A whole bunch of bones were found in the ground, as Are you saying there was actually no genocide, or that it started after NATO intervened? > this was used to say that genocide has occurred, which was used as a > convenient excuse to justify NATO intervention. In addition, NATO > intervention in Kosovo really wasn't about protecting Kosovars from > retaliatory attacks by the Serbs, but rather about increasing western > capitalist control of the rich mineral deposits in Kosovo (this is > something that the corporate media didn't even slightly mention). Were the Serbian people better off under Milosevic's regime? Was NATO in the wrong? > I hate all three of these groups, and I would avoid having anything to > do with any of them. If I was forced to choose one of these three, > with no option for not choosing any of them, I would probably have to > choose the Democrats because they are a *bit* less reactionary than > the other two. Even still, that would be a hard choice (the Dems are > at least partially responsible for stuff like the DMCA (something than > only a reactionary could love) and the FTAA (this *was initiated* by > Clinton - and is essentially for the purpose of "all power to the > capitalists")). Thus, capitalism is so undesirable that you support a regime that you hate in order to prevent it. These capitalists must really be evil. In what ways do the Democrats fight off the capitalists? Have they been effective? (I still see Walmart and McDonalds thriving under the democratic regime!) -- "...you have mistaken your cowardice for common sense and have found comfort in that, deceiving yourselves." Mark Roberts | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 11:30:56AM -0700, Mr.Bad wrote: > > "AL" == Adam Langley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > AL> But I'm not prepared to give up so much (free speech, etc, > AL> etc) just to control child porn. Those who want control for > AL> their own benifit constantly cite child porn as a reason why > AL> they should be given power. It's red-baiting in a modern form. > > See Also: Terrorism, copyright violation, drug information. Terrorism: a loaded word used to describe anything resembling active resistance against the system. Originally described blowing up buildings containing people and machine-gunning people, but hell, these days hacking down genetically-engineered trees is a form of terrorism! At this rate, soon protesting will be a form of terrorism! Copyright violation: a good thing. Intellectual property is a totally bankrupt concept, which should be fought and spit on whenever possible. Drug information: a good thing. Fuck the drug war and the state! -- Yes, I know my enemies. They're the teachers who tell me to fight me. Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission, ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite. All of which are American dreams. - Rage Against The Machine PGP signature
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 01:20:29AM -0400, Mark J. Roberts wrote: > On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, David McNab wrote: > > > >A typically liberal capitalist statement. Of course, this ignores the > > >fact that the system that you implicitly support is based on two > > >things: domination and exploitation. Anyone who sincerely thinks that > > >the US (or any other western capitalist nation, or even a socialist > > >state) is free is quite ignorant of what really goes on (there is > > >plenty of stuff that happens which is not reported in the newspaper or > > >on TV news) and doesn't have a clue about the true nature of authority > > >and hierarchy. > > > > OK - fair cop - you got me there. > > I guess I could try and save face and play 'victim' for a moment, by > > complaining that with mass media available here in NZ, the news feeds are > > very limited in scope. But I can't pull that as an excuse. Because I am on a > > broadband internet connection, with access to the greatest wealth of > > conglomerate and independent news available. So even that excuse crumbles. > > :p > > How weak... > > Travis, I think it would be great if Congress cut President Bush's throat. > Am I implicitly supporting Congress? Am I implying that the U.S. is free? > Would you denounce a fellow anarchist as a "liberal capitalist" for making > that statement? You're "anarcho"capitalist, not anarchist, for you do not reject the capitalist notion of property (and replace it with possession/use rights). If you did reject the capitalist notion of property, you'd probably be categorized as an individualist anarchist. You are not explicitly supporting Congress, but you do somewhat imply that you like Congress better than President Bush. However, you don't imply that the U.S. is free by saying that. > I'd also like a list of the three most noteworthy things that the liberal > capitalist media did not report in the past decade. One of the main things about the corporate media is that they often do not completely hide something, but instead distort and downplay it. Another note is that the corporate media isn't just liberal capitalist, but instead ranges from liberal capitalist to thoroughly reactionary. After Seattle, the liberal capitalist media slowly learned that they made the mistake of reporting on strong opposition to corporate globalization (their reporting of the "Battle of Seattle" greatly increased awareness of corporate globalization and that there actually are people really against corporate globalization). I've seen three main things that they do or have done in reaction to opposition to corporate globalization: either make it look like a band of people destroying things indiscriminately, or make it look like a bunch of passive and weak sign-wavers, or just ignore it. While the first approach seems to have been favored at and after the "Battle of Seattle" and throughout year 2000, the second two approaches seem to be now favored. Because the protests at the American presidential inauguration could not be ignored, they were downplayed to appear to be a whole bunch of passive sign-waving (the fact that protesters had forced security forces to retreat and then smashed their way through the security perimeter was almost completely ignored). On the other hand, it seems like the corporate media is all but completely ignoring the massive mobilization in Quebec City to crush the Summit of the Americas and the Free Trade Area in the Americas. As for the Free Tree Area in the Americas, this is getting *far* less coverage by the corporate media than NAFTA got. Of course, the FTAA is also far more significant than NAFTA was for the FTAA includes all of North and South America except Cuba (and it includes provisions for the inclusion of Cuba if Cuba becomes capitalist). Of course, one thing that they do not at all tell you about the FTAA is that it will include the privatization of all services currently carried out by governments and the elimination of all trade barriers, including all labor and environmental protections, and the elimination of the last vestiges of labor power. The FTAA is the capitalist Death Star; it is of the last steps toward total unrestricted global capitalism. The corporate media is helping this sneak up on everyone; when most people realize what is happening it will probably be too late. Of course, the only thing that can save us now is social revolution (which is quite unlikely at the present). One thing that really didn't get reported is that the first reports of "genocide" which sparked NATO intervention in Kosovo were probably actually fake. A whole bunch of bones were found in the ground, as this was used to say that genocide has occurred, which was used as a convenient excuse to justify NATO intervention. In addition, NATO intervention in Kosovo really wasn't about protecting Kosovars from retaliatory attacks by the Serbs, but rather about increasing western capitalist control of the rich miner
Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet
> "AL" == Adam Langley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: AL> But I'm not prepared to give up so much (free speech, etc, AL> etc) just to control child porn. Those who want control for AL> their own benifit constantly cite child porn as a reason why AL> they should be given power. It's red-baiting in a modern form. See Also: Terrorism, copyright violation, drug information. ~Mr. Bad -- ~ Mr. Bad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Pigdog Journal | http://pigdog.org/ freenet:MSK@SSK@u1AntQcZ81Y4c2tJKd1M87cZvPoQAge/pigdog+journal// "Statements like this give the impression that this article was written by a madman in a drug induced rage" -- Ben Franklin ~ ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
Sam Joseph (Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 12:33:33PM +0900): > What is it with this? Are you telling me that I couldn't set up a P2P > network that stored cryptographically hashed content and did routing > like freenet, but where the nodes blocked input of non natural-language > text files? and how can a node find out that the node it gets the file from has checked if it's text-only how can you prevent anyone from createing a not-censoring node?? > You might not like it, but I don't think there are any technical reasons > why it couldn't be done. > > And anyway, I'm not suggesting you do it, or even intending to do it > myself, I'm still just trying to ask > > "DOES protecting freedom of speech REQUIRE the ability to _anonymously_ > distribute IMAGES and not just natural language TEXT." IMO not, but i can't see a way to stop distibution of non-text-data. and what do you want to do with languages like chinese??? can you realy check if a file is text-only when allowing more languages than english??? what about steganography hIdEing daTa iN WEIrD uPerCasE/loWERcase combination. (4 octets starting with the h in "hideing", here. useing ASCII-codetable. ignore all non-alpabetic characters) > I'm beginning to think that I'm asking in the wrong place. hey, chat is always the right place *g* > CHEERS> SAM -- moritz kernel panic: hands went berserk and are typeing a lot of useless stuff. it's recommendet to send the system to few hours of sleep. