

The Great Firewall Of China. Explained. - Archit
http://blog.archit.in/2011/04/the-great-firewall-of-china-explained/

======
ericHosick
I find that "80% of Australians support the Govt. proposed clean feed internet
filter" to be disturbing. The survey has to be wrong and/or I don't quite know
what a "clean feed internet filter" is.

I had a professor in college who once said "What is source code? Well it is
kinda like Porn. You know what it is when you see it but you can't quite
describe it." Maybe the "clean feed internet filter" is something like that?

~~~
guelo
According to wikipedia,
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia#Opinion_Polling):

 _Having a mandatory Government Internet filter that would automatically block
all access in Australia, to overseas websites containing material that is
Refused Classification? Refused Classification was defined as Images and
information about one or more of the following: child sexual abuse,
bestiality, sexual violence, gratuitous, exploitative or offensive sexual
fetishes, detailed instructions on or promotion of crime, violence or use of
illegal drugs. 80% were in favour, 19% against._

~~~
MediaBehavior
So, Aussies... is it working for you that _child sexual abuse_ is being lumped
together with "gratuitous (by whose standards?) ... or offensive (to whom?)
sexual fetishes?

Not that I, personally, am not repulsed by them, but what about banning
"promotion" of "...violence or use of illegal drugs?" Is this standard applied
in your movie theaters, too. That would keep you "safe" from a lot of
Hollywood's productions.

I don't mean to be hard on Aussies - since wide swaths of U.S. population
might vote for such censorship. I'm just wondering whether such tight,
subjective control is the norm down under?

~~~
jackvalentine
> So, Aussies... is it working for you that child sexual abuse is being lumped
> together with "gratuitous (by whose standards?) ... or offensive (to whom?)
> sexual fetishes?

For the most part I have few problems with our classification scheme. If
you're genuinely interested in what goes in to a rating, the guidelines are
quite easily available. (1)

It's interesting the attitude I find many foreigners, in particular North
Americans have of a repulsion to any kind of censorship whilst simultaniously
being ignorant of what our classification scheme actually does. The previous
sentence was directed at your idea that the prohibition against the promotion
of violence or illegal drugs would cause a hollywood film to be banned from
Australian cinemas. It doesn't because context is a mitigating factor.
Ignoring the issue of no 18+ rating for video games, the only thing that comes
to mind that I wish hadn't been refused classification is 2002's Ken Park.

Forgive me if my attitude comes off as hostile, but I am increasingly annoyed
at foreigners decrying our classification scheme as uniformly bad. I guess
it's just different people having different values.

(1) <http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2008C00126>

~~~
nodata
Your attitude does come across as hostile, mainly because of this sentence: "I
am increasingly annoyed at foreigners decrying our classification scheme as
uniformly bad".

It's irrelevant if someone is foreign. What matters if people are informed.

Australian censorship system is expensive with unclear benefits. So I'd take
two counter positions:

1\. The money could be better spent elsewhere. 2\. Let's see how well the
system is working in five years time after feature creep sets in.

~~~
jackvalentine
> It's irrelevant if someone is foreign. What matters if people are informed.

I disagree. Since our classification scheme arguably has next to zero effect
on someone who isn't inside Australia, their opinions on what we decide to
enact are irrelevant and nosey. A variation on "Why should you be able to tell
me what I can/cannot do in bed with my wife?" really. It'd be different if we
had any effect on the ability for foreigners to see or enjoy what they want in
their own markets.

I should be clear and make a distinction between my support for the
classification scheme as it currently stands with it's clear benefits in
informed choices for parents and transparency that it is run with, and my
opinion on the proposed internet clean feed filter, which is one of
disapproval.

~~~
nodata
> Since our classification scheme arguably has next to zero effect on someone
> who isn't inside Australia, their opinions on what we decide to enact are
> irrelevant and nosey.

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic here, but in case you're not: the idea
that people are not allowed to have opinions on things that don't directly
affect them is startling.

The "variation" you provide is false. Someone holding a reasoned opinion on
something is not equivalent to someone issuing rules on what you may or may
not do with your wife.

~~~
jackvalentine
I didn't say someone can't have opinions, but I did say I find their opinions
irrelevant. I realise that example was poorly worded, but I think you get the
idea. It'd probably be better phrased as "Why do you think we're interested in
you telling us what we should/should not do with our wives in our own homes?"

~~~
nodata
And I say informed opinion beats uninformed opinion no matter where the person
is.

~~~
jackvalentine
Things get murky though, when we're discussing something so inherently culture
& values based like where to draw the line with film classification.

------
IsaacL
This seems mostly accurate from my knowledge of the Great Firewall, but some
of the info seems out of date (maybe the video is old). For example: Wikipedia
and BBC News have been unblocked for a while now.

------
dvfer
Well... from a positive perspective, it creates so many jobs. Pointless and a
job hated by people around the world. At least no one's dying... or is it a
good thing no one's dying?

