?

Log in

No account? Create an account
A brief history of moral panics - click opera — LiveJournal
February 2010
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
 
 
 
 
 
Wed, Dec. 24th, 2008 12:00 am
A brief history of moral panics

43CommentReply


(no subject) - (Anonymous)
imomus
imomus
imomus
Tue, Dec. 23rd, 2008 11:53 pm (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't describe this stuff as "going backwards" or "going forwards". These are problematical terms because they imply a model of history in which you can define what progress actually is (and "progress" all too often turns out to be "proximity to my own attitudes").

Rather, I think we have to look at this as a game of musical chairs in which certain things are designated, at any given time, sexily dangerous. And this actually eroticizes them (eg children, who are actively eroticized by moral panics around child nudity).


ReplyThread Parent
electricwitch
electricwitch
For anything, oh! she´ll bust her elastic
Wed, Dec. 24th, 2008 09:59 am (UTC)

Let me guess, you're against lj cuts too?

By the way, are you a sock or not?


ReplyThread Parent
electricwitch
electricwitch
For anything, oh! she´ll bust her elastic
Wed, Dec. 24th, 2008 10:35 am (UTC)

Actually, because I'm a masochist, let me explain internet censorship to you, because I'm sick of hearing this crap. Internet ISPs and hosting sites are not public property, they're private property, and so their owners can basically do whatever the fuck they want with what's on it.

In practise, this means that when something is severely unpopular or could be damaging to their image, site owners, site hosters and providers delete it. So even though things like that Internet Watch thing have barely any legal power (it would have to be extremely illegal for something to override property rights like that), the public opinion they represent is very powerful indeed.

So what you're mistaking for censorship is actually ownership rights. And if you're annoyed because you can't post what you want, remember that you're posting it ON OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY. If you want to post whatever you want, go to a hosting site that's impervious to these things like 4chan, or start your own damn provider.

But then if the only site that will host your crap is 4chan, you're bad, what you want to post is bad, and you should feel bad ANYWAY.


ReplyThread Parent
cheapsurrealist
cheapsurrealist
Dave Nold
Wed, Dec. 24th, 2008 05:19 pm (UTC)

The ISP may own buildings and servers but the cables that connect to those servers have to run through public land - the commons.

A company like Comcast (here in the U.S) has to negotiate with every city and town for the right of way and that contract has to be renewed every 5 years or so or whenever the company changes hands.

Those negotiations are where you get to have a say.

The ISP is not content provider. It is just a conduit through which information flows. That's the way it should be anyway.

You have to keep an eye on the bastards.


ReplyThread Parent
electricwitch
electricwitch
For anything, oh! she´ll bust her elastic
Wed, Dec. 24th, 2008 06:37 pm (UTC)

True, they're the smallest part of it, too, I'd say the hosters and site owners are the biggest fish here.


ReplyThread Parent
cheapsurrealist
cheapsurrealist
Dave Nold
Wed, Dec. 24th, 2008 06:57 pm (UTC)

Yeah, personal site owners and places like lj and facebook can make their own rules (community guidelines) or whatever but we have to keep it open at the root level.

I am troubled though by how easy it is to have your YouTube account deleted. Rules are rules and all but they have made millions off our backs. Content providers don't come much cheaper.


ReplyThread Parent
electricwitch
electricwitch
For anything, oh! she´ll bust her elastic
Wed, Dec. 24th, 2008 07:54 pm (UTC)

It's their stuff, I'm not gonna tell them how to use it. If I really cared I'd buy my own goddamn site.


ReplyThread Parent
crowjake
crowjake
crowjake
Fri, Dec. 26th, 2008 01:36 am (UTC)

What if websites are just great big cyber countries, and their ownership, imperialism?

You could certainly try to start your own in a distant island with zero infrastructure or population, but I'd rather have some established contact!

Facebook and Youtube and others are answerable to users in a similar ways that governments are answerable to their people... I pay taxes and and I pay "content".

If gaming as it is developing highlights anything it is how reality and and technology can meld.

Just because I don't have absolute power(money/ownership) over an institution, it doesn't mean they can not answer to me...

"If you don't like this country get out"


ReplyThread Parent
electricwitch
electricwitch
For anything, oh! she´ll bust her elastic
Fri, Dec. 26th, 2008 11:47 am (UTC)

Yeah, but they're not countries, and never will be.


ReplyThread Parent
crowjake
crowjake
crowjake
Fri, Dec. 26th, 2008 02:51 pm (UTC)

Why not?

And even so, the point I'm making is not solely that websites are the same as physical countries but more that the idea of ownership means a hell of a lot less than you imply. Owning something is having power over it, nothing more. And AS WITH fascist countries, people running websites behave like they own them, where actually they have a population to consider.

"It's their stuff, I'm not gonna tell them how to use it. If I really cared I'd buy my own goddamn site."

WHY does that statement apply differently to countries and websites?


ReplyThread Parent
electricwitch
electricwitch
For anything, oh! she´ll bust her elastic
Fri, Dec. 26th, 2008 03:25 pm (UTC)

You really don't understand the difference between a fascist nation and a website where they won't let you upload porn???!!


ReplyThread Parent
crowjake
crowjake
crowjake
Fri, Dec. 26th, 2008 06:00 pm (UTC)

hahah!

I know what the difference is, but not what the "difference between the active relationships" are;

I'm not saying...

oppressive government = oppressive website.

I'm saying...

(oppressive government / populace) = (oppressive website / users)


ReplyThread Parent