InfoWorld Home / Tech's Bottom Line / Sex, censorship, and the Web
July 02, 2009

Sex, censorship, and the Web

Social networking and the mobile Web will defeat censorship every time, whether we like it or not

| Print | 10 comments|
166 Recommendations

Looking for a hooker in San Francisco? No problem. Simply click on Craigslist's new adult services category and you'll be greeted by nearly 500 ads for sexual services catering to all tastes and predilections. (Ironically, this new human-managed category was meant to prevent the use of Craigslist as a center for prostitution, which led to several states threatening the classfiied-ads site.)

Meanwhile, the Chinese government backed off -- at least temporarily -- from its ill-conceived attempt to force computer makers to add porn filters to all PCs sold in the People's Republic. And Apple has added parental control software to iPhone OS 3.0, a move that was promptly followed by the launch of the App Store's first X-rated application.

[ Related: Enterprises become the battleground for social networking. | Bob Lewis' Advice Line blog: Social networking software for businesses. | Time to check out social networking and SOA. ]

All three of these incidents underscore the futility of attempts to keep sex off the Web, something both governments and businesses repeatedly try to do.

But there's a larger issue here, illustrated by the stunning success of  Iranian dissidents in bringing their case to the attention of the whole world, even as the Tehran government cracked down on foreign reporters. Social media and the mobile Web are running far ahead of old-school morality and political discipline.

China backs off
The inability of the elites to control communications has profound implications at every level of society. Take the workplace. It's one thing to stop employees from viewing pornography on company time; it's quite another to stop them from using social media to give the world a peek beneath the corporate kimono. It won't work. Anyone smart enough to use social media can easily hide his or her tracks and keep the boss at bay.

Aside from issues of civil liberties and the like, the surge of social media (particularly via sites like Facebook), the mobile Web, and messaging (including Twitter) is creating an enormous market opportunity.

Related Content...

White Paper

D2D Virtual Tape Library Replication Primer

This whitepaper explains the terminology and concepts behind Data Replication technologies and establishes some sizing rules through worked examples. Learn the new paradigm in disaster tolerance—protect data anywhere.

Download now »

White Paper

An Alternative to Virtualization for Datacenter Cost Savings

Server virtualization is a popular option for dealing with mounting datacenter costs. Another equally promising approach is the use of an Application Delivery Controller. Citrix NetScaler provides a low-cost way for organizations to reduce their server count and accrue cost savings from a reduction in space, cooling, power and personnel.

Download now »

White Paper

Why Your Firewall, VPN, and IEEE 802.11i Aren't Enough to Protect Your Network

The emergence of WLANs has created a new breed of security threats to enterprise networks.

Included in HP ProCurve WLAN solutions is security technology that alleviates threats from WLANs through:
* Monitoring wireless activity inside and out of the enterprise
* Classifying WLAN transmissions into harmful and harmless
* Preventing transmissions that pose a security threat to the enterprise network
* Locating participating devices for physical remediation

Download now »

White Paper

Bringing the Edge to the Data Center

Effectively address data protection challenges, implementing solutions that help store and protect business–critical data while cutting costs and improving efficiency and reliability.