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, David McNab wrote: > >A typically liberal capitalist statement. Of course, this ignores the > >fact that the system that you implicitly support is based on two > >things: domination and exploitation. Anyone who sincerely thinks that > >the US (or any other western capitalist nation, or even a socialist > >state) is free is quite ignorant of what really goes on (there is > >plenty of stuff that happens which is not reported in the newspaper or > >on TV news) and doesn't have a clue about the true nature of authority > >and hierarchy. > > OK - fair cop - you got me there. > I guess I could try and save face and play 'victim' for a moment, by > complaining that with mass media available here in NZ, the news feeds are > very limited in scope. But I can't pull that as an excuse. Because I am on a > broadband internet connection, with access to the greatest wealth of > conglomerate and independent news available. So even that excuse crumbles. > :p How weak... Travis, I think it would be great if Congress cut President Bush's throat. Am I implicitly supporting Congress? Am I implying that the U.S. is free? Would you denounce a fellow anarchist as a "liberal capitalist" for making that statement? I'd also like a list of the three most noteworthy things that the liberal capitalist media did not report in the past decade. Finally, if you were forced to choose either a Republican, a Democratic, or a Libertarian presidential candidate, which of the three would you choose, and why? -- "...you have mistaken your cowardice for common sense and have found comfort in that, deceiving yourselves." Mark Roberts | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 04:29:57PM +1200, David McNab wrote: > > > So my question to you David, is do we actually need the ability to > > > _anonymously_ distribute images to achieve any of the things you are > > > talking about? Or would _anonymous_ distribution of text do just as > > > well? > > If you're against the ability to distribute pictures and other multimedia on > *this* point-2-point networking platform, then you're perfectly welcome to > go off and build your own text-only point2point network. > > With such total freedom and control, you can build in logic to detect and > suppress uu-encoded media. > You can even censor out naughty keywords like 'fuck' and 'cunt' and 'felch' > and cum. > You can even ban the word 'sex', unless a grammatical analysis shows the > word being used in a strictly gender sense. > > We wish you luck with your new, clean, anonymous text-only p2p network. In addition, why would we want to create a p2p network designed to keep people from transmitting images and such just because someone could use it to transmit kiddie porn. And why would we even try to block kiddie porn?! As other people have also said, kiddie porn may almost be a good thing because without out it those people who would view it would instead molest children, and therefore MORE sexual abuse/exploitation of children would result. Finally, trying to block out kiddie porn helps send us down the slippery slope of censorshop - even the smallest amount of censorship helps make it easier to impose further censorship which in turn helps make it easier to impose further censorship... You get the picture. -- Yes, I know my enemies. They're the teachers who tell me to fight me. Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission, ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite. All of which are American dreams. - Rage Against The Machine PGP signature
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
From: "Travis Bemann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> butchered each year under totalitarian dictators such as Saddam, Milosevec, >> Tito, Suharto et al. Think of the countless masses in Tibet who are >> routinely tortured and executed by the Chinese. Think of how much suffering >> could have been avoided if Freenet had been functional, say, since the first >> explosion of the Internet circa 1995. Especially Freenet with an optional >> 'stealth' mode - steganography via 'legitimate' traffic. For instance, a >> Milosevec aide could have worked with NATO to bring down that butcher >> faster. >A typically liberal capitalist statement. Of course, this ignores the >fact that the system that you implicitly support is based on two >things: domination and exploitation. Anyone who sincerely thinks that >the US (or any other western capitalist nation, or even a socialist >state) is free is quite ignorant of what really goes on (there is >plenty of stuff that happens which is not reported in the newspaper or >on TV news) and doesn't have a clue about the true nature of authority >and hierarchy. OK - fair cop - you got me there. I guess I could try and save face and play 'victim' for a moment, by complaining that with mass media available here in NZ, the news feeds are very limited in scope. But I can't pull that as an excuse. Because I am on a broadband internet connection, with access to the greatest wealth of conglomerate and independent news available. So even that excuse crumbles. :p > Go read up on anarchism (or libertarian socialism >(which today is primarily comprised of anarchism but also includes >things such as situationism and council communism), *NOT* >libertarianism or the "anarcho"capitalism). For starters, go to > http://infoshop.org/ and http://anarchismfaq.org/ I am totally uninitiated about these various schools of anarchism - I shall visit and read and attempt to edify myself. Cheers David ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 03:21:17AM +1200, David McNab wrote: > From: "Sam Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > ... I still won't want to run a Freenet node for fear of being party to > > distributing child porn, and I think there are a lot of people like me, > > maybe not on this mailing list, but they are out there, and busily > > not using Freenet nodes for just this reason. > > We see here the power of 'spin'. > Such rhetoric could earn a nice fee from a news publisher as the basis of a > sensational story. > > Most average people consuming such spin, especially if they haven't yet > heard of Freenet, will immediately form the prejudice that Freenet and its > supporters are dedicated to protecting child pornographers. > Such could carve deep inroads towards global bans on all encrypted > non-standard internet protocols, and lead to proliferation of police powers > such as now exist in "Airstrip One" (UK, to those who haven't read 1984). > > This spin is powerfully effective because it triggers such strong emotional > reaction as to completely eliminate the sense that there may be another side > to the story. The corporate media is merely the propaganda arm of the system. It should not be regarded as any more or less. It should always be considered an enemy - it will always be biased against anyone which the establishment and the system is against. People say that one should not act as to provide something that the media can use as a weapon, an excuse - but remember that the media will always find ways to attack enemies of the system and support the system. Trying to pander to the media is a futile task, and causes one to become a passive sign-waver. > butchered each year under totalitarian dictators such as Saddam, Milosevec, > Tito, Suharto et al. Think of the countless masses in Tibet who are > routinely tortured and executed by the Chinese. Think of how much suffering > could have been avoided if Freenet had been functional, say, since the first > explosion of the Internet circa 1995. Especially Freenet with an optional > 'stealth' mode - steganography via 'legitimate' traffic. For instance, a > Milosevec aide could have worked with NATO to bring down that butcher > faster. A typically liberal capitalist statement. Of course, this ignores the fact that the system that you implicitly support is based on two things: domination and exploitation. Anyone who sincerely thinks that the US (or any other western capitalist nation, or even a socialist state) is free is quite ignorant of what really goes on (there is plenty of stuff that happens which is not reported in the newspaper or on TV news) and doesn't have a clue about the true nature of authority and hierarchy. Go read up on anarchism (or libertarian socialism (which today is primarily comprised of anarchism but also includes things such as situationism and council communism), *NOT* libertarianism or the "anarcho"capitalism). For starters, go to http://infoshop.org/ and http://anarchismfaq.org/ > That someone can even suggest that a human being lacks the right to > communicate and express freely, and choose his/her level of identity > disclosure, troubles me. Such attitude is a vital prerequisite to such > totalitarianism mentioned above. A greater danger in such an attitude is the > premiss that human beings are inherently flawed and need outside regulation. > Children who are repeatedly fed such a line act it out as a self-fulfilling > prophecy. *That* is also child abuse. The vicious cycle of crime and > punishment ensues. This is something that I and most if not all anarchists would agree with. > To me, the crime is not that Freenet is advancing towards mass usage, the > crime is that the mainstream community have been so slow to come in and > support the project - whether financially, technically, or as advocates in > other ways - and that Freenet's development has been delayed as a result. Well, I would really like to see Freenet get widespread usage, but at the present it seems that Freenet could be a bit more reliable - it is hard to use something if all the files seem to be only intermittently available. -- Yes, I know my enemies. They're the teachers who tell me to fight me. Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission, ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite. All of which are American dreams. - Rage Against The Machine PGP signature
RE: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
Even if the nodes had access to the unencrypted files, content filtering would merely make inserting kiddie porn less (bandwidth) efficient, not impossible. It's not that hard to turn, say, a JPEG into something resembling english text. Try: http://www.cs.uct.ac.za/courses/CS400W/NIS/papers99/dsellars/stego.html -- Blair. P.S. The efficiency of an advanced "content filter" will asymptotically approach that of a human censor. > -Original Message- > From: Sam Joseph [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, 20 April 2001 16:33 > To: freenet-chat > Subject: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet) > > > Tavin Cole wrote: > > > > What is it with this? Are you telling me that I couldn't set up a > P2P > > > network that stored cryptographically hashed content and > did routing > > > > like freenet, but where the nodes blocked input of non > natural-language > > > text files? > > > You could do this, but it would obviously mean the nodes would be > dealing > > with unencrypted files. > > I don't think so. The interface for entering the files would > screen out > things that weren't natural language, and then encrypt the > files before > storage. > > If the files are thus encrypted the system can be as secure as Freenet > is now, right? > > Anyway, clearly I am not helping get my point across by emphasizing > this. I'm not trying to persuade anyone to build such a > system, it was > just a thought experiment (like Einstein's Elevator or Schrodinger's > cat) to try and think about whether images were essential for > protecting > freedom of speech, and now I've got some opinions on that, we > don't have > to think about a text-only freenet anymore. I'm sorry I raised the > possibility in the first place. > > CHEERS> SAM > > > ___ > Chat mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat > -- The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and is intended for the attention and use of the named addressee(s) only. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Chelmer Limited. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 01:32:51PM +0900, Sam Joseph wrote: > Tavin Cole wrote: > > > > What is it with this? Are you telling me that I couldn't set up a > P2P > > > network that stored cryptographically hashed content and did routing > > > > like freenet, but where the nodes blocked input of non > natural-language > > > text files? > > > You could do this, but it would obviously mean the nodes would be > dealing > > with unencrypted files. > > I don't think so. The interface for entering the files would screen out > things that weren't natural language, and then encrypt the files before > storage. > > If the files are thus encrypted the system can be as secure as Freenet > is now, right? No. If the files are encrypted before being transferred to another node, then someone can just write a client that pretends to be a node and sends an encrypted file to another node, without performing the language analysis. > Anyway, clearly I am not helping get my point across by emphasizing > this. I'm not trying to persuade anyone to build such a system, it was > just a thought experiment (like Einstein's Elevator or Schrodinger's > cat) to try and think about whether images were essential for protecting > freedom of speech, and now I've got some opinions on that, we don't have > to think about a text-only freenet anymore. I'm sorry I raised the > possibility in the first place. I've only been responding to the technical side of what you've brought up. -- # tavin cole # # "The process of scientific discovery is, in effect, # a continual flight from wonder." # - Albert Einstein ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
