Comments on: Out of the black gate http://www.topofthemountains.net/2007/03/28/out-of-the-black-gate/ "Hitch your wagon to a star." —Ralph Waldo Emerson Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:59:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0 by: Ben http://www.topofthemountains.net/2007/03/28/out-of-the-black-gate/#comment-32942 Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:43:30 +0000 http://www.topofthemountains.net/2007/03/28/out-of-the-black-gate/#comment-32942 Good points, and I find myself agreeing. Of course, we're back to where we started, leaving only filters and self-control as viable solutions. And since filters are not infallible, once again it comes down to teaching our children to recoil at the very sight of sin, to choose the right no matter how much evil surrounds them (and of course to get out of bad situations and to not get into them). This grand test of life is definitely becoming more and more a refiner's fire. It's like a video game, in a way -- we've been on level nine or ten for the last couple of millennia, but all of a sudden we're catapulted up to level nine hundred, and the bad guys are way badder than ever. But never fear -- video games are meant to be won. :) (And that law the Utah legislature passed is quite lame.) Good points, and I find myself agreeing. Of course, we’re back to where we started, leaving only filters and self-control as viable solutions. And since filters are not infallible, once again it comes down to teaching our children to recoil at the very sight of sin, to choose the right no matter how much evil surrounds them (and of course to get out of bad situations and to not get into them). This grand test of life is definitely becoming more and more a refiner’s fire. It’s like a video game, in a way — we’ve been on level nine or ten for the last couple of millennia, but all of a sudden we’re catapulted up to level nine hundred, and the bad guys are way badder than ever. But never fear — video games are meant to be won. :) (And that law the Utah legislature passed is quite lame.)

]]> by: Rikker http://www.topofthemountains.net/2007/03/28/out-of-the-black-gate/#comment-31874 Wed, 04 Apr 2007 02:42:58 +0000 http://www.topofthemountains.net/2007/03/28/out-of-the-black-gate/#comment-31874 Here's an example (close to your home) of governments passing unpracticable (and unconstitutional, in thise case) laws regarding the internet. Sounds like Big Business has got somebody from the Utah legislature in their pocket. Sheesh! http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005185.php Here’s an example (close to your home) of governments passing unpracticable (and unconstitutional, in thise case) laws regarding the internet. Sounds like Big Business has got somebody from the Utah legislature in their pocket. Sheesh!

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005185.php

]]> by: Rikker http://www.topofthemountains.net/2007/03/28/out-of-the-black-gate/#comment-31541 Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:59:07 +0000 http://www.topofthemountains.net/2007/03/28/out-of-the-black-gate/#comment-31541 Ben, ideas like "no porn on port 80" or the .xxx internet domain are well-intentioned, but I'm convinced they are ultimately unpracticable, with the way CP80 and (Utah, et al's) legislators are currently approaching them. Anything of this sort would only be feasible as a voluntary system, on both ends: user and distributor. Of course, that's never going to happen in the way some people like to think it would. Hence the periodic moves for government regulation. If you the route CP80's advocating and regulate that port X is for "clean" content and port Y is for "pornographic" content, it comes back to creating an arbiter of what is what. The world has never been black and white, and people have hugely different notions of pornography. Remember Potter Stewart and his classic <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it" rel="nofollow">"I know it when I see it"</a> definition? What about people who are okay with so-called "softcore" and only want to move the "hardcore" over to the new port (or domain, etc.)? What about partial nudity, nonsexual nudity, artistic nudity, nudist websites, or anything else where people might take offense at being lumped in with pornography (or others might take offense for them)? The result of a "separate" internet for porn would be a de facto censor, with an arbitrary line being drawn. We have to face the facts: no one would be happy with the results. Many would undoubtedly find the filtering not stringent enough, whereas others who find the classification of pornography as overly broad would have to, say, set their Google settings to include that port anyway, even if they're not overtly interested in finding porn. How does a company like Google change its internet rankings for companies deemed unworthy of port 80? It could become detrimental to the livelihood of owners of borderline sites. Is this prejudicial against their right to do business? If you automate the process of segregating websites based on automated filters, then that's already being done by countless software programs and is redundant and intrusive to force on the internet as a whole. Buy the software. If you do it manually, the manpower involved is truly enormous, and an acceptable cost-benefit ratio is doubtful. For the amount of manpower it would take, interested parties would be better off if the existing filter software was simply improved. Do you "crowdsource" the work? A site has to get x number of "pornography" votes before it's banished to another port? That's never going to work, since the system can be too easily played. The anti-Microsoft fan club might decide to make ol' Bill Gates' life a living hell by continually reporting microsoft.com as pornographic. You'd have to build in anti-click-fraud safeguards, and that quickly becomes untenable. The grasp that CP80 people have on the whole idea of the internet is somewhat questionable, too. The quote from one member that the internet is "a toaster, we made it, we can fix it" is naive and very flawed. The internet doesn't belong to the U.S., nor any government body. The problem (which, again, you've got this whole significant portion of the world who doesn't even agree it's a problem) can be solved on a system-by-system, network-by-network basis, in a way suitable to the owner of that system. Consensus will never be found on a national, let alone global, level. Leave the government out of this; U.S. legislators' clumsy attempts to regulate the internet for other things in the past (such as online gambling, internet commerce, net neutrality) have pretty much always been more harm than good, and based on a flawed understanding of the problem and its potential solutions. I firmly believe that a law that effectively enables arbitrary government censorship is not going to do any additional good. Ben, ideas like “no porn on port 80″ or the .xxx internet domain are well-intentioned, but I’m convinced they are ultimately unpracticable, with the way CP80 and (Utah, et al’s) legislators are currently approaching them. Anything of this sort would only be feasible as a voluntary system, on both ends: user and distributor. Of course, that’s never going to happen in the way some people like to think it would.

