It is currently Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:28 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




 Page 2 of 3 [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 3:33 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 6:02 pm
Posts: 16
Location: Europe
Coin i think that everybody look personal on some things;
Somebody think that Racism is bad, other that is good;
That is no problem, that is personal thinking.....



_________________
My Might Is Believeing In Allmighty GOD !!!
What We Do In Life, Echoes In Eternity !!!
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:48 pm 

Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 5:55 pm
Posts: 19
GeStaPo wrote:
Somebody think that Racism is bad, other that is good;
That is no problem, that is personal thinking.....

How old are you? Of all the people, you who live in Macedonia (if that is true) should know it better. Judgement on racism is not a matter of personal opinion. It's simply wrong. And while you have the right to your own thoughts, you may not have the right to express them the same way. Next time think before posting.

xplora wrote:
On undernet Freedom of Speech is given with the following limits...

If according to the 1st Amendment, Congress can't abridge the freedom of speech, then I wonder: how could you?

One part of this discussion is indeed about users' rights on a certain channel. But no part of it is really about the freedom of speech. To make it clear: what you are saying about these two issues is pretty much confusing and inconsistent with the letter of the law.

As for the law, the right to the freedom of speech and the one regarding property is not conflicting at all. It doesn't matter if you swear at somebody in public or on your property or in your home, it is the same felony and if prooved, you would be prosecuted the same way.

Unfortunately in the case of IRC it doesn't really work like this. The right regarding ownership (of a channel) could be questioned first. This is simply because it does not come from the user itself. It depends on many other factors. Most importantly, property (in reality) CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY, but only in certain conditions and in a manner prescribed by law. On IRC, any channel could be taken away. So there is actually no ownership of channels in the way one would understand ownership in real life.

As for the freedom of speech, on internet it is simply a concept (or right or rule or whatever) a lot of users are not complying with. Many professionals, including supreme court judges agree that on this issue internet and cyberspace should regulate themselves. IRC as such is actually a very bad example for free speech, because it has a logical structure (socially and otherwise) which is incompatible with freedom of speech being exercised. (Whereas in reality, as an ultimate solution one could turn to the justice system and defend his right, on IRC there is no such possibility. And it certainly would not even be practical given the speed at which actions take place in this virtual world.)

Coming back to the idea that internet (and IRC within) should regulate itself: I myself think that this is a good idea for now, because neither I, nor anybody could come up with a better one. However, in this context we cannot speak of free speech anymore. Free speech as a constitutional right is given to everyone regardless where it is exercised. Thus, the whole point of this discussion is the policy (some regulations) that you have created and which is criticised. That's what you should respond to.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:09 am 
Senior Cservice Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:47 am
Posts: 564
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
xplora wrote:
Now, in example, a person spouting racist comments in one channel gets kicked from that channel is still free to try any of the other 40,000+ other channels on the Undernet, in order to exercise their right to do that.


I forgot to add, "... or create there own channel ..."


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:31 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:55 am
Posts: 10
Thks for your ecplanations xplora. However, sorry to say that I don't really find them relevant.

CService AUP extract:

Channel Services (X) will not be provided for any channel involved in child pornography, the trading of warez or any copywritten material including mp3's and dvd's or the illegal trading of credit cards, passwords etc. We will no longer register any bot lending, shell or bnc (vhosts) channels. If we find these activities are predominant in your channel after registration, we will permanently remove X from the channel.

Since when are commercial copyrights protection and child pornography linked in any way to the technical protection of the servers?

Are you trying to explain me that the protection of one's dignity is of less value than the protection of"any copywritten material"?

Like I said, sorry to say but not relevant...



_________________
Onx
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:28 am 
Senior Cservice Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:47 am
Posts: 564
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
My explanation is was about any channel, Registration is another thing, and does not need to respect freedom of speech.

coin wrote:
Channel Services (X) will not be provided for any channel involved in child pornography, the trading of warez or any copywritten material including mp3's and dvd's or the illegal trading of credit cards, passwords etc. We will no longer register any bot lending, shell or bnc (vhosts) channels. If we find these activities are predominant in your channel after registration, we will permanently remove X from the channel.

Since when are commercial copyrights protection and child pornography linked in any way to the technical protection of the servers?

Are you trying to explain me that the protection of one's dignity is of less value than the protection of"any copywritten material"?


you can protect your dignity by the following means: if you are a channel op, kick and ban the, if you are a channel user, part the channel and find another.
The guideline you have quoted is about Undernet not showing support for common law breakers, most if not all countries have laws about what that guideline covers.

- xplora


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:20 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 6:55 pm
Posts: 127
Location: Beirut
racisme is everywhere nowdays
that has nothing to do with irc.
plus you said ur op #france right? expect to see more racist people.
in europe extreme right parties are gaining lands. ( french expression gagner du terrain ) history keeps repeating itself, you cannot stop racisme. the best way to manage is to ban + ignore such people.