Tavin Cole wrote: > > What is it with this? Are you telling me that I couldn't set up a P2P > > network that stored cryptographically hashed content and did routing > > like freenet, but where the nodes blocked input of non natural-language > > text files? > You could do this, but it would obviously mean the nodes would be dealing > with unencrypted files. I don't think so. The interface for entering the files would screen out things that weren't natural language, and then encrypt the files before storage. If the files are thus encrypted the system can be as secure as Freenet is now, right? Anyway, clearly I am not helping get my point across by emphasizing this. I'm not trying to persuade anyone to build such a system, it was just a thought experiment (like Einstein's Elevator or Schrodinger's cat) to try and think about whether images were essential for protecting freedom of speech, and now I've got some opinions on that, we don't have to think about a text-only freenet anymore. I'm sorry I raised the possibility in the first place. CHEERS> SAM ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 12:33:33PM +0900, Sam Joseph wrote: > > > > Um, I was under the impression that all data (text, etc..) on > freenet > > > > is encrypted - how the hell are you going to implement a language > > > > filter on that ? > > > > > > If you wanted to filter it you could do it at the nodes when people > > > inserted stuff. > > > No, you couldn't. > > Why not? > > > > I'm not recommending doing it, I'm just trying to > > > discuss what is possible. > > > It is not possible. > > I don't believe you. > > What is it with this? Are you telling me that I couldn't set up a P2P > network that stored cryptographically hashed content and did routing > like freenet, but where the nodes blocked input of non natural-language > text files? You could do this, but it would obviously mean the nodes would be dealing with unencrypted files. > You might not like it, but I don't think there are any technical reasons > why it couldn't be done. > > And anyway, I'm not suggesting you do it, or even intending to do it > myself, I'm still just trying to ask > > "DOES protecting freedom of speech REQUIRE the ability to _anonymously_ > distribute IMAGES and not just natural language TEXT." Ethically, perhaps not, but technically, yes. Suppose you set up this hypothetical Freenet-like system that deals in unencrypted files. It's now trivial for node operators to determine what content is stored on their own node, and what content is being requested or inserted by other nodes. How resistant to censorship do you expect this network to be? -- # tavin cole # # "The process of scientific discovery is, in effect, # a continual flight from wonder." # - Albert Einstein ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
RE: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
> "DOES protecting freedom of speech REQUIRE the ability to _anonymously_ > distribute IMAGES and not just natural language TEXT." I believe that pictures are just as an integral a part of freedom of speech as language-based text. Imagine a christian trying to distribute christian materials in a tyrannically anti-christian country. Including images of the messiah, Mary & Joe, Noah's ark, etc... Or what about communicating with those who cannot read? Of course, it would be difficult for an illiterate individual to use a p2p network, but spreading knowledge using the lowest common denominator reaches the most people. Audio and video are just as important to free speech as natural language text files, IMO. > I'm beginning to think that I'm asking in the wrong place. I think you're going about it the wrong way. Talking about forcefully censoring the transfer of any form of information will probably not get you anywhere here. -- W. Eric C. Ferguson Meat Popsicle ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
Troll alert! - Original Message - From: "Sam Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "freenet-chat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 3:33 PM Subject: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet) > Tavin Cole wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 11:01:13AM +0900, Sam Joseph wrote: > > > > Um, I was under the impression that all data (text, etc..) on > freenet > > > > is encrypted - how the hell are you going to implement a language > > > > filter on that ? > > > > > > If you wanted to filter it you could do it at the nodes when people > > > inserted stuff. > > > No, you couldn't. > > Why not? > > > > I'm not recommending doing it, I'm just trying to > > > discuss what is possible. > > > It is not possible. > > I don't believe you. > > What is it with this? Are you telling me that I couldn't set up a P2P > network that stored cryptographically hashed content and did routing > like freenet, but where the nodes blocked input of non natural-language > text files? > > You might not like it, but I don't think there are any technical reasons > why it couldn't be done. > > And anyway, I'm not suggesting you do it, or even intending to do it > myself, I'm still just trying to ask > > "DOES protecting freedom of speech REQUIRE the ability to _anonymously_ > distribute IMAGES and not just natural language TEXT." > > I'm beginning to think that I'm asking in the wrong place. > > CHEERS> SAM > > > > ___ > Chat mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat > ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
Tavin Cole wrote: > On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 11:01:13AM +0900, Sam Joseph wrote: > > > Um, I was under the impression that all data (text, etc..) on freenet > > > is encrypted - how the hell are you going to implement a language > > > filter on that ? > > > > If you wanted to filter it you could do it at the nodes when people > > inserted stuff. > No, you couldn't. Why not? > > I'm not recommending doing it, I'm just trying to > > discuss what is possible. > It is not possible. I don't believe you. What is it with this? Are you telling me that I couldn't set up a P2P network that stored cryptographically hashed content and did routing like freenet, but where the nodes blocked input of non natural-language text files? You might not like it, but I don't think there are any technical reasons why it couldn't be done. And anyway, I'm not suggesting you do it, or even intending to do it myself, I'm still just trying to ask "DOES protecting freedom of speech REQUIRE the ability to _anonymously_ distribute IMAGES and not just natural language TEXT." I'm beginning to think that I'm asking in the wrong place. CHEERS> SAM ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 11:01:13AM +0900, Sam Joseph wrote: > > Um, I was under the impression that all data (text, etc..) on freenet > > is encrypted - how the hell are you going to implement a language > > filter on that ? > > If you wanted to filter it you could do it at the nodes when people > inserted stuff. No, you couldn't. > I'm not recommending doing it, I'm just trying to > discuss what is possible. It is not possible. -- # tavin cole # # "The process of scientific discovery is, in effect, # a continual flight from wonder." # - Albert Einstein ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
Again compiliing responses: David McNab Wrote: > From: "Sam Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > ... I still won't want to run a Freenet node for fear of being party to > > distributing child porn, and I think there are a lot of people like me, > > maybe not on this mailing list, but they are out there, and busily > > not using Freenet nodes for just this reason. > We see here the power of 'spin'. > Such rhetoric could earn a nice fee from a news publisher as the basis of a > sensational story. > Most average people consuming such spin, especially if they haven't yet > heard of Freenet, will immediately form the prejudice that Freenet and its > supporters are dedicated to protecting child pornographers. Yeah, thanks David. I was really hoping that you might actually address the question that I was asking, about whether _anonymous_ distribution of images was necessary to support free speech, or even to help child abusers work through their problems. Thanks for making the point about spin. You'll notice that I'm not publishing this statement about Freenet, which I could easily do. If I wanted to create a sensationalist story it would be no problem and I could sell lots of magazines, however,that's not my objective. My reasons for not wanting to run a freenet node are my own, and are real and are not some attempt to generate spin. I saw what I took for child porn on freegle's latest additions, and it made me post to this mailing list. I'm not intending to create some kind of spin. I wanted to try and come to terms with my own issues, but I have yet to have a reply that has helped me move forward on this. Kris van Hulle wrote: > > > 1) UU-encode means there will always be binary data. See usenet > > > > Yeah, I heard you the first time. You don't think that UU-encoded > > documents could be filtered? Maybe you don't want to do that, fair > > enough, but don't tell me it can't be done without giving it some > > thought. English text has statisical properties not found in UU-encoded > > text. It could be filtered. > > > Um, I was under the impression that all data (text, etc..) on freenet > is encrypted - how the hell are you going to implement a language > filter on that ? If you wanted to filter it you could do it at the nodes when people inserted stuff. I'm not recommending doing it, I'm just trying to discuss what is possible. > ps: for the record, i'm against filtering of any kind, since it defeats > the entire purpose of freenet fair enough. I am not for or against filtering, I am just trying to get an answer to the question do we need to have _anonymous_ distribution of _images_ in order to support free speech. Or would just anonymous text do? But I think I will probably give up now as no one seems to want to address that question and I have other things demanding my time. CHEERS> SAM ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
