Why are ISPs censoring the content we can see on the web? Watch

Et Tu, Brute?
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
Seems like most internet service providers have agreed to censor content on the world wide web, so it isn't really the world wide web for UK citizen anymore, it is the internet service provider agreed wide web, or more accurately the Motion Picture of America Wide Web, since they are the ones who paid for the censorship of what is available to us online. The UK government hasn't stooped this low regarding censorship since they decided to ban Gerry Adams from speaking. But here we are.

I know BT censor a huge list of sites, as do TalkTalk and Virgin Media. I mean TalkTalk of all companies should maybe just focus on not getting hacked by 15yr olds maybe as opposed to censoring their content.

I'm sure you have guessed that I am indeed referring almost explicitly to illegal streaming sites. I am not aware of what else they have censored however. I am aware if it was down to the ISP they'd probably be anti-censorship like any sane person should be, the real question is why are the courts allowed to force them to censor their online content? I thought this was the United Kingdom, not the United Arab Emirates.

Regardless for the reasoning behind this censorship, it is never justified, ever. It is the money that trickles down from the top that once again in the UK government is the problem. Large companies who profit from other people's work (film directors, actors etc) are crying because it isn't the 90s anymore and they can no longer rip us off like they used to, therefore their profits have decreased to a smaller large sum of money than it could be. What's that word used to describe humans who always want more than they already have and currently need? Greed isn't it? Well these are the people we have to blame for this censorship of something that doesn't belong to them, the internet is ours, it is for everyone yet these people are trying to monitor what you can access.

Honestly I find it sickening that the British government has agreed yet again to censorship. If it is such an issue, why are they not increasing the funding to police this matter that was deemed serious enough to censor what UK citizens can see online? Why are they wasting time on video streaming sites when there are a wealth of black market sites out there were all kinds of nasty **** go on, the stuff that happens in the dark web is a hell of a lot worse than watching an episode of The Wire for free.

I'd like to say a big congratulations to the British government, well done; you are now in the same category as Thailand, China, N.Korea and many other nations which promote censorship of their people. Censorship is censorship, it doesn't matter how it is justifed, and it is now hypocritical for the UK to condemn something it actively exercises on its own people. Well ****ing done.
2
reply
+ polarity -
Badges: 21
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
(Original post by Et Tu, Brute?)
I mean TalkTalk of all companies should maybe just focus on not getting hacked by 15yr olds maybe as opposed to censoring their content.
:rofl2:
3
reply
Willy Pete
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
This isn't a new thing. Also they are censored by court order for piracy or whatever they call it.

But rest assured there are plenty of ways round their flimsy block, mirrors being the best option.
0
reply
cbreef
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
(Original post by Willy Pete)
This isn't a new thing. Also they are censored by court order for piracy or whatever they call it.

But rest assured there are plenty of ways round their flimsy block, mirrors being the best option.
Elaborate
0
reply
Willy Pete
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
(Original post by cbreef)
Elaborate
Which part?
0
reply
Et Tu, Brute?
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#6
(Original post by Willy Pete)
This isn't a new thing. Also they are censored by court order for piracy or whatever they call it.

But rest assured there are plenty of ways round their flimsy block, mirrors being the best option.
Yes I know that but the block on putlocker is fairly new (about the summer time) and it is only last night that I really felt the need to rant about it.

I don't care there are ways around it. I have a good VPN set up. It isn't that I can no longer watch stuff on putlocker, I can access the site whenever I want to, it is the fact that some foreign company has gone and stuck its nose into UKs domestic affairs and said, your citizens are not allowed access to these parts of the internet and our legal system just rolls over and takes a fat one in the ass.