_________________
Stefano @ Douaihy.org
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:38 pm 

Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 5:55 pm
Posts: 19
xplora wrote:
My explanation is was about any channel, Registration is another thing, and does not need to respect freedom of speech.

Yet, in this thread you wrote:
xplora wrote:
Yes Undernet believes in free speech, if we didn't channels like #KKK wouldn't be registered, and would probably be closed...


Which one is it now?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:00 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:55 am
Posts: 10
Quote:
you can protect your dignity by the following means: if you are a channel op, kick and ban the, if you are a channel user, part the channel and find another.

This I already do, it just isn't the point of this thread.

Quote:
The guideline you have quoted is about Undernet not showing support for common law breakers, most if not all countries have laws about what that guideline covers.

Like I said before, the existence of channels like #nazi is completely illegal in big countries such as France, Germany, and many others. Hey, undernet, how about not showing support for common haters, namely racists, for a change?

Quote:
racisme is everywhere nowdays
that has nothing to do with irc.
plus you said ur op #france right? expect to see more racist people.
in europe extreme right parties are gaining lands. ( french expression gagner du terrain ) history keeps repeating itself, you cannot stop racisme. the best way to manage is to ban + ignore such people.


I completely agree with you stefanoo, which is why I'm making all this fuss. If racism was, like 10 years ago, a secondary phenomenon which one can assume will regress with time, I wouldn't be worried. What worries me is that racism had been growing in most countries with globalization, and that most people / states seem to have given up the fight against it. We all know to what extreme consequences racism can lead, I don't want to see this in front of my doorstep again. I have to react, on undernet and irl.

So, to resume all these threads it seems that:
-Undernet recognizes that it doesn't support certain people, regardless of the threat they cause to the services.
-Everybody recognizes that racism is a growing and worrying phenomenon worldwide.
-It is clear that taking X away from racist chans does not alter freedom of speach as these chans will continue existing after it's withdrawal.

So, again, let me ask: why on earth does undernet continue its support to these racist chans? How does Undernet assume that any user falling victim to racial discrimination on a registered channel will not make disturbing asumtions.

Please give me logical arguments, and don't hide behind a policy that doesn't proove / explain anything...

Thanks.



_________________
Onx
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:07 am 
Senior Cservice Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:47 am
Posts: 564
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
artzy wrote:
xplora wrote:
My explanation is was about any channel, Registration is another thing, and does not need to respect freedom of speech.

Yet, in this thread you wrote:
xplora wrote:
Yes Undernet believes in free speech, if we didn't channels like #KKK wouldn't be registered, and would probably be closed...


Which one is it now?


Depends on your viewing angle, I said Registration does not need to respect freedom of speech, however we attempt to, with the exception of the guideline quoted earlier. so in short both are correct statements.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:28 am 
Senior Cservice Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:47 am
Posts: 564
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
coin wrote:
Quote:
The guideline you have quoted is about Undernet not showing support for common law breakers, most if not all countries have laws about what that guideline covers.

Like I said before, the existence of channels like #nazi is completely illegal in big countries such as France, Germany, and many others. Hey, undernet, how about not showing support for common haters, namely racists, for a change?


I suggest you check the laws again, those channels are not breaking any laws, that I am aware of, and whatever laws you are refering to are not in most countries, unlike the laws CService does attempt to respect.

You must also remember Undernet is an unmoderated medium.

coin wrote:
So, to resume all these threads it seems that:
-Undernet recognizes that it doesn't support certain people, regardless of the threat they cause to the services.
-Everybody recognizes that racism is a growing and worrying phenomenon worldwide.
-It is clear that taking X away from racist chans does not alter freedom of speach as these chans will continue existing after it's withdrawal.

So, again, let me ask: why on earth does undernet continue its support to these racist chans? How does Undernet assume that any user falling victim to racial discrimination on a registered channel will not make disturbing asumtions.


Freedom of speech again... you wanting Undernet to do something about these channels makes you just as racist as they are. This is an undeniable FACT.

Even I am, I would love to purge such channels from X, but doing so is not fair to them, they have a right to their channel as you do your channel, if we start purging channels for this reason, then a lot more channels will be purged than you may realise, including hundreds of channels you would not want to see purged, such as #christian, and other similar "religious" channel, because thats the level racism is at.

As far as I can see, racism isn't getting bigger, it's getting smaller, however it is getting a lot more notice, due to everyone being more aware of it. The issue isn't about stopping it, there is NO way to stop it, it is about how we can make it easier to deal with, this is why Undernet has chosen to support Freedom of Speech, because Freedom of Speech allows for attempting to get along better, not ignore the problem and try to stamp it out, that doesn't work... look at Undernet's name, UNDERnet, attempting to ignore the problem or stamping it out will only send it UNDERground. This is also why Undernet doesn't do anything about warez etc channels, because doing so would send them "underground" making it harder for the law to deal with it.