Download now »
10 of 10 comments
Sign In or Register to comment
KEN 2-Jul-09 8:39am
1 reply
In my world I would never compare the people fighting for freedom in Iran to sleezy guys looking for a sleezy sex worker
fushigi 6-Jul-09 5:49am
I'm curious. Why are sex workers and their male customers sleazy? What distinguishes the female customers of sex workers as not sleazy?
rdm 2-Jul-09 9:13am
Censorship, be it censorship of pornography, censorship of human rights related information, or censorship of spam, is a "people thing" and not a technology. Despite how people represent it, its intent has to do with what we think about symbols rather than with the symbols themselves. As such, it can never completely succeed, nor completely fail, from a technological point of view. In other words, it shares something with issues such as "security" and "economics" and so on. Of course, technology is still a factor, and we are only beginning to see how society will be interacting with changing technologies.
Carl Street 2-Jul-09 2:41pm
All censorship is simply the arrogance of certain individuals who believe they "know best" what is "right" for everyone else. A typical censorship ploy is to mask their arrogance by linking it to repugnant behavior and pretend that their efforts are to prevent such behavior. Of course, history shows that once that false premise is accepted by the ignorant and naive public, censorship is then expanded continuously to include all kinds of items the original basis of acceptance never anticiapted. Such as political speech, religious thought, etc. with, of course, ONLY the annointed censors themselves being allowed to judge good and evil. The fact is NO ONE hase EVER been injured by words, images, or symbols (unless you believe in witchcraft); however, history shows that millions have been maimed, tortured, and murdered by the "annointed" censors in their alleged quest to "protect us". Hopefully, someday the human race will mature to the point where they no longer accept the false premise that we all need parental supervision from cradle to grave. IF and when that day comes, human beings will finally achieve TRUE freedom instead of merely exchanging one set of parasites and predators for another and believing they are improving their lot.
BigRonG 3-Jul-09 8:02am
Rightly, the responsibility of censorship should be on the user. However, in a society that allows each person to determine their own 'right and wrong', it is a guarantee that the Internet will devolve to the lowest possible standard. Carl says that it is 'arrogance' to set any standard. Many would say that the defense of culture is an acceptable comprimise. The question for those favoring no standard of conduct is 'what type of world do you want?'. Do we chose a world of no standards where the 'elite' control by their individual strength or a world where the majority of people determine the acceptable standards?
Carl Street 5-Jul-09 12:13pm
BigRonG subscribes to the demonstrabley false premise that "society" has the right to dictate to the individual; when, in realtiy, "society" does NOT even exist -- ONLY individuals claiming the right to dictate to others based only on their numbers. The theory that quantity of force is somehow more "moral" than quality of thinking should be transparently false to anyone capable of exercising logic. The so-called "social majority" has been used as a mask by petty tyrants throughout history. Never forget the "majority" threw the Christians to the lions; the "majority" put the Jews in the Ovens at Auschwitz; the "majority" enslaved blacks for centuries; the "majority" burned witches; the "majority" have been guilty of the most heinous acts because it affords the cowardly individual the opportunity to give vent to their most depraved savagey while rationalizing their behavior as somehow serving the "common good". As the human race teeters on the edge of self-imposed extinction should it come to pass, the decision to launch that armageddon will be made by those empowered by the "majority". I would GLADLY trade some social repugnancy and moral degradation for the survival of my species and I sincerely queston the sanity of anyone who would choose otherwise. THAT is the kind of world I would prefer.
Gray_Hair 6-Jul-09 10:45am

Mmm, Methinks Carl doth protest too much. At the risk of putting words in Ron's mouth, I do not think he was advocating society have the power to dictate to individuals, note the opening line. Rather I see him bemoaning the lack of behavioral standards in an observed population (the internet) by pointing out that "a society" that fails to uphold standards will devolve to the lowest common standard. Which Mr. Street is demonstrably true. (btw use your spell checker)

Further, the blanket assertion that society does not even exist trumpets the arrival of a self-styled objectivist, who read Rand, but did not comprehend. A is A, a thing is it's self. Society exists because we define what a society is and that set of properties is met by some aggregation of a population. Saying society does not exist is like saying statistics does not exist. Just because I fervently wish mankind had an average IQ greater than 100 is no excuse for me claim statistics is bunk.

What you missed in Ms. Rand's work, Mr. Street is that society cannot act. Action can only be initiated by an individual. Moreover, as an individual, I have every right to object to your behavior, on the web or anywhere else, and on no stronger grounds than your behavior contravenes my value system, then initiate whatever action I deem necessary to curtail that behavior. Your rights end where mine begin. And that is the principle upon which civilizations are built.

Carl, I well understand there is no tyranny more oppressive than the tyranny of a majority. Thomas Jefferson said it rather succinctly, "Democracy is simultaneously the best and worst possible form of government." Your screeching diatribe made me curious why your are so hyper-verbose on the topic. It did not take long to discover it is a high probability the behavior you are so eager to protect from web censorship is SPAMMING. It made things so clear, you have chosen social repugnancy and moral degradation, but I doubt you are getting survival the species in return. Dollars for Carl is more likely.