Hence the periodic moves for government regulation. If you the route CP80’s advocating and regulate that port X is for “clean” content and port Y is for “pornographic” content, it comes back to creating an arbiter of what is what. The world has never been black and white, and people have hugely different notions of pornography. Remember Potter Stewart and his classic “I know it when I see it” definition? What about people who are okay with so-called “softcore” and only want to move the “hardcore” over to the new port (or domain, etc.)? What about partial nudity, nonsexual nudity, artistic nudity, nudist websites, or anything else where people might take offense at being lumped in with pornography (or others might take offense for them)? The result of a “separate” internet for porn would be a de facto censor, with an arbitrary line being drawn.

We have to face the facts: no one would be happy with the results. Many would undoubtedly find the filtering not stringent enough, whereas others who find the classification of pornography as overly broad would have to, say, set their Google settings to include that port anyway, even if they’re not overtly interested in finding porn. How does a company like Google change its internet rankings for companies deemed unworthy of port 80? It could become detrimental to the livelihood of owners of borderline sites. Is this prejudicial against their right to do business? If you automate the process of segregating websites based on automated filters, then that’s already being done by countless software programs and is redundant and intrusive to force on the internet as a whole. Buy the software. If you do it manually, the manpower involved is truly enormous, and an acceptable cost-benefit ratio is doubtful. For the amount of manpower it would take, interested parties would be better off if the existing filter software was simply improved. Do you “crowdsource” the work? A site has to get x number of “pornography” votes before it’s banished to another port? That’s never going to work, since the system can be too easily played. The anti-Microsoft fan club might decide to make ol’ Bill Gates’ life a living hell by continually reporting microsoft.com as pornographic. You’d have to build in anti-click-fraud safeguards, and that quickly becomes untenable.

The grasp that CP80 people have on the whole idea of the internet is somewhat questionable, too. The quote from one member that the internet is “a toaster, we made it, we can fix it” is naive and very flawed. The internet doesn’t belong to the U.S., nor any government body. The problem (which, again, you’ve got this whole significant portion of the world who doesn’t even agree it’s a problem) can be solved on a system-by-system, network-by-network basis, in a way suitable to the owner of that system. Consensus will never be found on a national, let alone global, level. Leave the government out of this; U.S. legislators’ clumsy attempts to regulate the internet for other things in the past (such as online gambling, internet commerce, net neutrality) have pretty much always been more harm than good, and based on a flawed understanding of the problem and its potential solutions. I firmly believe that a law that effectively enables arbitrary government censorship is not going to do any additional good.

]]> by: Ben http://www.topofthemountains.net/2007/03/28/out-of-the-black-gate/#comment-31523 Sun, 01 Apr 2007 15:57:35 +0000 http://www.topofthemountains.net/2007/03/28/out-of-the-black-gate/#comment-31523 Matt: I agree that we can't just remain on the defensive. The enemy is growing stronger by the day, finding new ways to penetrate our homes and souls. We <i>have</i> to strike, we <i>have</i> to fight back. But I don't know how. Ali: Well, the idea behind CP80 is that pornographic websites would be placed on a separate Internet (so to speak -- I won't go into the technical details here), so that you could easily block all of them with a single blow. Sure, people who wanted to get to them would still be able to do so, but you wouldn't have to worry so much about your kids accidentally stumbling across it. It isn't the final answer, and it would certainly come back to faith anyway, but I think it would be better than filters alone. (Though let me also add that I'm generally against <a href="http://www.topofthemountains.net/2006/05/04/the-kettle-black/" rel="nofollow">censorship</a>.) Matt: I agree that we can’t just remain on the defensive. The enemy is growing stronger by the day, finding new ways to penetrate our homes and souls. We have to strike, we have to fight back. But I don’t know how.

Ali: Well, the idea behind CP80 is that pornographic websites would be placed on a separate Internet (so to speak — I won’t go into the technical details here), so that you could easily block all of them with a single blow. Sure, people who wanted to get to them would still be able to do so, but you wouldn’t have to worry so much about your kids accidentally stumbling across it. It isn’t the final answer, and it would certainly come back to faith anyway, but I think it would be better than filters alone. (Though let me also add that I’m generally against censorship.)