So lets support the police by letting them be able to find law breakers easier not make it harder for them. I have no problem with your racism, nor to I have a problem with mine, however the limit should be in how we deal with other people directly, not in attempting to impose our racist view on others, that is what causes racist conflicts in the first place.

- xplora


Last edited by xplora on Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:38 am, edited 2 times in total.

Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:29 am 

Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 5:55 pm
Posts: 19
xplora wrote:
so in short both are correct statements.

I wonder if others share your "viewing angle" also on that.

Funny how your "viewing angles" can change so suddenly...


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:42 am 
Senior Cservice Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:47 am
Posts: 564
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
artzy "... does not need to ..." implies optional, so there is no angle change, you just need glasses. :P

Another detail is that the above applies only to channel registration, not Undernet in general. Channel registration is not Undernet in general. So while I am able to compare the 2, they are in fact 2 seperate issues, and you are trying to incorrectly make them the same issue... see glasses comment. :P


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:29 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:55 am
Posts: 10
Quote:
Freedom of speech again... you wanting Undernet to do something about these channels makes you just as racist as they are. This is an undeniable FACT.

This is a very unfair, cheap, insulting and dumb argument. Because I am against any support to racist groups I become a racist huh? Use your brain a little, what do you find in "racist"? CORRECT! RACE!
My point is I don't HATE racists, I don't want to KILL them, I don't find myself SUPERIOR to them. Hell I'm not even asking to kill their channel, I'm only asking to take X away from them AND THEY WILL STILL EXIST. Next time you want to be insulting against someone, use your head if you can. Plus I never insulted YOU which is why I'm saying this is cheap.

Quote:
Even I am, I would love to purge such channels from X, but doing so is not fair to them, they have a right to their channel as you do your channel


I just want X taken away from it, IT WON'T MAKE THE CHANNEL DISAPPEAR. Look at me, my chan #NoRacism has no X since it was created one week ago, but it never stopped existing.

Quote:
The issue isn't about stopping it, there is NO way to stop it, it is about how we can make it easier to deal with, this is why Undernet has chosen to support Freedom of Speech


The issue is not stopping it, no one can and will like you say, the issue is to break off any support to it. Oh by the way why do you have the right to mention freedom of speach but then when I use it I read back "freedom of speach agin..." as if it was so dumb. For your info I repeat X HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FREEDOM OF SPEACH AS IT IS NOT A CONDITION FOR A CHANNEL TO EXIST.

Quote:
it out will only send it UNDERground. This is also why Undernet doesn't do anything about warez etc channels, because doing so would send them "underground" making it harder for the law to deal with it.


Wrong again. Racist people will still be on the SAME channel, at the SAME place, talking about the SAME things, just without an X. How does that make them more underground than today?

Quote:
So lets support the police by letting them be able to find law breakers easier not make it harder for them. I have no problem with your racism, nor to I have a problem with mine, however the limit should be in how we deal with other people directly, not in attempting to impose our racist view on others, that is what causes racist conflicts in the first place.


Supporting the police is not my aim here, and shouldn't be the reason for X being on a channel. The rest of the sentence, mainly cheap blabbing again, is answered in the first part of this reply, where you call me racist out of the blue.



_________________
Onx
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:20 am 

Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 5:55 pm
Posts: 19
I am not objecting to that first quote.

What I am criticising is the second one, where you as an explanation for registering #KKK referred to the freedom of speech, which is a false statement. Not only isn't the registration required to respect the freedom of speech, as you say, but it has nothing to do with it, as I said earlier.

You registered #KKK and #nazi and all the other channels of this kind because you decided so and because your channel registration guidelines are unfairly permitting this. Not that you would always pay attention to them (For you this is also just optional, isn't it?), as you have registered botlending channels even after the last update of your giudelines, just like you have a lot of registered channels whithout channel owners and so on.

My question is only: If bot- and bnc-lending is a good enough reason to deny the Cservice Bot, according to your guidelines, why is racism, nationalism or xenophobia, in general, not good enough? If you can give me a good answer on that, I promise I won't bother you again on this.


P.S. Speaking of glasses:

1. In both of those quotes you are speaking about channel registration. It is the very same issue. Who do you want to fool here?
2. The question I have just asked at the end of this post is the same I asked in my first post.
3. Maybe and despite having your glasses on, from that remote little island on which you reside you can't see what's happening in the world in terms of extremism, but then at least inform yourself before writing down something that has the same chances of being true or false.


Have a good day.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:05 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 6:36 pm
Posts: 238
Location: Netherlands
*i'm not here, nor have anyone seen me here*
quick note:
Quote:
If bot- and bnc-lending is a good enough reason to deny the Cservice Bot, according to your guidelines, why is racism, nationalism or xenophobia, in general, not good enough?

You can't compare bot/bnc lending with racism-and others.
It is completely different.
Just my quick note
*me gone again*



_________________
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 2 of 3 [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: