Internet Regulation?

pangbang

I posed this question as part of another thread, but it got lost in talking about other stuff.

So, considering that the internet can

show you videos of people being beheaded

show graphic pornography that's limitless in imagination/depravity

show snuff videos

allow terrorist recruiting websites and preachings

provide the means to make/obtain explosives and weapons and illegal drugs

allow the toxicity of social media which has many side effects of its own (bullying, polarisation, extremism, addictive nature of it, negative impact on life like tracking wife/husband/family/stalkers, wasting ungodly amounts of time....)

provide the means for governments to take all your private and personal information,

provide the means for hackers to rob your money and identity,

provide the means for private companies to keep detailed information on your life, everything from where you go, what you eat, how you vote, your opinions

provides the means to essentially brainwash people, a giant propaganda machine ready to use (if not already working!)


And in some weird way that might be okay, but this stuff is freely available to everyone. Whether youre an 8 year old whose mate just showed them how to disable parental controls, to impressionable nuts ready to kill for whatever cause pops up on their screen first. Everyone.

There are the benefits of course. But just because you can order your whacky tobaccies from morocco just isn't a good enough reason for beheading videos to keep going either. Take the selfish part out of it.

Considering that radio and television (generally) are not open to every lunatic on the planet.....why not the internet? Why is it an exception? It allows socially anonymous groups to gather....that's probably the biggest reason to keep it that way.

But anonymity will almost certainly end. And regulation is in the post.

But before it gets here, what do you think?

Is the benefit of seeing a cat whack its nuts off a railing a good enough reason to allow terrorists plan/make a bomb that blows people to shaisse dum fuhrer?

Is unadulterated freedom of the internet worth it?

:P

bear1

I can see why this post got lost in the other thread.

pangbang

One more thought.

Is it BECAUSE the internet is anonymous that we provide so much information willingly?

If you knew your name was attached to stuff online, wouldn't that make you a hell of a lot more careful?

Or basically what I'm saying is the anonymity of the internet might actually be a negative!

Zaph

The internet is a huge force for change and good as well, and there's a lot more of that than there are beheading videos or bomb making instructions. Why merely focus on the negative? If people want to get their hands on that sort of stuff they'll somehow manage it anyway, people were making bombs long before the internet was around.

pangbang

Zaph wrote: »

The internet is a huge force for change and good as well, and there's a lot more of that than there are beheading videos or bomb making instructions. Why merely focus on the negative? If people want to get their hands on that sort of stuff they'll somehow manage it anyway, people were making bombs long before the internet was around.

Because I reckon the negatives outweigh the positives. And isn't there some statistic that 70% of the internet is porn anyway?

I don't think so (about the "they'll do it anyway"). A wannabe whack job in the arse-end of Iceland can get his hands on all information now. Otherwise I think he'd probably be content whacking off to seals, harming nobody. (Not to mention he can post videos of said seal appreciation for other bundy's to fantasise over)

ISIS is a prime example of the negative reach of the internet. How would people gain the information to travel to the middle east for war come about easily? Or vice versa?

AllForIt

I don't think that any of the horrible things you mention happen as a result of the internet.

Despite terrorist attacks and all the so called radicalizing that goes on, the world is a safer place than it ever was.

I think the internet because of it's educational effect is a force for good overall and way way outweighs the negatives.

Therefore I wouldn't be in favor of any kind of further government surveillance laws other that what is in place at present.

bear1

pangbang wrote: »

Because I reckon the negatives outweigh the positives. And isn't there some statistic that 70% of the internet is porn anyway?

I don't think so (about the "they'll do it anyway"). A wannabe whack job in the arse-end of Iceland can get his hands on all information now. Otherwise I think he'd probably be content whacking off to seals, harming nobody. (Not to mention he can post videos of said seal appreciation for other bundy's to fantasise over)

ISIS is a prime example of the negative reach of the internet. How would people gain the information to travel to the middle east for war come about easily? Or vice versa?

I seriously doubt your statistic that 70% is porn.
As zaph said you are focusing solely on the negatives and tbh in a blind way.
The rest of your post doesn't make much sense, are you saying people know how to make explosives only cause of the Internet?
I mean you seem to be saying that the Internet either has porn or terrorist related materials.
What about websites about health care? Politics? World news? Car reviews? This website? You need to be more open minded about how the Internet actually is rather than how sadistic it can be.

buried

Funny how all this noise about 'internet regulation' is gathering apace at the exact same time that the likes of the disgusting Murdoch tabloids and the ridiculous divisive noise they've been peddling the last 50 years got a glorious kick up its withered testicles a few weeks back.

tomwaterford

pangbang wrote: »

One more thought.

Is it BECAUSE the internet is anonymous that we provide so much information willingly?

If you knew your name was attached to stuff online, wouldn't that make you a hell of a lot more careful?

Or basically what I'm saying is the anonymity of the internet might actually be a negative!

You have heard of Facebook? ?

pangbang

AllForIt wrote: »

I don't think that any of the horrible things you mention happen as a result of the internet.

Despite terrorist attacks and all the so called radicalizing that goes on, the world is a safer place than it ever was.

I think the internet because of it's educational effect is a force for good overall and way way outweighs the negatives.

Therefore I wouldn't be in favor of any kind of further government surveillance laws other that what is in place at present.

Well I didn't say that it was the internets fault. Atomic energy wasn't meant to obliterate people either....its what you do with it that counts. And the internet as it stands is a conduit for the worst parts of human nature, all viewable and displayed for even the youngest child that can hold a phone.

As for the world being safer than ever, I don't buy that at all. I think its getting much worse in general. Besides peoples feelings, I can barely think of a positive trend from the last 10 or so years.

I keep hearing and reading about the internet as this great social improver, a fantastic force for good. But again, I don't think so, its just a reflection of its users and nothing more. Therefore it is mostly porn, shopping, extremism (even the milder forms of political disagreement have fomented), unfiltered information overload that provides every nut with a good "argument" no matter their cause, cat videos, and then way way way way way way way down the list....educationally good.

It didn't exactly work as a great social movement for Syria or the middle east! Facebook revolutions, twitter uprisings.....trollocks! :P

Junkyard Tom

Stop thinking about stuff, will ya?

Beasty

pangbang wrote: »

Because I reckon the negatives outweigh the positives

I don't think they do at present, but there is a distinct danger the take up of the dark web and infiltration by states and criminals could result in bigger issues than we ever faced in the pre-digital world

However in practice there is no way to regulate it much more than it already is, and you will only get that when you see a hell of a lot more collaboration between states on all sorts of things

pangbang

tomwaterford wrote: »

You have heard of Facebook? ?

Not nearly good enough. I am expecting you to disclose your real name on after hours, where you live, what pornography you watched yesterday yadda yadda.

Facebook is a drop in the ocean. Though that said, its still amazing the information people voluntarily give up on there, huh!

tomwaterford

pangbang wrote: »

Not nearly good enough. I am expecting you to disclose your real name on after hours, where you live, what pornography you watched yesterday yadda yadda.

Facebook is a drop in the ocean. Though that said, its still amazing the information people voluntarily give up on there, huh!

My name is there,first name .....anagram of second name anyway (with an extra letter)


Facebook I would imagine is vastly more popular a website than boards tbh even in ireland

pangbang

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Stop thinking about stuff, will ya?

Funny you should mention that. I was thinking of stuff that other people could be thinking of, so I took that stuff and decided to think about it some more. So much stuff to think about that the stuffing came right out of my thinking cap.

I'll be making a thread shortly.

pangbang

tomwaterford wrote: »

My name is there,first name .....anagram of second name anyway (with an extra letter)


Facebook I would imagine is vastly more popular a website than boards tbh even in ireland

Waterboard?

so..........youre descended from a long line of torturers, and continuing the family tradition via internet anonymity. I'll be reporting you to big brother in soon moments.

tomwaterford

pangbang wrote: »

Waterboard?

so..........youre descended from a long line of torturers, and continuing the family tradition via internet anonymity. I'll be reporting you to big brother in soon moments.

Not even close :P :P,in interests of anomity il say no more

But it's an anomaly and a bit nerd ish it also gIves my county aswell

bear1

Seems like debating this will be pointless.

pangbang

bear1 wrote: »

I seriously doubt your statistic that 70% is porn.
As zaph said you are focusing solely on the negatives and tbh in a blind way.
The rest of your post doesn't make much sense, are you saying people know how to make explosives only cause of the Internet?
I mean you seem to be saying that the Internet either has porn or terrorist related materials.
What about websites about health care? Politics? World news? Car reviews? This website? You need to be more open minded about how the Internet actually is rather than how sadistic it can be.

Whats blind about it? Are you saying it doesn't happen? Are you saying that you couldn't find a donkey having sex with (insert imagination) within 5 minutes?

Maybe you think these things are a lot less prevalent, but this stuff doesn't perpetuate unless theres a demand.

ANd yeah, I would say that a lot of people who make explosives only know how because of the internet....! Why, you think you can pick it up in a library?

I already made mention of the positive things about the internet. But only a mention, because regulation isn't needed for the positives.



EVen scratching all that. Still the basic question, why should the internet not be regulated, while other forms of mass communication are regulated?

Why cant we have a million channels on irish television, devoted to whatever bat-sh*t the particular person wants to throw at us?

Whatever about internet regulation, there absolutely should be accountability in real life for things one does or says (usually anonymously) online that negatively affects the lives of named/identifiable people in real life. To do otherwise would be an injustice.

bear1

pangbang wrote: »

Whats blind about it? Are you saying it doesn't happen? Are you saying that you couldn't find a donkey having sex with (insert imagination) within 5 minutes?

Maybe you think these things are a lot less prevalent, but this stuff doesn't perpetuate unless theres a demand.

ANd yeah, I would say that a lot of people who make explosives only know how because of the internet....! Why, you think you can pick it up in a library?

I already made mention of the positive things about the internet. But only a mention, because regulation isn't needed for the positives.



EVen scratching all that. Still the basic question, why should the internet not be regulated, while other forms of mass communication are regulated?

Why cant we have a million channels on irish television, devoted to whatever bat-sh*t the particular person wants to throw at us?

Terrorist organisations didn't learn how to make bombs through the Internet.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen but throwing put a 70% porn on a platform so vast is nonsense.
Donkeys having sex? Have you ever heard of how popular bestiality was back in the 70s?
How could you possibly regulate what's online? It would take seconds for a new website to appear with the same stuff hence why blocking torrent websites is pointless.

Jurgen Klopp

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Whatever about internet regulation, there absolutely should be accountability in real life for things one does or says (usually anonymously) online that negatively affects the lives of named/identifiable people in real life. To do otherwise would be an injustice.

Thought that happens already? Or maybe it's more at a judges discretion.

I remember someone in the journal comments made remarks that some GAA player was lying about an injury sustained and ended up in court for defamation anyway

Jesus Wept

It isn't difficult to avoid beheading videos thankfully.

Jurgen Klopp

As for regulating, no leave it as it is.

Its brilliant for battling media and Government suppression, whether it's an organisation or simply a few individuals taking it upon themselves to not release something as it doesn't fit their views

Like the New Year's Eve incident in Germany which didn't appear in any mainstream German media until the net has leaked it a few days previous

Sweden is another place where they get caught out regularly due to info released on the net

RustyNut

More censorship, that's what we need. Free communication is a recipe for decent, governments should decide what information we have access to, sure what could go wrong?

Will I Am Not

AllForIt wrote: »

I don't think that any of the horrible things you mention happen as a result of the internet.

Despite terrorist attacks and all the so called radicalizing that goes on, the world is a safer place than it ever was.

I think the internet because of it's educational effect is a force for good overall and way way outweighs the negatives.

Therefore I wouldn't be in favor of any kind of further government surveillance laws other that what is in place at present.

In generational terms yes but I feel it was safer maybe 10 years ago and it's getting progressively worse.

It may only be confirmation bias but I seem to be hearing of a lot more violence in the world today than when I was growing up.

hytrogen

buried wrote:

Funny how all this noise about 'internet regulation' is gathering apace at the exact same time that the likes of the disgusting Murdoch tabloids and the ridiculous divisive noise they've been peddling the last 50 years got a glorious kick up its withered testicles a few weeks back.

As well as Facetube & Youbook want to prioritise certain aspects of browsing and bandwidths..
*Gets the pliers and starts the reconstruction process..
I have to admit seeing how Cubans constructed their own internet daisy-changing houses together is a model of how the philosophy of the internet began and should have been constructed instead of this commercialised corporate throttling big brother crap.
Yes the internet can be offensive, yes the internet can be liberating, but that is the very essence of it! So stop trying to tell me what I can and cannot see.
I believe censorship should be at the family modem and not the provider, if I want to have a debate with ISIS or Murdock about world politics or geo-resource management to asking Richard Branson how was his kite surfing session.
Why should anyone prevent me from exploring those discussions??

buried

hytrogen wrote: »

As well as Facetube & Youbook want to prioritise certain aspects of browsing and bandwidths..
*Gets the pliers and starts the reconstruction process..
I have to admit seeing how Cubans constructed their own internet daisy-changing houses together is a model of how the philosophy of the internet began and should have been constructed instead of this commercialised corporate throttling big brother crap.
Yes the internet can be offensive, yes the internet can be liberating, but that is the very essence of it! So stop trying to tell me what I can and cannot see.
I believe censorship should be at the family model and not the provider, if I want to have a debate with ISIS or Murdock about world politics or geo-resource management to asking Richard Branson how was his kite surfing session.
Why should anyone prevent me from exploring those discussions??