From: "Sam Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ... I still won't want to run a Freenet node for fear of being party to > distributing child porn, and I think there are a lot of people like me, > maybe not on this mailing list, but they are out there, and busily > not using Freenet nodes for just this reason. We see here the power of 'spin'. Such rhetoric could earn a nice fee from a news publisher as the basis of a sensational story. Most average people consuming such spin, especially if they haven't yet heard of Freenet, will immediately form the prejudice that Freenet and its supporters are dedicated to protecting child pornographers. Such could carve deep inroads towards global bans on all encrypted non-standard internet protocols, and lead to proliferation of police powers such as now exist in "Airstrip One" (UK, to those who haven't read 1984). This spin is powerfully effective because it triggers such strong emotional reaction as to completely eliminate the sense that there may be another side to the story. For the record, child abuse in any form pisses me off, to say the least. I work my ass off in dealing with its victims, and patiently and lovingly working to help them untangle their painful tormented realities and regain and revitalise their humanity. So what's the other side? Is there another side? Of course there is! Consider the tens and hundreds of thousands of people who were and are butchered each year under totalitarian dictators such as Saddam, Milosevec, Tito, Suharto et al. Think of the countless masses in Tibet who are routinely tortured and executed by the Chinese. Think of how much suffering could have been avoided if Freenet had been functional, say, since the first explosion of the Internet circa 1995. Especially Freenet with an optional 'stealth' mode - steganography via 'legitimate' traffic. For instance, a Milosevec aide could have worked with NATO to bring down that butcher faster. That someone can even suggest that a human being lacks the right to communicate and express freely, and choose his/her level of identity disclosure, troubles me. Such attitude is a vital prerequisite to such totalitarianism mentioned above. A greater danger in such an attitude is the premiss that human beings are inherently flawed and need outside regulation. Children who are repeatedly fed such a line act it out as a self-fulfilling prophecy. *That* is also child abuse. The vicious cycle of crime and punishment ensues. To me, the crime is not that Freenet is advancing towards mass usage, the crime is that the mainstream community have been so slow to come in and support the project - whether financially, technically, or as advocates in other ways - and that Freenet's development has been delayed as a result. Sincerely David ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On 19 Apr 2001, at 12:26, Sam Joseph wrote: > Owen wrote: > > > On 19 Apr 2001 12:09:20 +0900, Sam Joseph wrote: > > > > So my question to you David, is do we actually need the ability to > > > _anonymously_ distribute images to achieve any of the things you are > > > > talking about? Or would _anonymous_ distribution of text do just as > > > > well? > > > > > > I reiterate: > > > 1) UU-encode means there will always be binary data. See usenet > > Yeah, I heard you the first time. You don't think that UU-encoded > documents could be filtered? Maybe you don't want to do that, fair > enough, but don't tell me it can't be done without giving it some > thought. English text has statisical properties not found in UU-encoded > text. It could be filtered. > Um, I was under the impression that all data (text, etc..) on freenet is encrypted - how the hell are you going to implement a language filter on that ? Kris ps: for the record, i'm against filtering of any kind, since it defeats the entire purpose of freenet ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > If you're against the ability to distribute pictures and other multimedia on > *this* point-2-point networking platform, then you're perfectly welcome to > go off and build your own text-only point2point network. > Which, as been stated before won't work, thanks to MIME and UUencoding. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 12:38:19AM -0700, Aaron P Ingebrigtsen wrote: > What does Ad Domini, or whatever A.D. is, mean? Anno Domini - In The Year Of Our Lord Bah. I like to use CE and BCE - (before) christian era -- Leo Howell M5AKW freenet:MSK@SSK@2vz8xnhEJyJOlBVNfBEOWaohQFEQAgE/freesite// PGP signature
Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 23:06:42 +0900 Sam Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > My apologies if this is a already a well-hashed out topic, but I > don't > see a FAQ for freenet chat, and I didn't see anything as I skimmed > some > of the chat archives so heres goes. > > I have recently been looking at Freegle.com and I saw the various > porn > and child porn files in the recent additions page. I know that in > a > previous philosophy document Ian Clarke talked about how there was > no > established link between child porn and people becoming paedophiles, > but > I think there is another angle to look at this from. > > Perhaps we might be able to agree that child porn requires the abuse > of > minors, since we don't consider them able to give consent to take > part > in the creation of the pornography. I don't know if everyone > agrees, > but isn't child porn the product of child abuse? Not necessarily abuse, but yes, mostly it does involve some kind of real abuse. A mother of three has been emprisoned for putting pictures of her darling babies on her family website. They were like 1 year old or something and being bathed in a little tub or something. Explain how that is abusive, other than embarisment for the kids when they get older?! My mom has done the same thing, only not putting it on the web. I am probably not remembering that correctly, but I'm pretty it was just an innocent motherly thing that she did, not an abusive or pornographic thing. So, all I am saying is that it may or may not involve physical or mental abuse. > > I am very interested in the Freenet project, distributed search and > free > speech, but I get an uncomfortable feeling when I think that my > Freenet > node might hold child pornography that will get served up to those > who > want it. In the same way that people buying ivory or trafficking > in > ivory are not necessarily directly involved in killing elephants, > aren't > they providing a framework in which ivory will get shipped around > and > provide incentive for elephants to be killed. This is not a good analogy. The Ivory business survives because of money, pure and simple. Freenet does not require payment of any kind in order to access the goods, and, the goods can be freely copied any number of times and thus are not rare. Ivory is even MORE in demand for these killers because it is illegal. The more illegal something is, the more rare it becomes, or the more costly it becomes to get it. That drives up the market price. And that drives greedy peple to kill the elephants. The best way to protect the elephants is to make it so that Ivory is no longer wanted by anyone, or is somehow being produced without killing any elephants. We now have nanotechnology which will soon give us the ability to create organs, limbs, cars, and ivory tusks with nothing more than the basic elements of which these items usualy are made. A diamond can be created too I imagine. The distributors of files on freenet get nothing in return for the files they are inserting, unless someone decides to donate money to them. But money transfers are traceable, so, if there is a Child porn provider out there who wants money for the stuff they put out there, they are probably going to get caught sooner or later. > > Perhaps I am not being logical here, but can't child abuse be > reduced by > restricting the availability of child porn? Maybe we think that The restriction of any information exchange is inherently bad. Giving any government or business the ability to censor information is giving up the right to free speech. > this > can be logically detached from the actions of those running Freenet > nodes, but it strikes me that in order to promote free speech, we > could > have a Freenet system that only held text files, and didn't support > image or sound files. This is not possible. Any file can be transformed to and from a text file. Ever heard of UUE? Ever heard of MIME? Yeah, email uses text for everything, no binary data files like .mp3. Most email programs seamlesly transform such files to and from Base-64 text encodeing such as MIME or UUE. > Now this might stop people from making videos > of > suppression by oppressive regimes available, but it seems to me that > the > goal of free speech would still be met. People would still be able > to > express their opinions on any subject anonymously (if that is the > objective of free speech), but child pornographers or distributers > of > child pornography would not be supported, and I am presuming that we > are > in agreement that we don't want to support them. > If you reduce information transaction on any network, like freenet, or the rest of the internet, to non-encoded text files, that would be extraordinarily bad. Oh, so very very bad. If supporting such files means helping the law to find and apprehend child abusers, I'm all for it. If not, well, it is an acceptable price to pay for f
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:46:01 +1200 "David McNab" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Society needs to totally get off the belief that "suppression makes > problems > go away". > More generally speaking, government health budgets and health > insurance > premiums the world over could be slashed if only people could be > educated > and supported to flush up their suppressed pain, stress, desires > and > inclinations. > So many times, we've seen people totally eliminate diseases from > their > bodies, even as severe as cancer, through gaining the courage and > procuring > the support to flush up and release all kinds of "stuff" they've > had > suppressed throughout their lives. Speaking of stuff, how would one flush up stuff and get rid of it, without suffering legal or social consequenses? It is difficult enough just to think about one's painfull past sometimes, but to talk about it with anyone, even a trusted church leader, can be very overwhelming. I find it much easier to talk over a chat or email or messaging system of some kind. Like when I want to talk about the few abuses I've suffered from my parents or from other people. It is far easier to let it out anonymously. :) For instance, I have certain sexual things that I keep secret, even from my conciosness, as much as possible. This is bad, from what I hear. How do I talk about it without getting abused mentaly or physicaly by people who have the power to do so? Did you know that we are all females in the early stages of development before we are bombarded by hormones that change our organs and stuff? The penis and testicles and scrotum aren't all that different from the female sex organs. There are size differences of course, but the Penis is like the reverse of the tube that goes up into the uterus. It is possible for hormone imbalences to cause male changes in one place, but not in another. Therefore you can litteraly develop male sex organs but have a female brain. And yes there are differences between male and female brains. So homosexuality is really just the result of chemical imbalences dureing development, which may or may not have been caused by genetics. And there is nothing to be ashamed of, natural error in physical development, and genetic code, is a part of all living things. Without it evolution would be much too slow. My ears developed incorrectly, they are too small and they aren't at the right angle. My jaw is also too small, my teeth don't all fit. I had a friend who was born with webbed feet, like an aquatic animal. There are dogs with extra toes. There are humans born with tails. There are so many different kinds of things that nature throws into the genetic and developmental soup that it really doesn't matter what stuff you were born with. :) Uhm. I'm done. GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