]]> by: Ali http://www.topofthemountains.net/2007/03/28/out-of-the-black-gate/#comment-31263 Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:57:59 +0000 http://www.topofthemountains.net/2007/03/28/out-of-the-black-gate/#comment-31263 Porn might be a problem, but I just wanted to comment that you might want to think twice before you allow a governing body, or anybody else, to regulate your Internet. Would it really be worth it? Especially, as you say, evil will still get through and it all comes back to faith anyway? There are plenty of filters that people can buy to put on their own computers. There is no need for mass regulation. Porn might be a problem, but I just wanted to comment that you might want to think twice before you allow a governing body, or anybody else, to regulate your Internet. Would it really be worth it? Especially, as you say, evil will still get through and it all comes back to faith anyway?

There are plenty of filters that people can buy to put on their own computers. There is no need for mass regulation.

]]> by: Matt Dustin http://www.topofthemountains.net/2007/03/28/out-of-the-black-gate/#comment-31150 Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:22:14 +0000 http://www.topofthemountains.net/2007/03/28/out-of-the-black-gate/#comment-31150 Ben, Great summary of this plague that is sweeping the world of men and every Elder's Quorum in it. As an Elder's Quorum President, I find that this is the #1 temptation/weakness that the brethren in my Quorum face. I often feel overwhelmed with the responsibility I hold to give them council regarding pornography, due to its tremendous and vicious presence in the world today. I wrote a post a few weeks ago about the Savior's council on temptation: "And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee." I can think of plenty of things to "Build up the Armor of God"; Daily personal prayer Daily personal scripture study (one hour) Daily family prayer Daily family scripture study (five minutes is better than nothing) Weekly FHE (...five minutes is better than nothing) Weekly church attendance Monthly temple attendance... The list could go on and on. But let me pose a question; Does a soldier in the Lord's army need more than armor, a helmet and a strong shield to win the fight, to survive the battle? YES! He needs a spear, a sling, an arrow and a strong sword! He also needs an army behind, a friend beside him, and a leader to lead him to victory. In the fight against pornography, each man can build up his defense in his own life and in his own home, but how can leaders take the offensive against this evil army of filth? How can we fight it? Ben,
Great summary of this plague that is sweeping the world of men and every Elder’s Quorum in it. As an Elder’s Quorum President, I find that this is the #1 temptation/weakness that the brethren in my Quorum face. I often feel overwhelmed with the responsibility I hold to give them council regarding pornography, due to its tremendous and vicious presence in the world today. I wrote a post a few weeks ago about the Savior’s council on temptation: “And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee.” I can think of plenty of things to “Build up the Armor of God”;

Daily personal prayer
Daily personal scripture study (one hour)
Daily family prayer
Daily family scripture study (five minutes is better than nothing)
Weekly FHE (…five minutes is better than nothing)
Weekly church attendance
Monthly temple attendance…

The list could go on and on. But let me pose a question; Does a soldier in the Lord’s army need more than armor, a helmet and a strong shield to win the fight, to survive the battle?

YES! He needs a spear, a sling, an arrow and a strong sword! He also needs an army behind, a friend beside him, and a leader to lead him to victory. In the fight against pornography, each man can build up his defense in his own life and in his own home, but how can leaders take the offensive against this evil army of filth? How can we fight it?

]]> by: Ben http://www.topofthemountains.net/2007/03/28/out-of-the-black-gate/#comment-31077 Thu, 29 Mar 2007 04:05:52 +0000 http://www.topofthemountains.net/2007/03/28/out-of-the-black-gate/#comment-31077 I was in the library a minute ago and saw a pile of BYU Magazines on the floor. Thinking it was a new issue, I picked one up, only to find that it was a reprint of a talk called "Protecting Purity." (You can download the <a href="http://magazine.byu.edu/purity" rel="nofollow">PDF</a> online.) Anyway, the reason I'm mentioning it is that I opened it up a minute ago and in the very first paragraph was a quote from that Joseph Smith bit I paraphrased: <blockquote> In the early days of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Prophet Joseph Smith prophesied that the elders of Israel "would receive more temptations, be more buffeted, and have greater difficulty" from sexual immorality than from any other single challenge. </blockquote> (It's apparently in <i>Journal of Discourses</i> 8:55.) I haven't read the rest of the talk yet, since it's past my bedtime already, but it looks good. I was in the library a minute ago and saw a pile of BYU Magazines on the floor. Thinking it was a new issue, I picked one up, only to find that it was a reprint of a talk called “Protecting Purity.” (You can download the PDF online.) Anyway, the reason I’m mentioning it is that I opened it up a minute ago and in the very first paragraph was a quote from that Joseph Smith bit I paraphrased:

In the early days of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Prophet Joseph Smith prophesied that the elders of Israel “would receive more temptations, be more buffeted, and have greater difficulty” from sexual immorality than from any other single challenge.

(It’s apparently in Journal of Discourses 8:55.)

I haven’t read the rest of the talk yet, since it’s past my bedtime already, but it looks good.

]]>