You are reading a single comment by @Velocio and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@Velocio
Open Access = Opted out... everything (that isn't blocked by UK courts) should be accessible.
Default Safety = Reflects the current default, which today is Open Access
Parental Control = Opted in... most sites that are not white-listed or known to be safe for children are blocked, anything with user generated content is blocked.
The u12 should mean "suitable for under 12s", which is basically a marketing line for when you should use parental controls.
The immediate problem is two-fold:
1) The wide scope of sites that are blocked by parental controls (the currently opted-in rules)
2) The precedent set by BT in making parental controls default (reversing opt-in to opt-out)
With so many sites appearing on the block list (including LFGSS), and with the biggest ISP moving to opt-out it feels quite inevitable that the default will be that LFGSS and many other sites will be blocked by default.
The issue with that is one of audience, revenue and viability. If the audience drops as a consequence, the razor thin margins that the sites make based on affiliate or banner advertising will mean that a lot of sites will simply not be able to keep paying the bills.
That's the immediate day-to-day concern.
The bits that bother me most are:
The whole thing about pressuring ISPs to adopt net filters has created a long chain of deniability and buck-passing. The politicians can claim that they aren't the ones filtering, the ISPs can claim they have to do this, etc... everyone makes money in the lengthening of the chain, and the government and companies involved get to control what can be accessed.
The lack of accountability and transparency: Why are some sites on the block list? How do those sites appeal against that and have themselves removed? Is this now whack-a-mole and do those sites have to approach every ISP individually? It all means that without judicial process or a right to appeal anything can now be blocked, and it appears that it will be.
For those who choose to opt-out, the surveillance state is almost certainly going to now be performing additional profiling and be more intrusive. How can we have a democracy if people fear repercussions from expressing their beliefs. The USA delivers many examples of this, most recently by adding people to a no-fly list to prevent them from speaking in court: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131204/10434025453/dhs-puts-witness-trial-over-legality-no-fly-list-no-fly-list-making-her-late-her-testimony.shtml
So I have a load of fears based on witnessing the behaviour of the UK and US government and some of the corporations involved, and I have fears about the viability of LFGSS and Microcosm if all form of debating ground (forums) are black-listed by default.