But what pisses me off the most is that I had to get a VPN for when I was living overseas for a few months in countries where they heavily censor the internet, hence I needed the VPN to access certain sites. It pissed me off they were censoring, but it was expected from such a controlling and oppressive nation which no doubt would gun down any protesters who stood up to their government (you getting a picture of the type of nations which agree to censorship?). So it is the fact I need a VPN here in the UK, a country which apparently prides itself on being liberal, open, accepting etc, well it is no better than all those backward nations which restrict its citizens access to certain sites or to the internet altogether.
0
reply
Et Tu, Brute?
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#7
(Original post by cbreef)
Elaborate
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/5-ways-...ate-bay-block/
0
reply
Willy Pete
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
(Original post by Et Tu, Brute?)
Yes I know that but the block on putlocker is fairly new (about the summer time) and it is only last night that I really felt the need to rant about it.
Putlocker mirrors have been continuously banned for about 8 years or so. They just get a new domain and rehost.

Some of the take downs are done by UK studios as well.
0
reply
Et Tu, Brute?
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by Willy Pete)
Putlocker mirrors have been continuously banned for about 8 years or so. They just get a new domain and rehost.

Some of the take downs are done by UK studios as well.
I don't think that is the same as the ISP restricting access to the site. Killing the site and the ISP blocking it are not the same.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...s-a7050056.htm

Doesn't really matter who long sites are down for, it isn't the point I am making. They have no right to censor it.
0
reply
Willy Pete
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
(Original post by Et Tu, Brute?)
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...s-a7050056.htm

Doesn't really matter who long sites are down for, it isn't the point I am making. They have no right to censor it.
Well they do, they are hosting pirated material which is against the law.
0
reply
Et Tu, Brute?
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#11
(Original post by Willy Pete)
Well they do, they are hosting pirated material which is against the law.
Then maybe they should tackle the problem at the source and bring the site down altogether via policing methods, not by censoring websites via ISPs...which is the point I am making.
0
reply
Willy Pete
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
(Original post by Et Tu, Brute?)
Then maybe they should tackle the problem at the source and bring the site down altogether via policing methods, not by censoring websites via ISPs...which is the point I am making.
The ISPs have to block the sites by law when the court orders go through.

They do try to arrest those responsible but it isn't easy to track them. Just look at the Kim Dotcom case.
0
reply
Et Tu, Brute?
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by Willy Pete)
The ISPs have to block the sites by law when the court orders go through.

They do try to arrest those responsible but it isn't easy to track them. Just look at the Kim Dotcom case.
Yes, which is what I said in the OP. The courts should be the ones fighting censorship, not forcing it.

Well I suggest they improve on their tracking techniques then, because censorship isn't the way forward. What good does it do? None at all, hell even the censor doesn't even work consistently. With the likes of VPNs and a growing importance and awareness of their importance (not for streaming access but just general internet usage) it is a fairly redundant protocol to take. Maybe if they'd put a bit more funding into these problems which are so serious the likes of the MPA need to take it to court, then maybe they'd be able to find a way to deal with the 'problem' in ways other than straight up censorship. Then they'd also have a means to tackle actual damaging sites such as child molester-sites etc.

And where does it stop?? Will they start outlawing VPNs (like they've done in China) once they realise too many people are using this method to get around their fable attempt at censorship??
https://www.engadget.com/2017/01/23/...ment-approval/
0
reply
It's****ingWOODY
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
Oh, no! Looks like I'll have to keep using my VPN...
0
reply
Willy Pete
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by Et Tu, Brute?)
Yes, which is what I said in the OP. The courts should be the ones fighting censorship, not forcing it.

Well I suggest they improve on their tracking techniques then, because censorship isn't the way forward. What good does it do? None at all, hell even the censor doesn't even work consistently. With the likes of VPNs and a growing importance and awareness of their importance (not for streaming access but just general internet usage) it is a fairly redundant protocol to take. Maybe if they'd put a bit more funding into these problems which are so serious the likes of the MPA need to take it to court, then maybe they'd be able to find a way to deal with the 'problem' in ways other than straight up censorship. Then they'd also have a means to tackle actual damaging sites such as child molester-sites etc.