Damn right!!

AllForIt

pangbang wrote: »

Well I didn't say that it was the internets fault.

No you didn't but I can't help but think you are inferring such.

As for the world being safer than ever, I don't buy that at all. I think its getting much worse in general. Besides peoples feelings, I can barely think of a positive trend from the last 10 or so years.

Because of the internet we all exposed to things that go on in life that we never had exposure to before. The world had just as much violence going in it pre-internet if not more.

It didn't exactly work as a great social movement for Syria or the middle east! Facebook revolutions, twitter uprisings.....trollocks! :P

The problems in the middle east and Syria existed way before anyone heard of the term 'trollocks'.

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

In generational terms yes but I feel it was safer maybe 10 years ago and it's getting progressively worse.

It may only be confirmation bias but I seem to be hearing of a lot more violence in the world today than when I was growing up.

I would put that down to the fact that 10/15 years ago we had a half an hour news bulletin at 9pm and that was about the level of news exposure we had. Nowadays newspapers trawl the internet for bad news around the world where they didn't have that capability in the past. I agree, there is more bad news in the media than ever before but I think that is because the news agencies have easy access to bad news around the world because of the internet like never before, rather than there is actually more bad news.

pangbang

bear1 wrote: »

Terrorist organisations didn't learn how to make bombs through the Internet.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen but throwing put a 70% porn on a platform so vast is nonsense.
Donkeys having sex? Have you ever heard of how popular bestiality was back in the 70s?
How could you possibly regulate what's online? It would take seconds for a new website to appear with the same stuff hence why blocking torrent websites is pointless.

Yeah okay, you believe that terrorist organisations of today are born with the knowledge to make explosives, or kept their notes from the 70's. Grand so.

I don't know what youre saying about porn and the 70% thing. I remember reading a credible source for that a wile ago. I doubt its far off the mark.

And about beastiality.....sure as sh*t, man, there were psychos back in cave-man days. Guarantee you. So theres no need to worry about present-day psychopaths at all. (Is this analogy going to go over your head? I'll spell it out, its "whataboutism") How many children had access to beastiality porn in the 70's compared to today? What do you reckon, just the same amount, yeah?

As for how to regulate the internet, it'll happen. There are various methods being discussed and even tested at this moment. At one point the UN was about to take charge of the internet but they were vetoed (but only by a few countries, not many). SO there has already been one genuine attempt, with the resources, to do it.

Don't doubt that it cant be done! I'm sure when television was first around people were wondering "how the feck do I control these invisible broadcast waves! Its impossible!"

hytrogen

tomwaterford wrote:

My name is there,first name .....anagram of second name anyway (with an extra letter)

Sex cauldron?! I thought they shut that place down???

Atoms for Peace

I've never seen any of that stuff on the internet and avoid those that have.

bear1

pangbang wrote: »

Yeah okay, you believe that terrorist organisations of today are born with the knowledge to make explosives, or kept their notes from the 70's. Grand so.

I don't know what youre saying about porn and the 70% thing. I remember reading a credible source for that a wile ago. I doubt its far off the mark.

And about beastiality.....sure as sh*t, man, there were psychos back in cave-man days. Guarantee you. So theres no need to worry about present-day psychopaths at all. (Is this analogy going to go over your head? I'll spell it out, its "whataboutism") How many children had access to beastiality porn in the 70's compared to today? What do you reckon, just the same amount, yeah?

As for how to regulate the internet, it'll happen. There are various methods being discussed and even tested at this moment. At one point the UN was about to take charge of the internet but they were vetoed (but only by a few countries, not many). SO there has already been one genuine attempt, with the resources, to do it.

Don't doubt that it cant be done! I'm sure when television was first around people were wondering "how the feck do I control these invisible broadcast waves! Its impossible!"

Right.. the Ira, got their techniques from the Internet? Also qaeda too? The mafia? The red brigade?
Don't be silly.
There will always ALWAYS be nutcases out there regardless if the Internet is there or not.
People who use trucks and cars to run people over don't need the Internet to plan this.
I'm not going to go further into the porn thing but your ideas of it are simply flawed.

pangbang

Jesus Wept wrote: »

It isn't difficult to avoid beheading videos thankfully.

