Around the Web: Reactions to ICSR Report

1. 
   zenpundit permalink

   17 March 2009 02:50

   “Blogs (some of whom blatantly haven’t actually read the report):

   ….Recommended Reading, Zenpundit, 16 March 2009″

   Ouch! I printed it out at an undisclosed location other than home, honest! 30+ page PDF on a tiny screen is cause for eyestrain o’ Tim. :)

   Reply
2. 
   Tim Stevens permalink*

   17 March 2009 09:20

   Mark, In no way was that aimed at you! Rather, those few who chose to comment on and misrepresent elements of the report in such a way that betrayed a certain lack of care. I’ve removed the offending phrase, though, in case anyone else cops some blue-on-blue ;-)

   Reply
3. 
   Dave MacKay permalink

   24 March 2009 21:45

   Tim, In response to your accusation ““Blogs (some of whom blatantly haven’t actually read the report): I have to say you are more than wrong. I have read the original report. I think it is high time that you quit your complaining over the response of others to your report and simply move on to other erroneous ideas and theories.
   Your motives are good, but yet you are asking the impossible! Move on to another subject please, as I am very tired of my website being spammed by bots due to your incessant complaining. If you have a leginamate complaint, take it up with Reuters!
   They are the ones who challenged your ideas.

   Dave MacKay ( site owner of http://daveandethellsplace.com/ )

   Reply
4. 
   Tim Stevens permalink*

   24 March 2009 21:57

   Hi Dave,

   Jeez, what an over-reaction. Given that you didn’t actually respond to the report how on earth could I have accused you of anything? I didn’t, and that comment (which I removed some days ago due to inadvertent collateral damage) was not aimed at you – don’t be so touchy!

   I thought I was doing you a favour by linking to you; in fact, I was glad you bothered to link to it. And I’m certainly not responsible for any bot-action that might be spamming your site. And where exactly am I complaining? Or, indeed, where is my ‘incessant’ complaining? Reuters didn’t exactly challenge ‘my’ ideas either.

   If you have anything constructive to say, I’d be happy to talk with you about it. If not, please don’t accuse me of several things I did not do or say. If you’ve read the report and you still think I have “erroneous ideas and theories” then let’s hear why you think that. You may have read the report but you certainly haven’t read me ‘complaining’ about anything – not my style. Thus far, it’s me whose ideas and theories are out in the open, not yours. I await your response …

   Tim

   Reply
5. 
   Dave MacKay permalink

   24 March 2009 22:18

   Tim,
   I am sorry for lashing out at you like that. It was very unfair of me. My main concern is basically without getting into specifics, the Internet is nearly impossible to govern.

   Yes it would be nice to put an end to online radicals with questionable motives. But with that said, would it also be nice to put an end to child pornography? Would it also be nice to put an end to all the questionable site that are infecting pc’s around the world with malware? Yes!!! That would be nice, but unfortunately my Friend it is almost the impossible to achieve.

   Even if we where able to take the necessary actions to put an end to all of these terrible things, people would also be complaining of their rights being infringed upon.

   Again I am sorry for my harsh words. I will also be posting a link on the artical on my site to your origional artical so that people can read it also, if you don’t mind that is.

   Sincerly
   Dave MacKay

   Reply
6. 
   Tim Stevens permalink*

   24 March 2009 22:30

   No worries, Dave. Like I said, my original comment was not aimed at you, and I was merely wondering where you got the idea that I was complaining!

   I agree with you, actually, about the impossibility of eradicating ‘undesirable’ content from the internet. In the report, we take great pains to say this and, also and more importantly, of saying why this is not desirable, even if it were achievable. What we’re saying in the report is exactly as you say: the internet will never be totally ‘governed’ and it’s ridiculous to attempt to do so. At least, without damaging the positives that it allows us all.

   It’s a tricky field, and I can only say that if you read the report again (it’s only short!) I think you’ll find that we’ve tried extremely hard to preserve both the rights that we all enjoy, whilst suggesting some ideas that might help chip away at the edges of some things that a lot of people find really quite unsettling. It’s not a total solution, nor should be thought of as such. I’ve been repeatedly critical on this blog of UK government policies that seek to infringe upon human rights and I hope that the report reflects an intention to seek positive, rather than negative, approaches to what are perceived as ‘problems’ by a lot of people.

   You can, of course, post what links you like, and with whatever commentary you like. I’m not in the business of stopping anyone expressing anything. With rights come responsibilities though. With responsibilities comes the realisation of where we all derive our rights from. You and I can discuss as much as we like but at the end of the day neither of us are likely to go out and blow up innocent people. Neither, I hasten to add, are the vast majority of internet users.

   Anyway, good that someone’s read the report. Look forward to hearing more of your comments ;-)

   Reply

Trackbacks

1. ubiwar . conflict in n dimensions « Radicaal jong

Leave a Reply