From: "Ian Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I have >seen no evidence that the wide availability of child pornography leads >to more abuse of children, and have even heard arguments that it can >reduce actual abuse by giving these people a relatively harmless outlet >for their desires. >I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this... I can't oppose people having access to any media of their choice. Particularly if such media is produced without committing actual acts of abuse. But I do oppose the violation of consent, particularly that of children and particularly in areas with as much impact as sexuality. Kids suffer enough abuse from siblings, parents, the school system etc. They certainly don't need any more. Back to child porn/abuse - the underlying desire to abuse children grows stronger when it is suppressed. That, we have been able to confirm. Society needs to totally get off the belief that "suppression makes problems go away". More generally speaking, government health budgets and health insurance premiums the world over could be slashed if only people could be educated and supported to flush up their suppressed pain, stress, desires and inclinations. So many times, we've seen people totally eliminate diseases from their bodies, even as severe as cancer, through gaining the courage and procuring the support to flush up and release all kinds of "stuff" they've had suppressed throughout their lives. David ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
> Maybe. Personally, however much legitimate data there is I still won't > want to run a Freenet node for fear of being party to distributing child > porn Better stop using credit cards, then, because you're supporting companies that facilitate child porn transactions. Visa, Amex, Mastercard and Diners are all used in sale and purchase of child porn. Better stop using airlines and postal services, because these industries are known traffickers of child porn. Sam, haven't you heard of 'common carriers'? David - Original Message - From: "Sam Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "freenet-chat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 3:26 PM Subject: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet) > Owen wrote: > > > On 19 Apr 2001 12:09:20 +0900, Sam Joseph wrote: > > > > So my question to you David, is do we actually need the ability to > > > _anonymously_ distribute images to achieve any of the things you are > > > > talking about? Or would _anonymous_ distribution of text do just as > > > > well? > > > > > > I reiterate: > > > 1) UU-encode means there will always be binary data. See usenet > > Yeah, I heard you the first time. You don't think that UU-encoded > documents could be filtered? Maybe you don't want to do that, fair > enough, but don't tell me it can't be done without giving it some > thought. English text has statisical properties not found in UU-encoded > text. It could be filtered. > > > 2) If there is enough legitimate, useful data, people won't think > > kiddie porn is a problem > > Maybe. Personally, however much legitimate data there is I still won't > want to run a Freenet node for fear of being party to distributing child > porn, and I think there are a lot of people like me, maybe not on this > mailing list, but they are out there, and busily not using Freenet nodes > for just this reason. > > Anyway, I was asking a _hypothetical_ question to David, which still > stands. Do we need anonymous distribution of images to help heal child > abusers? > > Seems to me that I could set up my own Freenet node that just filtered > out any incoming data that didn't the statistical properties of known > natural languages, and I would feel fairly secure that I wasn't helping > distribute child porn. You disagree? Explain it to me in detail. > > CHEERS> SAM > > > ___ > Chat mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat > ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
> Anyway, I was asking a _hypothetical_ question to David, which still > stands. Do we need anonymous distribution of images to help heal child > abusers? We need a lot of things to help heal child abusers. Total reform of the justice system Total reform of the penal system Total reform of the education system Total reform of all 'religious' institutions (the Catholic Church is now proving to be a hotspot of child-molesting). Not to mention a fundamental shift of consciousness amongst the masses. But in regard to your question - I think you're twisting things a little. The original aim of Freenet has nothing to do with child porn. It has everything to do with honouring a basic and sacred human right - the right to express one's opinions, inspirations, feelings etc without fear of recriminations. Freenet is no more implicated in child pornography than is, say, the availability of cameras (or even any drawing or writing materials), hard disks etc. Do we see anybody questioning the Minolta, Canon or Nikkon Corporations for the fact that their cameras can be used in abuse of children? When those two Texans (?) were found guilty of dragging an African-American man to his death in chains behind their car, did anyone point the finger at the manufacturer of the car, or the manufacturer of the chains? With child abuse, including child porn, the damage is done when someone violates the consent and the unbelievably frail seedling sexuality of an innocent child. And the damage is perpetuated by the pandemic of suppression and denial which permeates most of society. So many cases of child abuse have escaped the attention of society because the family or community closes ranks, and pretends everything is ok. The family's credit rating is strong, the parents hold responsible jobs and send the children to good schools, so everything is fine. Seems that child abuse is always something that's happening "somewhere else" - the next street, the next town or state etc. David - Original Message - From: "Sam Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "freenet-chat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 3:26 PM Subject: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet) > Owen wrote: > > > On 19 Apr 2001 12:09:20 +0900, Sam Joseph wrote: > > > > So my question to you David, is do we actually need the ability to > > > _anonymously_ distribute images to achieve any of the things you are > > > > talking about? Or would _anonymous_ distribution of text do just as > > > > well? > > > > > > I reiterate: > > > 1) UU-encode means there will always be binary data. See usenet > > Yeah, I heard you the first time. You don't think that UU-encoded > documents could be filtered? Maybe you don't want to do that, fair > enough, but don't tell me it can't be done without giving it some > thought. English text has statisical properties not found in UU-encoded > text. It could be filtered. > > > 2) If there is enough legitimate, useful data, people won't think > > kiddie porn is a problem > > Maybe. Personally, however much legitimate data there is I still won't > want to run a Freenet node for fear of being party to distributing child > porn, and I think there are a lot of people like me, maybe not on this > mailing list, but they are out there, and busily not using Freenet nodes > for just this reason. > > Anyway, I was asking a _hypothetical_ question to David, which still > stands. Do we need anonymous distribution of images to help heal child > abusers? > > Seems to me that I could set up my own Freenet node that just filtered > out any incoming data that didn't the statistical properties of known > natural languages, and I would feel fairly secure that I wasn't helping > distribute child porn. You disagree? Explain it to me in detail. > > CHEERS> SAM > > > ___ > Chat mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat > ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
> > So my question to you David, is do we actually need the ability to > > _anonymously_ distribute images to achieve any of the things you are > > talking about? Or would _anonymous_ distribution of text do just as > > well? If you're against the ability to distribute pictures and other multimedia on *this* point-2-point networking platform, then you're perfectly welcome to go off and build your own text-only point2point network. With such total freedom and control, you can build in logic to detect and suppress uu-encoded media. You can even censor out naughty keywords like 'fuck' and 'cunt' and 'felch' and cum. You can even ban the word 'sex', unless a grammatical analysis shows the word being used in a strictly gender sense. We wish you luck with your new, clean, anonymous text-only p2p network. - Original Message - From: "Owen Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 3:16 PM Subject: Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet) > On 19 Apr 2001 12:09:20 +0900, Sam Joseph wrote: > > > So my question to you David, is do we actually need the ability to > > _anonymously_ distribute images to achieve any of the things you are > > talking about? Or would _anonymous_ distribution of text do just as > > well? > > > > I reiterate: > > 1) UU-encode means there will always be binary data. See usenet > 2) If there is enough legitimate, useful data, people won't think > kiddie porn is a problem > > owen > > ___ > Chat mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat > ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 01:37:48PM +1200, David McNab wrote: > The subject of child porn on Freenet throws me personally into an > interesting position > On one hand, I passionately share the sentiments of totally supporting free > expression. > But on the other hand, my wife and I jointly operate a respected > psychotherapy practice, and are responsible for training and evaluation of > other practitioners. This is interesting. My most solid argument when kiddieporn is brought up is "why should we all be deprived of freedom of speech just because a few might abuse it?", however my actual feelings are stronger. I have seen no evidence that the wide availability of child pornography leads to more abuse of children, and have even heard arguments that it can reduce actual abuse by giving these people a relatively harmless outlet for their desires. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this... Ian. PGP signature
Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