Not for a balanced adult it isn't......

pangbang

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

I've never seen any of that stuff on the internet and avoid those that have.

I said earlier, its easy to avoid for balanced adults.

If ISIS had a television channel, all the hate and gory killings being broadcast to every television set in Ireland, would you just ignore it, and hope that everyone else does too?

Or would you rather something be done to eliminate it?

pangbang

bear1 wrote: »

Right.. the Ira, got their techniques from the Internet? Also qaeda too? The mafia? The red brigade?
Don't be silly.
There will always ALWAYS be nutcases out there regardless if the Internet is there or not.
People who use trucks and cars to run people over don't need the Internet to plan this.
I'm not going to go further into the porn thing but your ideas of it are simply flawed.

I wont be. And that's why I said terrorist organisations OF TODAY.

You think spreading the information for explosives is easier or harder with the internet?

Do you think ISIS runs a gazillion websites showing people being murdered medieval style 24/7, but decide that explosives training is a step too far?

Or that they refuse to communicate and preach and recruit through the internet out of tradition?

Do you think a muslim on the edge of sanity wont be pushed over the edge through preaching hatred for white people?

No matter what way you cut it, the internet is enabling these things, and personally I believe that without the internet ISIS would practically wither and die in a matter of months.

bear1

pangbang wrote: »

I wont be. And that's why I said terrorist organisations OF TODAY.

You think spreading the information for explosives is easier or harder with the internet?

Do you think ISIS runs a gazillion websites showing people being murdered medieval style 24/7, but decide that explosives training is a step too far?

Or that they refuse to communicate and preach and recruit through the internet out of tradition?

Do you think a muslim on the edge of sanity wont be pushed over the edge through preaching hatred for white people?

No matter what way you cut it, the internet is enabling these things, and personally I believe that without the internet ISIS would practically wither and die in a matter of months.

Not sure what Muslims have to do with bomb making and terrorist organisations unless you are painting an entire race due to actions of others...
Isis would not wither and die cause of lack of Internet... what kind of assumption is that?
Isis grew to where they are due to the misbalance of power in that region.
You could argue the fall of saddam was the catalyst.
Was 9/11 planned using the Internet?
This is simply being one sided.

pangbang

bear1 wrote: »

Right.. the Ira, got their techniques from the Internet? Also qaeda too? The mafia? The red brigade?
Don't be silly.
There will always ALWAYS be nutcases out there regardless if the Internet is there or not.
People who use trucks and cars to run people over don't need the Internet to plan this.
I'm not going to go further into the porn thing but your ideas of it are simply flawed.

Bout the porn thing, did a few minutes of reading, lowest percentage I came across put it at 38% of the internet, higest was 89% (!), and I'm not counting ****e sources. I don't know what point you are trying to make though anyway.

So even taking the low-ball estimate of 38%, do you think that's "okay"? Would you be happy if 38% of all the television channels you had were pornographic (and not tv level porn, nasty internet-tier porn)?

Would you be happy to have your children flick through the channels?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

pangbang

bear1 wrote: »

Not sure what Muslims have to do with bomb making and terrorist organisations unless you are painting an entire race due to actions of others...
Isis would not wither and die cause of lack of Internet... what kind of assumption is that?
Isis grew to where they are due to the misbalance of power in that region.
You could argue the fall of saddam was the catalyst.
Was 9/11 planned using the Internet?
This is simply being one sided.

You are not sure what the example of an unhinged muslim, preached to by ISIS across the internet, eventually tipping over to become a terrorist......has to do with mentioning muslims or a terrorists?

Yeah, I stand by what I said, I think ISIS would wither and die if they were starved of the communication afforded by the internet.

pangbang

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

An exception so solitary that I could have named the incident myself.

bear1

pangbang wrote: »

Bout the porn thing, did a few minutes of reading, lowest percentage I came across put it at 38% of the internet, higest was 89% (!), and I'm not counting ****e sources. I don't know what point you are trying to make though anyway.

So even taking the low-ball estimate of 38%, do you think that's "okay"? Would you be happy if 38% of all the television channels you had were pornographic (and not tv level porn, nasty internet-tier porn)?

Would you be happy to have your children flick through the channels?

I'd just put parental control on. Same as the Internet so in a way i can already regulate the Internet. What you are suggesting is letting the government decide what we can or cannot see.
I'd love to know how those sources calculated the percentages...
I couldn't care less what type of porn would be on TV as it is up to me and me alone if I want to watch it.

bear1

pangbang wrote: »

You are not sure what the example of an unhinged muslim, preached to by ISIS across the internet, eventually tipping over to become a terrorist......has to do with mentioning muslims or a terrorists?

