The UK created some kind of pornography filter on the Internet.
Already the coypleftist gang at TechDirt are bragging that someone has already gotten around this with a Chrome Extension.
I noted to the open-source cultist and anti-copyright crusader Glyn Moody on Twitter that naturally Google would be for getting around some porn filter because they need more ad clicks. Those XXX sites are filled with pop-ups and clickables.
Glyn countered that it isn't Google who made this, but just some geek, anyone can write code for the open-source Chrome and he implies Google has no say over ths.
Nonsense. Like Linden Lab (who copied the idea from them eventually), Google has a third-party policy, and rules for engineers who write code for their browser. Of course they don't just let any old thing into their branded corporate browser.
Content Policies
Our content policies apply to your Product's content, including any ads it shows to users and any user-generated content it hosts or links to. Further, they apply to any content from your developer account that is publicly displayed in Chrome Web Store, including your developer name and the landing page of your listed developer website. Products that include content that may not be suitable for all ages should be marked "Mature" on the Developer Dashboard.
Sexually Explicit Material:
We don't allow content that contains nudity, graphic sex acts, or sexually explicit material. We also don't allow content that drives traffic to commercial pornography sites. Google has a zero-tolerance policy against child pornography. If we become aware of content with child pornography, we will report it to the appropriate authorities and delete the Google Accounts of those involved with the distribution.
That sure sounds to me like an extension that gets around a governent filter to get at porn, and helps drive traffic to porn, would be contrary to that policy.
And it's not without its new set of problems, as someone named Oh Please helpfully explains:
This story is truly funny. Yes, using a proxy outside of the UK will circumvent things, but it also opens you up for all sorts of other issues, such as data harvesting at the proxy, man in the middle attacks, and so on.
The cure is worse than the cause, which is the point.
For those using Tor, just remember, at some point, that "technology" will be looked at and defeated as well. The traffic patterns of someone allowing a Tor portal is different from normal web traffic, and those portals could end up getting cut off or have inbound connections limited so as to make them useless. It flies under the radar right now because it's not as big a deal as torrent traffic, but increased usage via things like the "pirate browser" will likely expose it and make it a huge target for authorities and ISPs.
My guess is that, in the next 24 months, you will see many countries adopt laws that create direct liability for users and companies who provide proxies or allow their computers to be used as Tor style outlets.
Now wouldn't that be fascinating!
A commenter said that only some "very twisted" interpretation of Google's third-party extension rules would yield a judgement that this extension violates them. I think it's only a "very twisted" interpretation of the rules that enables a judgement that it does *not* violate them, but I take the point, that geeks will edgecase this to death.
I don't think trying to block porn on the Internet is a "fool's errand," any more than blocking pirates. You don't need perfection. Even 60% will do. It's okay to try to block some of the worst so that people don't have it shoved in their faces. It doesn't have a chilling effect on political or other speech. Indeed, what actually has a chilling effect on speech is the endless capacity of radicals to obstruct the legitimate pursuit of criminality.
The standards for what is illegal porn in the UK may be higher than in the US, I don't know. But no geek in any of the articles below or anywhere else has been able to explain to me why Google, in its wisdom, can have language barring content like this: "We don't allow content that contains nudity, graphic sex acts, or sexually explicit material. We also don't allow content that drives traffic to commercial pornography sites" and yet if Cameron adopts the same language for the state, that's wrong.
Yeah, I get the difference between a browser accessing all kinds of content, and what you might have in terms of content showing on that browser interface, and the content itself, which is a separate thing. But so what? Let me say it again: Google think it has to ban explicit sexual material from its content. So why can't the people of England?
Recent Comments