i would never think a country like britain would fall victim to this sort of censorial nonsense, and it is a troubling development

however, i don't buy the argument it is because of feminism

you need to understand that feminism there is the older valid causes against the maltreatment of women and the removal of their rights. which used to be far worse in the west. and is indeed still a major problem in the world, especially in areas like india and islamic countries

but the kind of feminism you seem to be reacting to isn't really feminism at all, it is instead this sort of clueless teenaged reactive naval gazing by immature clowns

kind of like how dismantling all governmental protections against abuses by large market players is called "libertarianism" in the usa. while actual genuine libertarianism of the original european sort has to do with social issues. real valid libertarians are interested in legalizing marijuana, not freeing plutocrats from paying their fair share of taxes

so like the word "libertarian" in the usa has been hijacked corrupted and rendered invalid by a plutocrat agenda, so to have a few headcases coopted the word "feminist" and advanced truly nutty causes that only mark the believer in those causes as having some sort of psychological or social deficiency

furthermore, for you to react to these fringe idiots, and believe what they stand for is actual feminism, just means you have been horribly trolled. snap out of it, you've been fooled

real, valid feminism is a very important ideology in this world, against the very real and very evil treatment of women in many parts of this world

thank you, that's a valid clarification

i am aware some countries outlaw fantasy cartoon child porn as well as actual real child porn

while real child porn should never be legal and should always be blocked, i think that fantasy drawings and cartoons do have valid cathartic use and should be legal

also, the legal status quo against fantasy content precludes the tactic of honey pots

outlawing the fantasy content drives it underground, while allowing it to flow freely allows the authorities to track profile, and locate consumers of it

as they should

because viewing this material indicates a proclivity that allows us to find pedophiles

and pedophiles should never be able to exist in open society without monitoring

like drug addiction, we should not incarcerate pedophiles, we should treat them as having a healthcare issue. pedophiles, once identified, should be treated, not jailed

and closely watched nonetheless

because like how valid porn between consenting adults does not prevent all rape, only minimize it, fantasy child porn would also only mitigate child abduction and victimization, not prevent all of it

being a pedophile marks you as fundamentally incompatible with human society in a truly horrible way. i feel sorry for pedophiles, i'd rather have painful cancer than be a pedophile, it is a truly life destroying, life hobbling vile affliction

because to be a pedophile means you have a sexual proclivity which immediately elicits the completely valid parental response and societal response to protect their children. some of that instinct outside the realm of law will find immediate and violent impulse, and even large sympathy for that violent impulse. the imperative to protect children is strong, as it should be, and pedophilia is a valid threat. but even in the realm of legality, society has to strongly consider the potential for grave harm that a pedophile represents in open society. a pedophile is truly screwed in many ways, and there is little empathy for them

pedophilia, like homosexuality, is merely a genetic aberration in the formation of sexual attraction. but while homosexuality is fine because it involves consenting adults, pedophilia will never be ok because it involves one party that can never consent (in an informed way, not a bullshit "i gave you toys and candy and you said 'ok' to my suggestion of sex" because a child can never give informed consent on the topic)

i think maybe in the future we can treat pedophilia with child shaped robots

but even so, treatment will never prevent all pedophiles from hurting real children. and therefore society must always view them in a very critical, suspicious, dim light. because they always represent the potential for grave harm

i think if i were a pedophile i'd choose self-banishment to greenland or something. having a strong sense of morality is only a guide, not a cloak of protection, we all have moments of weakness, and i would never want a moment of weakness of mine to result in harm to a child

truly a life-crippling, monstrous affliction

No, it just shows your lack of reading comprehension. Go back and find any mention in my posts of morality. It's OK. I'll wait.

agreed 100%

you have no principles or morality in your "thinking" on the topic. that's the actual point

you have mindless contrarianism where one person can do something evil because somebody else did. and then blame that evil action on someone else anyways, due to your lack of understanding of the concept of accountability

you demonstrate your own personal failures of character rather than any valid commentary on geopolitics. you are projecting choices and consequences as understood by your own dim wattage mind:

1. "somebody did something bad so i should be able to do something bad"

two-wrongs-make-a-right logic

2. "the reason i did something bad is because of what someone else did that does not actually logically imply my action, but whatever"

wife beater logic

your arguments depend upon this "thinking", therefore you mark yourself as an immoral and irresponsible douchebag

i actually feel sorry for anyone who has to work with you or is related to you/ friends with you. you're obviously a horrible piece of shit in the way you think about what is justified or not in this world according to #1 and #2 above

here's some bullshit arguments similar to yours:

"if we legalize marijuana, that means we have to legalize heroin and meth"

"if we legalize gay marriage, that means we have to legalize marrying corpses or animals"

see the problem? people actually think in your world. and they can tell the difference between different topics. we don't slide effortlessly into lack of thought on major issues of liberty and rights. no one does. your argument is illogical FUD

simply having the tool or liberty to do one thing, does not automatically mean that using that tool or liberty in all cases is therefore legitimized or inevitable or even more likely

because people can tell the difference between different topics. we think. we're not blind

the very concept of the slippery slope is a logical fallacy that instantly marks the argument as invalid. it is used to make fear-based demagogue arguments

this doesn't mean i support blocking porn websites, it simply means that the act of blocking websites: phishing sites, child porn sites, etc., does not in any way have anything to do with restricting websites that have genuine free expression use that the govt may not like. to block those, the govt has to actually do that, and therefore is doing something new and different and not in any way related to blocking sites that really do need to be blocked (child porn, phishing, etc.)

you have to remove the thinking human being from the equation to make your bullshit argument work. or do you believe blocking websites requires some vast infrastructure that would not be viable nor exist if we didn't block child porn first? nonsense

you can say having a police dept is a slippery slope to martial law. except there is no actual slippery slope because people can actually tell the difference between different concepts of use for a police dept. as recent controversies in the usa demonstrate. and in fact without a police dept, society quickly succumbs to chaos

think

invoking the concept of the slippery slope removes you from the land of logic and reason and places you firmly in the land of fear based emotion

Ha ha ha ha ha ha, did you just compare damage to a 'bridge inside borders' to a bridge over the ocean?