Owen wrote: > On 19 Apr 2001 12:09:20 +0900, Sam Joseph wrote: > > So my question to you David, is do we actually need the ability to > > _anonymously_ distribute images to achieve any of the things you are > > talking about? Or would _anonymous_ distribution of text do just as > > well? > > > I reiterate: > 1) UU-encode means there will always be binary data. See usenet Yeah, I heard you the first time. You don't think that UU-encoded documents could be filtered? Maybe you don't want to do that, fair enough, but don't tell me it can't be done without giving it some thought. English text has statisical properties not found in UU-encoded text. It could be filtered. > 2) If there is enough legitimate, useful data, people won't think > kiddie porn is a problem Maybe. Personally, however much legitimate data there is I still won't want to run a Freenet node for fear of being party to distributing child porn, and I think there are a lot of people like me, maybe not on this mailing list, but they are out there, and busily not using Freenet nodes for just this reason. Anyway, I was asking a _hypothetical_ question to David, which still stands. Do we need anonymous distribution of images to help heal child abusers? Seems to me that I could set up my own Freenet node that just filtered out any incoming data that didn't the statistical properties of known natural languages, and I would feel fairly secure that I wasn't helping distribute child porn. You disagree? Explain it to me in detail. CHEERS> SAM ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
On 19 Apr 2001 12:09:20 +0900, Sam Joseph wrote: > So my question to you David, is do we actually need the ability to > _anonymously_ distribute images to achieve any of the things you are > talking about? Or would _anonymous_ distribution of text do just as > well? > I reiterate: 1) UU-encode means there will always be binary data. See usenet 2) If there is enough legitimate, useful data, people won't think kiddie porn is a problem owen ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
David McNab wrote: > Freenet also provides an anonymous means for people to expose *proven* child > abusers. > Such exposure may not be effective, though, unless it is backed up by > evidence. > Also, such exposure would have best effect if it compassionately called upon > abusers to seek healing. > If child abusers are exposed with convincing evidence, they will be left > with little option but to seek healing. > It would only take a few abusers going public about their healing to start > to really turn society around. > Imagine, say, a book called "Confessions: A Rock-Spider's Healing Journey", > written by a reformed abuser. > Many people reading such a book would cringe, because they would recognise > in themselves many of the ingredients that can culminate in child abuse. > But it would pull the whole issue out into the open. Okay. So I'm all for pulling the issue out into the open. We can agree that we want people to seek healing. Now I know that we don't necessarily have an effective mechanism to block images on Freenet over text, but let's say for the sake of argument that we did. Just hypothetically. Does anything that you're saying actually require that images of child pornography need to be widely available on Freenet. Could not the *proven* (whatever that means) child abusers be exposed on Freenet through the use of text and not images? The book you mention "Confessions: A Rock-Spider's Healing Journey" could be published on our hypothetical text only freenet and have the same effect right? What I'm trying to get at is that it seems to me that we only need the anonymous text publishing ability to accomplish all this, right? Images could still be published through non-anonymous means, but people who were just publishing child pornography for consumption by others might be stopped (assuming that we wanted to stop them, which people on this list may or may not agree with). The argument may be pointless in as much as we can't distinguish text from images on freenet (although i'm guessing there would be statistical methods that achieved this), but I know that I don't want to run a Freenet node on my computer because I don't want to be distributing child porn, and I know that I'm not the only person who feels that way. If the objective is to make Freenet larger and more widespread, then a *hypothetical* text-only version might be something that would encourage its spread because it would reduce people's fears about child porn. One might say that people who think that are stupid or wrong, but there would be nothing to prevent both a free-for-all Freenet and a text-only freenet existing side by side. This is all speculative of course, but I am guessing that alot of people might take up the text-only freenet where they wouldn't run free-for-all nodes. So my question to you David, is do we actually need the ability to _anonymously_ distribute images to achieve any of the things you are talking about? Or would _anonymous_ distribution of text do just as well? CHEERS> SAM ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
> Really? Is the widespread availability of child pornography actually > important in allowing people to recover from their own abuse? I'm not > saying it isn't, it just seems to me that we might want to be protecting > the rights of those being abused as well as protecting the right of free > speech. Freenet also provides an anonymous means for people to expose *proven* child abusers. Such exposure may not be effective, though, unless it is backed up by evidence. Also, such exposure would have best effect if it compassionately called upon abusers to seek healing. If child abusers are exposed with convincing evidence, they will be left with little option but to seek healing. It would only take a few abusers going public about their healing to start to really turn society around. Imagine, say, a book called "Confessions: A Rock-Spider's Healing Journey", written by a reformed abuser. Many people reading such a book would cringe, because they would recognise in themselves many of the ingredients that can culminate in child abuse. But it would pull the whole issue out into the open. Cheers David - Original Message - From: "Sam Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "freenet-chat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 2:14 PM Subject: Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet) > > David McNab wrote: > > > The subject of child porn on Freenet throws me personally > > into an interesting position. On one hand, I passionately share > > the sentiments of totally supporting free expression. > > But on the other hand, my wife and I jointly operate a respected > > psychotherapy practice, and are responsible for training and > > evaluation of other practitioners. > > > > Child abuse has plagued society for at least many thousands of years. > > From our exhaustive research into the subject, one of the principal > factors > > that perpetuates child abuse is suppression and secrecy. > > In other words, suppressive measures such as censorship actually > > encourage child abuse! > > Okay. I think I understand your point, and I agree that suppressing > emotional pain can lead to abuse, but I think it is important to make a > distinction between different kinds of repression. > > > In conclusion, I want to say that Freenet can in no way be held > accountable > > for perpetuating abuse of children. if anything, Freenet will have a > role > > in healing such abuse. > > Really? Is the widespread availability of child pornography actually > important in allowing people to recover from their own abuse? I'm not > saying it isn't, it just seems to me that we might want to be protecting > the rights of those being abused as well as protecting the right of free > speech. > > > Abuse of children is actually perpetuated by every man and woman who > passes > > moral judgement on others. > > By every man and woman who pretends to be happy while suppressing > their own > > emotional pain (and expects others to do the same). > > > Abuse of children is especially perpetuated by those who advocate > censorship > > and other forms of suppression and punishment. > > So if I am suggesting that it is not such a good idea to make child porn > available anonymously then I am perpetuating child abuse? > > I mean, maybe you are saying that in order for the child abusers to heal > themselves, they need to be able to distribute and consume child > pornography with total freedom? Maybe you are right. > > I am having difficulty putting my finger on it, but it feels like there > should be some better approach. I am sure that psychotherapy for child > abusers, as opposed to punishment, would be far more effective. I share > that opinion on a number of subjects. Drug addicts, in my opinion, > should not be treated as criminals, but as people with a medical > condition who need help and support, the same goes for child abusers. > > In my initial mail, I was not suggesting that we try and repress > feelings or censor ideas. I was just wondering if we could promote free > speech, while not distributing child porn at the same time. > > Maybe you are saying it is okay to distribute child porn, because trying > to censor it would lead to greater abuse of children, but I can't quite > follow the logic of it. Seems to me that we need to work towards > promoting open discussion of ideas on child porn, and child abusers > (such as we are seeing here today) as opposed to the open distribution > of actual child pornography. > > If Freenet allows an "above-the-law" distribution system for child > pornography, can't all the people who see it and
Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
David McNab wrote: > The subject of child porn on Freenet throws me personally > into an interesting position. On one hand, I passionately share > the sentiments of totally supporting free expression. > But on the other hand, my wife and I jointly operate a respected > psychotherapy practice, and are responsible for training and > evaluation of other practitioners. > Child abuse has plagued society for at least many thousands of years. > From our exhaustive research into the subject, one of the principal factors > that perpetuates child abuse is suppression and secrecy. > In other words, suppressive measures such as censorship actually > encourage child abuse! Okay. I think I understand your point, and I agree that suppressing emotional pain can lead to abuse, but I think it is important to make a distinction between different kinds of repression. > In conclusion, I want to say that Freenet can in no way be held accountable > for perpetuating abuse of children. if anything, Freenet will have a role > in healing such abuse. Really? Is the widespread availability of child pornography actually important in allowing people to recover from their own abuse? I'm not saying it isn't, it just seems to me that we might want to be protecting the rights of those being abused as well as protecting the right of free speech. > Abuse of children is actually perpetuated by every man and woman who passes > moral judgement on others. > By every man and woman who pretends to be happy while suppressing their own > emotional pain (and expects others to do the same). > Abuse of children is especially perpetuated by those who advocate censorship > and other forms of suppression and punishment. So if I am suggesting that it is not such a good idea to make child porn available anonymously then I am perpetuating child abuse? I mean, maybe you are saying that in order for the child abusers to heal themselves, they need