http://cleanternet.org/
good use of particles, btw
nice informational animation
Moderators: Víctor Paredes, Belgarath, slowtiger
I think the particles and aesthetic are nice.
But it's just bizarre content-wise. The tone had me convinced that this was for real at first. I just thought that they had made a lot of mistakes. Then I watched again and realized that it's intentionally satirical. But it's not clear what they advocate. One might think from the first half that they want better methods to protect children. However, the "ministry of truth," "victims of freedom of speech," and "victims of democracy" bits seem to suggest that sites exploiting children are a part of free speech. Makes me suspect that it's made by users of said illegal sites. If that's not the case, why not clarify and defend their own position in the debate? But then, a clumsy 1984 reference will make me question the competence of any political message.
But it's just bizarre content-wise. The tone had me convinced that this was for real at first. I just thought that they had made a lot of mistakes. Then I watched again and realized that it's intentionally satirical. But it's not clear what they advocate. One might think from the first half that they want better methods to protect children. However, the "ministry of truth," "victims of freedom of speech," and "victims of democracy" bits seem to suggest that sites exploiting children are a part of free speech. Makes me suspect that it's made by users of said illegal sites. If that's not the case, why not clarify and defend their own position in the debate? But then, a clumsy 1984 reference will make me question the competence of any political message.
Last edited by lwaxana on Fri Apr 23, 2010 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I guess I'm not being fair. It's more an issue that I have with politics. I just wish that political arguments played by the same rules as academic arguments. I like an argument to have a clear position, lay out its assumptions and motivations, engage opposing views, and be open to change based on interaction with other ideas.
But I must acknowledge that political argument is a different thing altogether. A cogent, well supported argument is not always the most effective way to create political meaning for people.
So yeah. I can't expect this particular argument to become what I think a political argument should be. It probably wouldn't even serve its cause to do so. But that's a bit depressing to me. :)
But I must acknowledge that political argument is a different thing altogether. A cogent, well supported argument is not always the most effective way to create political meaning for people.
So yeah. I can't expect this particular argument to become what I think a political argument should be. It probably wouldn't even serve its cause to do so. But that's a bit depressing to me. :)
You could probably easily find an english language argumentation in that case, in short the point (which I share) goes like this:
If a shop sells stolen goods, nobody would close down the street. Instead the shopkeeper faces legal consequences.
If a kidnapper sends his messages via snail mail, nobody would shut down the post office.
So the idea of crippling the internet for all just because some criminals use it for their purposes is plain silly. Especially because lots of people have shown that the measurements planned (filtering, blocking DNS entries etc) rarely effect the criminals, but everybody else, and additionally are so ridiculously stupid from a technical point that any decent 12yr old could get over them in minutes.
We (people who care about this) think that this whole business serves as an easy point for all upcoming elections, because a) the government isn't doing something useful which relly helps or saves children b) the costs caused by those measurements are burdened upon providers, so politics don't spend any money c) no additional money, nor staff, is spent for real crime fighting.
Further we supect that the entire "child porn" argument is just used to hide the real agenda behind it: to control that damn internet where, right now, lots of people say and do things without permission of their government. Add to this the actions of RIAA and the like, as seen in the leaked ACTA documents, and you clearly see what certain pressure groups are out for.
(I could get deeply into all the details of it, but I'll spare you that. Sorry for raising serious topics in this forum, back to our innocent little animation.)
If a shop sells stolen goods, nobody would close down the street. Instead the shopkeeper faces legal consequences.
If a kidnapper sends his messages via snail mail, nobody would shut down the post office.
So the idea of crippling the internet for all just because some criminals use it for their purposes is plain silly. Especially because lots of people have shown that the measurements planned (filtering, blocking DNS entries etc) rarely effect the criminals, but everybody else, and additionally are so ridiculously stupid from a technical point that any decent 12yr old could get over them in minutes.
We (people who care about this) think that this whole business serves as an easy point for all upcoming elections, because a) the government isn't doing something useful which relly helps or saves children b) the costs caused by those measurements are burdened upon providers, so politics don't spend any money c) no additional money, nor staff, is spent for real crime fighting.
Further we supect that the entire "child porn" argument is just used to hide the real agenda behind it: to control that damn internet where, right now, lots of people say and do things without permission of their government. Add to this the actions of RIAA and the like, as seen in the leaked ACTA documents, and you clearly see what certain pressure groups are out for.
(I could get deeply into all the details of it, but I'll spare you that. Sorry for raising serious topics in this forum, back to our innocent little animation.)
Slowtiger--I certainly don't mean to say that there's no place for political discussion. In fact, I think this sounds like an important issue. I just didn't know the political context of that video, who made it, or why. The organization is the opposite of what it says it is and provides very little information about who they are. With any political message, it's important to me to know who made it and why. I could probably assume who made it if I was familiar with the proposed measures and which groups and special interests felt which way about it. Unfortunately, I'm not yet familiar with this. Now I can learn more about it. :)
Honestly, the argument you just provided is much more compelling to me than the video. You are clear about what you want and why. To me, that is just an important piece of the puzzle to have.
Honestly, the argument you just provided is much more compelling to me than the video. You are clear about what you want and why. To me, that is just an important piece of the puzzle to have.