Yeah, I stand by what I said, I think ISIS would wither and die if they were starved of the communication afforded by the internet.

Sigh..
I somehow doubt isis are using only Facebook and Twitter to chat to themselves on the front line.
They can text, send letters, phone, use morse if they wanted to.
The Internet can give terrorists a medium but there are far more ways for terrorists to communicate with each other.
Just to be clear now, videos showing beheadings should not be uploaded at all but you can easily find books where they show beheadings, take a look at any book on Vietnam and you're guaranteed to see death.
Should libraries be regulated too?

tomwaterford

pangbang wrote: »

An exception so solitary that I could have named the incident myself.

The lad who onvented reddit commited suicide to avoid prison in none too unfamilar citcumstances iirc

tiger55

Zaph wrote: »

The internet is a huge force for change and good as well, and there's a lot more of that than there are beheading videos or bomb making instructions.  Why merely focus on the negative?  If people want to get their hands on that sort of stuff they'll somehow manage it anyway, people were making bombs long before the internet was around.

What the media people fear is an alternative voice exposing their lies.  Thats the real agenda.

OneOfThem Stumbled

pangbang wrote: »

So, considering that the internet can [...] provide the means for governments to take all your private and personal information,
[...] is unadulterated freedom of the internet worth it?

:P

But who'd "regulate" it? This same government who, as you say, takes all your private and personal information? So instead of just taking your information, they also have a decision on what you can and can't say, about everything?

I think there could be negative consequences to this that you haven't necessarily thought out.

pickarooney

tomwaterford wrote: »

The lad who onvented reddit commited suicide to avoid prison in none too unfamilar citcumstances iirc

Did he not marry Serena Williams?

BlinkingLights

I think we have to be a little careful that we don't just blame the internet for problems that are occurring in largely due to backfiring foreign policy of several countries who keep sticking their ores into in the hornets nest of instability that is the Middle East to secure the freedom of various oil wells while backing all sorts of nutjobbery because it seemed like a good idea at the time...

Then you've also got the huge issue of countries like France, Belgium and the UK having created modern, welfare state cushioned ghettoization through poorly implemented social policies that gave seen certain immigrant groups isolated through a combination of passive racism and self isolating self contained communities that weren't really encouraged to integrate. Effectively warehousing a whole generation of people who aren't of the same ethnicity rather than integrating them. Then wondering why they're a hotbed of radicalisation.

It's a particularly stark problem in France and Belgium where you've have had decades of racist attitudes that aren't even acknowledged by most people.

Then you've the US, Russia and others bombing the crap out of Syria and it's neighbours and the EU are having to deal with the humanitarian crisis and mass migration resulting and the radicalisation that's resulting from that.

It's very easy for right wing and authoritarian leaning politics to then just blame the internet for all the problems. It suits them to have control of the message and they've a really strong agenda of wanting the media on side. The internet scares them because it's completely open.

It's also a huge threat to the likes of the Murdock media empire. Many of his publications are starting to fizzle out and he really hasn't made massive inroads online.

It's very easy to just blame it on everything.

Look at that Tory yesterday demanding the media be more patriotic?!?

That's what you're dealing with.

Also would you trust Ireland to regulate the internet ? This is a country with a horrid history of extreme censorship and social oppression that has only recently (since the 1990s) snapped out of it and I would credit the internet with having played a role in progressing that waking up.
A lot of things in Ireland are being facilitated online - if you look at the rapid change in LGBT rights here in some think that would have happened in a pre internet era.

tomwaterford

pickarooney wrote: »

Did he not marry Serena Williams?

http://screenertv.com/news-features/reddit-founder-aaron-swartz-commits-suicide-amidst-hacking-scandal/amp/

Samaris

In terms of making bombs, in the western world, most people* made bombs from either military training (their own or someone else's) or The Anarchist's Cookbook. Handy thing about that is that the bombs were all pretty similar and could be relatively easily disarmed!

Now there's thousands of methods available online. Albeit they all have the same components, but I'm willing to bet it's gotten more complicated to undo them than red wire or blue wire.

*it's not a hobby, honest. Most people likely to -be- making bombs.

Edit: "Most" is probably bull, but still, methodology was a lot harder to work out for basically anything prior to the internet. There's a lot more ways to do something freely available than there used to be.