Carl Street 6-Jul-09 6:39pm
1 reply
I guess I am shooting over your heads -- My point is that such social advocating beliefs are based on the false premise that group control is superior to individual freedom.

Actually, I am NO fan of Rand and her ilk as they lack logical purity and only differ from statists in their measure of acceptability while I hold that NONE is acceptable.

It certainly is a tribute to the power of government education (propaganda) and its controlling media that people automatically ascribe altruistic motives to government agencies while excusing and attributing their failures and excesses to rogue individuals rather than the inherent flaws of the such systems.

The fact is any institution is merely a force multiplier and while in the pre-industrial past such amplification invariabley led to heinous acts, at least they were localized. However, modern technology compounded and proliferatee that threat leading to human death and destruction on an industrial scale in the last century that brought our species to the brink of extinction.

As dangerous as those 20th century weaponries were, by today's standards they are crude compared to modern weaponology that is many orders of magnitude more destructive. Albert Einstein once postulated that WW III would employ nuclear technology with WW IV being fought with clubs. Would that we had that rosy outlook of just over 50 years ago; today there will be no one left and our planet will be a lifeless monument to those who chose to substitute institutional control for individual reason.

Considering the multiple ad hominem attacks by Gray_Hair I guess I must be getting through. Personally, I plan to stick to the issues and let your ravings brand you for what you are -- undoubtedly a government employee and/or shill with a vested interest in the "system". How sad that you put your selfish self interest ahead of that of our species.
Gray_Hair 31-Jul-09 2:09pm

OMG! I thought I was the most arrogant SOB on the Planet! You never shot over my head Carl, you just flat missed! But before we start, for the record the only (NOT multiple) ad hominem attack I made was the last paragraph, just for effect. Now, how about a little logical and factual review?

Paragraph 2 above may be true of many of Rand's current followers but NOT Rand, she held NO truck with any collective dictating to the individual.

Paragraph 3 indulges in a self contradictory paranoid rant on the power of government education (propaganda) and its controlling media. Dude, the government educational system their propaganda and the BS media is just a part of society and you claimed they do not exist remember?

Paragraph 4 and 5, Wow! If you really believe that and are so concerned why are you not hunkered down in the Australian Outback with a survivalist stash? That behavior would be consistent with those paragraphs. Let me break it to you gently, the only thing that that can bring our species to the brink of extinction is members of our species behaving stupidly. The species is VERY likely to survive all your "force multipliers" and "heinous acts". Now, in spite of that I heartily recommend discouraging heinous acts and imprudent use of force multipliers, but I am not too worried. Global over population by the billions is a much bigger threat to our well-being, both individually and collectively than the most effective action "Big Brother" can take.

NOW for the ad hominem attack! Carl you ignorant slut! From your first paragraph, and I quote, "My point is that such social advocating beliefs are based on the false premise that group control is superior to individual freedom." (syntax error, makes no sense), but clearly in favor of individual freedom. Then in your last paragraph you say, "How sad that you put your selfish self interest ahead of that of our species." You can not have it BOTH ways BOZO, either you are a collectivist or you are an individualist. AND let me state for the record I am staunchly the individualist, there is no collective other than the sum of individuals and therefore the best interest of the species INCLUDES my best interest, as an individual, I have every right to object to your behavior, on the web or anywhere else, and on no stronger grounds than your behavior contravenes my value system, then initiate whatever action I deem necessary to curtail that behavior. Your rights end where mine begin. And that is the principle upon which civilizations are built.

There thats better, now I feel like the most arrogant SOB on the Planet again!

Privacy Paramount 12-Aug-09 1:21am
PARENTING, PORNOGRAPHY, AND MORALITY... censorship belongs in the home as does education. The government ought NOT have a hand in either.

Sign up to receive InfoWorld Resource Alerts

Subscribe to the Today's Headlines: First Look Newsletter

Find out what will be news for the day, with our first-thing-in-the-morning briefing.

©1994-2009 Infoworld, Inc.