to be able to distribute and consume child pornography with total freedom? Maybe you are right. I am having difficulty putting my finger on it, but it feels like there should be some better approach. I am sure that psychotherapy for child abusers, as opposed to punishment, would be far more effective. I share that opinion on a number of subjects. Drug addicts, in my opinion, should not be treated as criminals, but as people with a medical condition who need help and support, the same goes for child abusers. In my initial mail, I was not suggesting that we try and repress feelings or censor ideas. I was just wondering if we could promote free speech, while not distributing child porn at the same time. Maybe you are saying it is okay to distribute child porn, because trying to censor it would lead to greater abuse of children, but I can't quite follow the logic of it. Seems to me that we need to work towards promoting open discussion of ideas on child porn, and child abusers (such as we are seeing here today) as opposed to the open distribution of actual child pornography. If Freenet allows an "above-the-law" distribution system for child pornography, can't all the people who see it and enjoy it start asking their friends to post more and more pictures on Freenet. Doesn't it's wide availability provide an incentive for people to consume it and demand more. Fine for anything else, but children will be abused in its production (and okay, that is assuming it is hard core stuff, right? - see other branch of this thread for more discussion on what is and isn't child abuse) I'm totally open to the possibility that I'm wrong on all counts, so let's discuss this further. CHEERS> SAM ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet
Stephen Bennett wrote: > Ok,here goes my 2 pence/cents/sou etc. > Now, I have just become a father. I am no teenager. It(she) is my = > first baby. I am 56 years old. I am also a Paneite. > will begin with your quote, pasted below: > "Perhaps we might be able to agree that child porn requires the abuse of > minors, since we don't consider them able to give consent to take part > in the creation of the pornography. I don't know if everyone agrees, > but isn't child porn the product of child abuse?" > Now, child abuse, porn etc. are highly emotive subjects, not unlike = > capital punishment, abortion, serial killers, and human beings. > Since we don't consider (children) able to give consent to take = > partblah blah blah...this requires the abuse of minors. > As a new parent, I have noticed that my baby (5 weeks old and 3 days) = > is not able to give consent on ANYTHING whatsoever. You are therefore = > suggesting that everything I do as a parent is child abuse. I think you miss my fundamental point. I was trying to say that in order the process of making child porn, particularly hard-core child porn, children have to be abused. I'm not talking about photos of children playing in the bath. I'm talking about photos of children actually being sexually abused. Now we can argue that all pornography involved sexual abuse, but I assume that since adults can give consent to be involved in the generation of pornographic work, then it's not abuse. As the participants start to get younger and younger, I end up feeling that it is less and less likely that they are able to give consent. I personally don't want to help in distributing material that appears to be fairly firm evidence of child abuse. As you point out the line may sometimes be difficult to draw, but I think it can be drawn when we are talking about photos of children involved in sexual acts. > I am a visual artist. I am also a musician. I hold in my creative = > juices and hands, the responsibility of the leadership of humanity. I = > object to your suggestion of denying the visual. You throw the baby out = > with the bath water. Ugly is as ugly does. Did you know that male = > babies ejaculate inside the womb before they are born? Perhaps, one = > might think that all males are perverts? Some people certainly do! =20 As for the rest of your "accept the ugly world with open arms" speech. Well sure. I'm open to all sorts of possibilties. I accept the world is full of good and bad, and that the fact I eat meat is of questionable morals, that one person's filth is another person's titillation. I am not saying in any sense that the visual should be denied. I am saying that I would not personally want to devote resources of mine (such as running an Freenet node) that might be used to distribute images of children being sexually abused. I am a strong proponent of Free Speech and I would much rather devote those resources to opposing oppresive governments directly, or just basically trying to spread understanding and discussion. The web is still there for you to put up all your visual images. I am not asking for that to be restricted. Clearly if you want to provide a service that allows for the anonymous distribution of any content, whatever it is, then I am not in a position to stop you. I was just suggesting that the distribution of some of that content, might actually undermine the rights of some individuals at the same time as supporting the rights of others. What about the rights of children who have been sexually abused (as relates to photos of children being sexually abused)? Don't they have some kind of right not to see the products of their abuse distributed? I know its all very complicated because its difficult to block images without blocking text - see my other recent mail for suggestions. It's just that I would like to be involved in the Freenet project and help promote free speech, but at the same time I don't want child porn on my hard disk. CHEERS> SAM ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
The subject of child porn on Freenet throws me personally into an interesting position On one hand, I passionately share the sentiments of totally supporting free expression. But on the other hand, my wife and I jointly operate a respected psychotherapy practice, and are responsible for training and evaluation of other practitioners. Many of our clients have suffered gravely from sexual and other kinds of abuse in their lives. But in our experience, no kind of human abuse or dysfunction can be genuinely healed through suppression of any kind. Child abuse has plagued society for at least many thousands of years. >From our exhaustive research into the subject, one of the principal factors that perpetuates child abuse is suppression and secrecy. In other words, suppressive measures such as censorship actually encourage child abuse! This is because abusers have almost universally been abused themselves. Part of what keeps abusive behaviour patterns in place is the abuser's intense shame, self-judgement, whether conscious or subconscious. The abuser acts out similar abuse on other kids, in his ego's struggle to 'legitimise' the abuse he himself suffered in childhood and integrate it into his distorted reality. This is a well-documented ego-defense mechanism, employed to keep the pain of one's own abuse suppressed in the subconscious. But all the abuser feels in conscious awareness is an irresistable, unexplainable 'pull' to act out abuse on children. We live in a society that (still!) largely promotes punishment and suppression over openness and healing. Civilised? Hah! In such a climate, there is little opportunity or support for potential (or practising) abusers to admit, release and heal their own pain of abuse. In our practice, we've been privileged to witness deep and profound healings of child abusers. Through enormous cathartic release, they (as they learn to trust our support) ultimately discharge all their pain. As a result, they undergo profound psychological transformation at great depth. Their whole being changes. But this would be impossible if we did not create a totally accepting and non-judgemental environment, and help them to feel safe to admit all the abuse they have suffered (and in turn, inflicted). For instance, we've seen men who had been treated with revulsion by women. Through work, such men have, in women's perceptions, transformed from disgusting creeps into irresistable hunks. In conclusion, I want to say that Freenet can in no way be held accountable for perpetuating abuse of children. If anything, Freenet will have a role in healing such abuse. Abuse of children is actually perpetuated by every man and woman who passes moral judgement on others. By every man and woman who pretends to be happy while suppressing their own emotional pain (and expects others to do the same). Abuse of children is especially perpetuated by those who advocate censorship and other forms of suppression and punishment. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet
Adam Langley wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 11:06:42PM +0900, Sam Joseph wrote: > > Perhaps we might be able to agree that child porn requires the abuse of > > minors, since we don't consider them able to give consent to take part > > in the creation of the pornography. I don't know if everyone agrees, > > but isn't child porn the product of child abuse? > People who go for child porn are sick IMHO. But just because I > disagree with it doesn't mean it should be controled. The only reason > for controling it is because of what you have to put the children > through to get it. > But I'm not prepared to give up so much (free speech, etc, etc) just > to control child porn. Fair enough. > > nodes, but it strikes me that in order to promote free speech, we could > > have a Freenet system that only held text files, and didn't support > > image or sound files. > That's unworkable. Text files are data. Images are data. No system can > ever stop people from writing a JPEG->Text converter which encodes > pictures in text. No filter can even keep up and stop such converters > without banning all text files. Okay. I didn't consider UUencoding. However it wouldn't seem to difficult to filter based on statistical analysis of text. Text in English (or indeed in other alphabet-based languages) has a certain statistical character which UUEncoding does not. If one wanted to provide a service that only supported text and not images, you could filter on this basis. Now perhaps this would merely start an arms race whereby more sophisticated UUencoders were developed that displayed the same statistical properties as normal text, but I get the impression that the encoded files would have to become larger and larger in order to store the image encoding. One could then place a limit on the size of text to upload ... I guess I am proposing more and more complex schemes which would be difficult to implement, but it's interesting that Freenet (to my knowledge) treats all files as equal. If a large file gets requested 3 times and a small file gets requested 3 times, which one gets deleted first from the different caches they end up in? One might be able to show that if large files were always deleted preferentially (when deleting became necessary for space constraints) and that images were forces to take up even more space than they do now then we would be making things harder for the child pornographers without making things harder for those people who wanted freedom of speech? Child porn seems pretty unpleasant to me, seems like we might want to make some effort to restrict its availability while we are busy defending human rights through Freedom of Speech. CHEERS> SAM ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
