So, what is an objectionable content? How are we going to define the word "objectionable" A search on google gave out "Arousing distaste or opposition; unpleasant or offensive" as meaning. Was that objectionable to post meaning of this particular word since people(kids, adults alike and irrespective of gender) would know about it and start debating.
I have never used that particular word this much in my past. I am now seeing it and hearing it everywhere. They tell we should stop "users" from posting objectionable content about other "users" and ofcourse, the government. Now, what or who is "government" Government consists of the "users" and their representatives who are themselves once again, users .
It is like the hedge is trying to gobble up the farm. The reps are elected to see to it that the freedom of the "users" are intact and in fact, taken to the next level. Not bringing it to an inferior level. When the goverment is talking about objetionable content or "A" user is talking about objectionable content, what is the percentage of the entire population of the world which are asking this?
The governments "represent" the users but are not "all" the users. People form governments and in reality they are users. In this context they are "users" of the public network. The public network is entirely based on "complete and un-adulterated democracy" which is impossible to visualize in the physical world. We users have to stand up to protect this deomcracy. The virtual world crosses all boundaries and unites the whole world as one "monster user base".
Google and related public service providers would not like this because, their model thrives on this philosophy of democracy of the virtual world crossing the frontiers of countries and continents, united by purpose, education, hobbies and many other things which are beyond my comprehension. The public network is based on the true principle of democracy "Of the people, by the people and for the people"
Let us see the stakeholders in this hue and cry about objectionable content
1. Large enterprises
2. Governments run by the large enterprises
3. One particular insatance of large enterprises consisting of Media conglomerates.
1. Why do large enterprises objet to "objectionable" content.
The answer lies in the open standards adopted in the public networks. People can cross the strongest firewalls and circumvent them if they are that much interested in coming out with the truth. And does it travel at speed over the public network. In no time, the value of the enterprise changes. If it is a positive news it will escalate otherwise ........ So, if they are given rights of filtering objectionable content, it will be removed in the first instance and the world will never know about it.
2. Goverments run by large enterprises are pawns of the humongous enterprises with more cash than all the money collected if all people pay their taxes properly. The explanation of the previous paragraph holds good. The goverments are PROs for these enterprises. They find it difficult to adjust to the changing times and technology. They are in no mood of learning. They will decide what the public will learn. With the public network enabling knowledge to the general public at their finger tips, they are now face to face with an educated public.
3. The way the public accesses media has changed the time napster clicked with the general public. The democratic network showed the media companies, the model in which they would like the media to be served. The public is bored of putting a CD into the reader just to listen to 7 songs. We dont want to go to the stores and rumagage to come out with our favorite music or movie or books. We still love our movies to be king size(Theatres will never go out of style). But if we want entertainment in our house we want it in the digital form served over the pubbic network, searchable, indexable and what not. Do we want it on CD/DVD/Blue ray/.../.../... NO. We want it served as a media file. But wait, serving movies would work only in the developed countries where the public is not happy with "4G". It will not work in countries where network speeds are pathetic. How do we like it there? We would like it to be provided with bit-torrent tech, so that we donload it and then watch it. Do we want it to be DRM'd, NO. We want it to share with our friends, my sister, my brother, my neighbour, my watchman etc.. Do we want to arrange and index the physical discs, NO. We want u to do it for us. Will we pay for the content, YES. But if u charge exhorbitantly then the public will find means to circumvent this also. With this attitude we are back to square one.
THERE IS NO OBJECTIONABLE CONTENT ON THE PUBLIC NETWORK. THE CONTENT IS WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTS. IT IS DEMOCRATIC AND PEOPLE HAVE THE FREEDOM TO "COMMENT". WE REQUEST ALL OUR REPS THROUGHT THE WORLD TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC NETWORK FREE OF "CENSORSHIP"
I have never used that particular word this much in my past. I am now seeing it and hearing it everywhere. They tell we should stop "users" from posting objectionable content about other "users" and ofcourse, the government. Now, what or who is "government" Government consists of the "users" and their representatives who are themselves once again, users .
It is like the hedge is trying to gobble up the farm. The reps are elected to see to it that the freedom of the "users" are intact and in fact, taken to the next level. Not bringing it to an inferior level. When the goverment is talking about objetionable content or "A" user is talking about objectionable content, what is the percentage of the entire population of the world which are asking this?
The governments "represent" the users but are not "all" the users. People form governments and in reality they are users. In this context they are "users" of the public network. The public network is entirely based on "complete and un-adulterated democracy" which is impossible to visualize in the physical world. We users have to stand up to protect this deomcracy. The virtual world crosses all boundaries and unites the whole world as one "monster user base".
Google and related public service providers would not like this because, their model thrives on this philosophy of democracy of the virtual world crossing the frontiers of countries and continents, united by purpose, education, hobbies and many other things which are beyond my comprehension. The public network is based on the true principle of democracy "Of the people, by the people and for the people"
Let us see the stakeholders in this hue and cry about objectionable content
1. Large enterprises
2. Governments run by the large enterprises
3. One particular insatance of large enterprises consisting of Media conglomerates.
1. Why do large enterprises objet to "objectionable" content.
The answer lies in the open standards adopted in the public networks. People can cross the strongest firewalls and circumvent them if they are that much interested in coming out with the truth. And does it travel at speed over the public network. In no time, the value of the enterprise changes. If it is a positive news it will escalate otherwise ........ So, if they are given rights of filtering objectionable content, it will be removed in the first instance and the world will never know about it.
2. Goverments run by large enterprises are pawns of the humongous enterprises with more cash than all the money collected if all people pay their taxes properly. The explanation of the previous paragraph holds good. The goverments are PROs for these enterprises. They find it difficult to adjust to the changing times and technology. They are in no mood of learning. They will decide what the public will learn. With the public network enabling knowledge to the general public at their finger tips, they are now face to face with an educated public.
3. The way the public accesses media has changed the time napster clicked with the general public. The democratic network showed the media companies, the model in which they would like the media to be served. The public is bored of putting a CD into the reader just to listen to 7 songs. We dont want to go to the stores and rumagage to come out with our favorite music or movie or books. We still love our movies to be king size(Theatres will never go out of style). But if we want entertainment in our house we want it in the digital form served over the pubbic network, searchable, indexable and what not. Do we want it on CD/DVD/Blue ray/.../.../... NO. We want it served as a media file. But wait, serving movies would work only in the developed countries where the public is not happy with "4G". It will not work in countries where network speeds are pathetic. How do we like it there? We would like it to be provided with bit-torrent tech, so that we donload it and then watch it. Do we want it to be DRM'd, NO. We want it to share with our friends, my sister, my brother, my neighbour, my watchman etc.. Do we want to arrange and index the physical discs, NO. We want u to do it for us. Will we pay for the content, YES. But if u charge exhorbitantly then the public will find means to circumvent this also. With this attitude we are back to square one.
THERE IS NO OBJECTIONABLE CONTENT ON THE PUBLIC NETWORK. THE CONTENT IS WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTS. IT IS DEMOCRATIC AND PEOPLE HAVE THE FREEDOM TO "COMMENT". WE REQUEST ALL OUR REPS THROUGHT THE WORLD TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC NETWORK FREE OF "CENSORSHIP"
No comments:
Post a Comment
Nobody can deter me away from "free as in freedom" concept seeded by Sri RMS. See to it that u dont make fun of my belief. If u think otherwise, no need to comment.