I compared a bridge across a large body of water to a bridge across an only slightly larger body of water. Whether the bridge goes from one country to another is largely irrelevant unless the leaders of one country or the other are idiots. After all, they would both have to pay part of the cost of any future repairs to that bridge, which is a powerful disincentive to bombing it in a fit of stupidity. If anything, the nature of such a bridge might even serve to stabilize relations between the two countries.

The only bottleneck there is a port and ports are much easier and faster to build than additional bridges to increase throughput.

Ports can only increase bandwidth. What shippers care about is latency. The only way you can improve latency with boats is to build faster boats, and the faster the boat, the less it can carry (and the more fuel it takes), so there are very real practical limitations involved.

A burning bridge stops all cargo from being moved, while a burning ship only stops that ship. Shipping docks are a scalable solution, while a bridge is a fixed throughput solution that cannot be scaled without building a second bridge.

A burning dock stops all cargo from being moved. Your point? You think that after Russia and the U.S. build a multi-billion-dollar bridge, one of them is going to suddenly decide to blow it up on a whim? Periods of international tension might very well close the bridge, but I can't imagine them being shortsighted enough to blow it up.

Also, bridges can be repaired pretty quickly these days, for the most part. When a tanker fire destroyed an elevated road segment in San Francisco back in 2007 and caused it to fall on top of another elevated road segment (requiring significant repairs), they had the lower segment repaired in eight days, and the upper one rebuilt in just 25 days. And with the floating bridge I described, assuming you build some extra segments, damage could be repaired in hours simply by towing another identical segment into place and fastening it to the adjacent segments. You just have to provide enough of a financial incentive to grease the wheels of the bridge building company. :-)

more socially conservative societies that restrict outlets for harmless sexual release do indeed have higher rates of rape and sexual violence in general. there is much truth to the concept of catharsis as a way to reduce rape and sexual violence. it doesn't prevent everything, just some of it

but bringing up child porn in this context is a red herring because the creation of child porn victimizes actual children, and this is why it is genuinely immoral illegal and verboten

sexual content between consenting adults is completely unrelated to child porn. to believe it is marks you as woefully inadequate to comment intelligently on the topic, or a failed troll

how socially clueless and sheltered can someone be?

you have asperger's maybe?

there's some sort of large social deficit at work here resulting in spouting this nonsense

There are already standard APIs for interfacing with a number of different devices, with broad support across platforms. There are more on the way, with surprising cooperation between browser vendors. They know how important these new APIs are, after all. Though FireFoxOS is certainly doing a lot of the heavy lifting, even drafting support for VR. That's a solved problem and not the important issue here.

What's important here is the standard app package that can be trivially implemented on various platforms. The established players might not like it, but new mobile OS's certainly benefit from access to the established, and steadily growing, set of apps.

For users, it's even better. They're no longer beholden to a single platform or app market. They're free to use whatever OS and marketplace they feel best meets their needs. They can opt for a closed system or one that's completely open. What matters, of course, is that they have real choice in a much more open marketplace. If you have Apples walled garden and don't trust Google to do no evil with the data they're continuously gathering you have real options.

The rush toward homogeneity is why we ended up with IE6. Rather than shitting on FXOS for whatever reason, you should be demanding other vendors support their app packages. No one wins if FXOS fails, but everyone wins if it succeeds.

Major advertisers starting following the DNT standard.
Then browser vendors broke the protocol, in such a way that it became useless.

The protocol was a way to say "this user chosen has opted out of any customizations, saved favorites, or other features that rely on cookies or similar technologies. This user wants more than the default level of privacy, and is willing to give up features which depend on cookie or other tracking."

    When browsers started lying and sending a DNT headers for people who had NOT made that choice, the protocol became useless.

There is no such thing as a cyberweapon. There is hacking/cracking and that is generally done through technical weaknesses and/or social engineering. There is no such thing as a cybertank or a cybergun, something that can actively break through something that it was not intended to go through. There is no software that can simply break through a web server by sheer force.

Using any kind of military jargon with what amounts to a technical capability of a piece of software is (car analogy) like telling us that foreign car mechanics and imported engines are capable of destroying our infrastructure and instead of fixing the engines or building our own to counteract it we have to deploy our own car mechanics and engines to foreign countries.

Using these analogies of cyberweapons with technical experts just sounds like a bunch of military people heard of the printing press and now they want to destroy people with paper cuts.

I'm worried that the only people they'll successfully attack are the innocent. The actual guilty parties will be well hidden and well protected.

...but may well be better than nothing.

Ah, yes, politician's logic. "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore we must do it."

You may want to remember that the first deckers went insane from the shock of facing the Matrix...