[freenet-chat] freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet
Ok,here goes my 2 pence/cents/sou etc. Now, I have just become a father. I am no teenager. It(she) is my first baby. I am 56 years old. I am also a Paneite. I will begin with your quote, pasted below: "Perhaps we might be able to agree that child porn requires the abuse ofminors, since we don't consider them able to give consent to take partin the creation of the pornography. I don't know if everyone agrees,but isn't child porn the product of child abuse?" Now, child abuse, porn etc. are highly emotive subjects, not unlike capital punishment, abortion, serial killers, and human beings. Since we don't consider (children) able to give consent to take partblah blah blah...this requires the abuse of minors. As a new parent, I have noticed that my baby (5 weeks old and 3 days) is not able to give consent on ANYTHING whatsoever. You are therefore suggesting that everything I do as a parent is child abuse. Your argument is fatally flawed in total. I'm sorry , but looking at that (your ) statement objectively and fairly, you have said a very stupid thing indeed. Child porn may OR MAY NOT be the product of child abuse. Would you condemn everyone without the evidence? Nothing is ever black and white. A few years back, parents were arrested because they had taken and developed photographs of their own children. Is (was) this child abuse? Perhaps they were going to sell them on the street. Perhaps they were going to publish them in a child porn magazine or a child porn website. Or, just perhaps, they might have had a healthy loving attitude to human beings, children, the human physical form as naked and/or nude. I suggest your reading material might include Kenneth Clark's (Not his waywardly stupid tory son) "the Nude". Like anything else in life, nothing has caused me to behave against my nature. I have seen pornography. I have seen US news footage of people being killed in Vietnam on TV. I have seen most of the WWII footage and am aware of much of man's inhumanity to man. As a matter of fact, I have painted and photographed human beings in many different situations. Some or many or most people might even accuse me of being a pornographer. Beauty (or porn) is in the eye of the beholder. I have known personally pornographers. I have also known the Archbishop of Canterbury. I am an adult. I have had the best parents one could ever wish for. I am proud and humble to know that I am not a Milosovic, a Saddam, a Ghaddaffi Duck, Margaret Thatcher or a Hitler or Nixon or Stalin or a murderer like jnr. (Bush). I am grown up enough to make up my own mind about what I see, experience, do. As I would no one to tell me what to do, I would tell no one what to do. Freedom brings a great responsibility. Do unto others as you would others do unto you. This is a golden rule. Yes, it only works for sane people. The psychopath will only take, therefore it does not work with him/her. But that is society's problem. The answer lies in giving teachers proper respect and proper money in return for creating a good society in the future. But we, and no government is willing to do exactly that. Until then, people like you will rant against child porn. Sex is good. Love is good. Anything is good as long as there is true love involved. End of story. It is said and determined that Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, was 13 years old when the Son of God was born. Did the Holy Spirit rape Mary and break the law by getting an under-age girl pregnant? Other religions do not accept Jesus to be the son of any god, but just an arab scratching out a livlihood in the desert. I am happy that my whatever URL is seen by the world and that somewhere on it lurks some child porn. I live in the world. I feel uncomfortable that there are members of my species, homo sapiens, who do unspeakable things to each other. I am ashamed to be human. It is very sad that our species is extinct. But it is no tragedy to be extinct. I rejoice. I rejoice because Mother Nature or evolution, whatever you want to call it, Life is indestructable. Because we failed species can not destroy life, I rejoice. Because life and evolution is all-powerful, human beings are not allowed to succeed because if we did survive, we would eventually destroy life and the universe. Child porn exists, just like AIDS and CANCER and everything else that's bad. Goodness exists also, even though it gets a very bad press. The tabloids try to stamp out goodness, but they will fail at that, too. If someone wants to look at child porn I say that he or she or it is free to do so. I don't have to look at it. My baby does not have to look at it. She will see porn one day. She will read/see the news one day. She will experience society one day. She will go through some sort of institutional "education" one day. What I do not want her to experience is censorship and i
Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 11:06:42PM +0900, Sam Joseph wrote: > Perhaps we might be able to agree that child porn requires the abuse of > minors, since we don't consider them able to give consent to take part > in the creation of the pornography. I don't know if everyone agrees, > but isn't child porn the product of child abuse? People who go for child porn are sick IMHO. But just because I disagree with it doesn't mean it should be controled. The only reason for controling it is because of what you have to put the children through to get it. But I'm not prepared to give up so much (free speech, etc, etc) just to control child porn. Those who want control for their own benifit constantly cite child porn as a reason why they should be given power. It's red-baiting in a modern form. > nodes, but it strikes me that in order to promote free speech, we could > have a Freenet system that only held text files, and didn't support > image or sound files. That's unworkable. Text files are data. Images are data. No system can ever stop people from writing a JPEG->Text converter which encodes pictures in text. No filter can even keep up and stop such converters without banning all text files. AGL -- Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. PGP signature
Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet
Stephen Tidey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And what would you do with the information captured by your web bugs? > Become another censor, pass it on to the authorities? Only Peter Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> knows the answer to these questions. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
RE: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet
> -Original Message- > From: Nomen Nescio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 18 April 2001 16:00 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet > > > Owen Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Solution A: don't download it, and the stuff will fall out > of the net > > Solution B: Upload good stuff that people want to see, and > make freenet > > useful for good purposes. Like the net, it will have its > bad parts, but > > they will be small in relation. > > Solution C: Plant web bugs and spread FUD: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Or listen to someone like Owen when they come up with an answer like Solution B and stop acting like the people who would quite happily invade YOUR privacy with web bugs... And what would you do with the information captured by your web bugs? Become another censor, pass it on to the authorities? ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet
Owen Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Solution A: don't download it, and the stuff will fall out of the net > Solution B: Upload good stuff that people want to see, and make freenet > useful for good purposes. Like the net, it will have its bad parts, but > they will be small in relation. Solution C: Plant web bugs and spread FUD: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet
On 18 Apr 2001 23:06:42 +0900, Sam Joseph wrote: > I am very interested in the Freenet project, distributed search and free > speech, but I get an uncomfortable feeling when I think that my Freenet > node might hold child pornography that will get served up to those who > want it. Solution A: don't download it, and the stuff will fall out of the net Solution B: Upload good stuff that people want to see, and make freenet useful for good purposes. Like the net, it will have its bad parts, but they will be small in relation. Owen FreeSearch: Making Freenet usable: http://www.sit.wisc.edu/~ogwilliams/FreeSearch/ ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 11:06:42PM +0900, Sam Joseph wrote: > nodes, but it strikes me that in order to promote free speech, we could > have a Freenet system that only held text files, and didn't support > image or sound files. Now this might stop people from making videos of One word: uuencode -- Leo Howell M5AKW freenet:MSK@SSK@2vz8xnhEJyJOlBVNfBEOWaohQFEQAgE/freesite// PGP signature
[freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet
My apologies if this is a already a well-hashed out topic, but I don't see a FAQ for freenet chat, and I didn't see anything as I skimmed some of the chat archives so heres goes. I have recently been looking at Freegle.com and I saw the various porn and child porn files in the recent additions page. I know that in a previous philosophy document Ian Clarke talked about how there was no established link between child porn and people becoming paedophiles, but I think there is another angle to look at this from. Perhaps we might be able to agree that child porn requires the abuse of minors, since we don't consider them able to give consent to take part in the creation of the pornography. I don't know if everyone agrees, but isn't child porn the product of child abuse? I am very interested in the Freenet project, distributed search and free speech, but I get an uncomfortable feeling when I think that my Freenet node might hold child pornography that will get served up to those who want it. In the same way that people buying ivory or trafficking in ivory are not necessarily directly involved in killing elephants, aren't they providing a framework in which ivory will get shipped around and provide incentive for elephants to be killed. Perhaps I am not being logical here, but can't child abuse be reduced by restricting the availability of child porn? Maybe we think that this can be logically detached from the actions of those running Freenet nodes, but it strikes me that in order to promote free speech, we could have a Freenet system that only held text files, and didn't support image or sound files. Now this might stop people from making videos of suppression by oppressive regimes available, but it seems to me that the goal of free speech would still be met. People would still be able to express their opinions on any subject anonymously (if that is the objective of free speech), but child pornographers or distributers of child pornography would not be supported, and I am presuming that we are in agreement that we don't want to support them. I am keen to have an intelligent discussion on this topic. Please let me know what you think. CHEERS> SAM ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