And where does it stop?? Will they start outlawing VPNs (like they've done in China) once they realise too many people are using this method to get around their fable attempt at censorship??
https://www.engadget.com/2017/01/23/...ment-approval/
It isn't censorship, it is a way to reduce the income criminals generate from these types are sites. Not really any different from shutting down drug dealers. But it is always harder to get the ringleaders.

You need to worry less, it isn't good for you.
0
reply
Et Tu, Brute?
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#16
(Original post by Willy Pete)
It isn't censorship, it is a way to reduce the income criminals generate from these types are sites. Not really any different from shutting down drug dealers. But it is always harder to get the ringleaders.

You need to worry less, it isn't good for you.
Forcing an internet service provider to restrict its customers from websites...it is censorship. Only the justification of which is debatable, but restriction of certain internet sites is censorship regardless of how you look at it. Ie. you seem to be pro-censorship where it is stopping criminals, I am anti-censorship of all forms and in favour of tackling the root of the issue.

Well the 'criminalisation' of drugs is equally as stupid as this censorship really. But that's a whole new can of worms.

Like I said, maybe the government should improve on its methods of online crime, focusing on actual crimes such as child abuse, slave trade etc and when they have done that they can apply the same methods to fighting the ungodly streaming sites.


Note; the reason I don't like it is because it opens the doors to expand on it and apply it to other methods.
0
reply
Willy Pete
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 years ago
#17
(Original post by Et Tu, Brute?)
Forcing an internet service provider to restrict its customers from websites...it is censorship. Only the justification of which is debatable, but restriction of certain internet sites is censorship regardless of how you look at it. Ie. you seem to be pro-censorship where it is stopping criminals, I am anti-censorship of all forms and in favour of tackling the root of the issue.

Well the 'criminalisation' of drugs is equally as stupid as this censorship really. But that's a whole new can of worms.

Like I said, maybe the government should improve on its methods of online crime, focusing on actual crimes such as child abuse, slave trade etc and when they have done that they can apply the same methods to fighting the ungodly streaming sites.
I'm not pro censorship, I regularly use the sites which are being banned. I just understand why they are doing it and unfortunately that is something you just have to accept.

I won't open can of worms.

They focus on all of those crimes and more, in fact they fight all of the crimes at once. They don't just ignore certain crimes, that isn't their job.
0
reply
Das Kapital
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 years ago
#18
What type of sites are banned? I know torrent sites were banned years ago, I wasn't aware other stuff was too.
0
reply
Et Tu, Brute?
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#19
(Original post by Willy Pete)
I'm not pro censorship, I regularly use the sites which are being banned. I just understand why they are doing it and unfortunately that is something you just have to accept.

I won't open can of worms.

They focus on all of those crimes and more, in fact they fight all of the crimes at once. They don't just ignore certain crimes, that isn't their job.
I understand it also, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree their censorship.

For example I understand that in order to stop people realising how *****y their government treats them, and in order to remove a tool which can be used to organise masses to overthrown their corrupt regime, the Juche will censor the internet and a hell of a lot of other stuff (not that masses there could use the internet if they has access to it anyway). However that doesn't mean I agree with it. Likewise I understand why the courts decided to censor us in order to help make the like of MPA a little more money and reduce the revenue of those breaking the law, doesn't mean I agree with their method to tackle the issue.
0
reply
username3016746
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 years ago
#20
It would only bother a nonce tbh


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts

What are your favourite crisps?

Kettle Chips (14)
13.73%
McCoys Salt and Vinegar (6)
5.88%
McCoys Flame Grilled Steak (5)
4.9%
Walkers Prawn Cockail (15)
14.71%
Monster Munch (9)
8.82%
Pringles (30)
29.41%
Walkers Oven Baked Crisps (5)
4.9%
Walkers Beef and Onion (2)
1.96%
Thai Sweet Chili Sensations (16)
15.69%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise