- This topic has 64 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I do not have the time to respond to every point right now as its been a pretty long day but no where did I assert that “since filters don’t work for those you know, they don’t work for anyone.” In fact I specifically limited it to adults in certain types of professions at work. Adults at work in general even according to you (I assume) are probably going to have weaker filters at work. I had mentioned adblock just in case you decided to make the antiquated argument that some make about popups. Not sure there is a point in countering the rest of your points as I am not really sure how to do it without mentioning personal details.
Also sorry to keep on beating a dead horse in regards to the asifa booklet but please read the whole thing if you get a chance as it goes way above and beyond the shemiras einayim issue – if it had just done that I wouldn’t be ranting about it.
I do believe that because of certain technological advances the arguments for and against filters will become moot because of a drop in price of internet capable devices and the availability of free or low cost access. This doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t get filters – but to assume that this is going to work even in five years from now is a poor assumption especially in regards to preventing kids from acquiring internet access surreptitiously.
Since many of you have a hard time grasping this concept, maybe a first person account will help.
When I was in eighth grade, I went to a friend’s house who had unfiltered internet, and we found things that have changed both of our lives forever. I’m a regular, even above average trains guy, so it wasn’t because I was going off our trying to do bad things, kids just that I was an innocent kid who saw things I wish I didn’t know existed.
Most normal, healthy males have taava, and you see from all the halochos and gedarim how concerned Hashem and Chazal are about people being nichshal. Even if a person can usually be fine, if it’s accessible, all it takes is ONE moment of weakness, and he can ruin his life. And even if there’s someone who can always control himself, he may see something inadvertently. And anyway, the Mishna says, “al taamin biatzmecha ad yom moscha”. The threat is real, don’t play games. And if not for you, for your kids or anyone else who may use your computer.
*oops, “yeshiva bochur”, not “trains guy”
are you convinced oy?
A filter will not be of much help if someone wants to access certain sort of material. I agree that there are cheap smartphones availables and it will only increase. So what? After all there are various other forbidden items for sale, and many of them are very cheap and easily available, in every neighbourhood. If someone decides they want to purchase and use, it’s easy to. But most people don’t.
If you believe it’d be different with the internet, please explain why. If you believe people would rebel to being filtered and monitored, or at least resent it, please explain the reason it is not happening right now. Our local system administrator does, as well as our ISP, our Tier 1, and of course the government. I trust them zero, and on top of that I loathe them, and yet, I let them do so (I don’t have my own infrastructure and very few people do).
That said, please don’t insult our intelligence about “questionable material” being equated with something a MD or an OB-GYN would study (one can only wish it were so), nor about professionals “needing” access to unfiltered internet (which, actually, most of us want to filter in order to avoid malware, spyware, and unwanted content which, as it was already mentioned, can land innocent people in jail due to law violations by their employees).
I can think of only one industry that needs completely unfiltered access (not really to the user, but indeed to their machine), and that is data mining. I sure hope those who are in that business have asked a shaila whether it’s a permissible manner to make a living.
Maybe there are other areas with similar requirements, and please feel free to list them. I can’t think of others.
I never heard of any college that mandates use of their computers and networks for connecting to the internet (suddendly a personal device and connection is too expensive for people who spend tens and hundreds of K$ on college?) and by the way, the standard is that they monitor, filter, and sometimes do more than that.
Finally I don’t have any problem about you using or not using any filters, in fact, if you have unfiltered internet, I assume you have both good valid reasons and a heter, as well as sharp skills and/or a full-time network manager. Yet, this is quite different from treating others like fools because they use a filter.
“Hmm, I didn’t realize that women who are interested in their own health comprise less than 0.01% of the world.”
That’s not what I said.
What is the argument about popups? I don’t think I’ve ever heard it
“Adults at work in general even according to you (I assume) are probably going to have weaker filters at work.”
They’re not necessarily weaker. They’re often stronger, just less intrusive, and better designed but cost good money (look up how much a annual subscription for Cisco’s content filtering costs) but it’s worth it, every penny and even non-Jewish companies know it.
I am assuming your comment was directed at me so I will respond.
There is a vast difference in accessibility and the acceptability of internet capable devices (which will be ubiquitous) and the “various other forbidden items for sale.” Besides for which the devices have other purposes and uses which appeal greatly to the younger demographic (such as gaming). It has nothing to do with rebelling – once these devices get to the point where they are practically disposable (because of the cost/cost of replacement) it will become difficult to monitor and filter each device especially when they may very likely be going on networks other than your own.
My main argument was against the one size fits all solution and it seems that most of the posters agree with the sentiment to differing degrees.
By popups I meant the “inadvertent argument” – that it is impossible to surf the net without encountering indecent advertisements.
That could and will happen even if filters become common place. In my humble opinion there is no reason why an 8th grader should have regular access to a computer with internet in the first place, filtered or not….
Sorry I did not say whom I was replying to, part was in reply to you and part to other comments. I agree with your statement that most children have no reason and no business to use the internet, on the other hand the access does not need to be regular and taken for granted for damage to occur (e.g. the poster HakunaMatada only had occasional access). I also respectfully disagree with your “8th grade” threshold, as an 8th grader, unless I am grossly miscalculating US school system, is probably Bar Mitzvah already or close to it.
With other forbidden items there is lots of social pressure, there’s the awareness they are forbidden, teenagers are also dissuaded by other parents’ awareness that people who have a forbidden or undesirable habit are not welcome as our/their children’s friends. There are many things that stand in the way of someone who is considering purchase or use of inappropriate items, all the way to fear / shame of being seen while purchasing or using.
Perhaps the tolerance towards internet can partially be explained by the fact many frum people don’t use it at all, as well as by the lack of technical awareness: malware and spyware alone – and legal liabilities on top of it – are enough of a threat to bring nonjewish and nonreligious internet users to implement heavy filtering. Someone already mentioned Cisco’s content filtering, which prides itself with “not interfering with the user’s experience” i.e. the user will hardly be able to realize that a filter is in place. They do so with BYOD in their own workplace, i.e. with employees who are professional network managers who know a thing or two.
I do not think we can say “inadvertent access to unwanted content” is only popups or banners, advertising sites we would not visit otherwise (and perhaps, not even imagine they existed). I think it is much more likely that a good and well-intentioned person with access to unfiltered internet joins Facebook for a sensible reason, say in order to keep in touch with someone overseas, and then, the problems begin.
As you wrote, no one really maintains that “one size fits all”. It’s no different than with clothing. But most people are shorter than 2.10m. Also, there are good reasons (including practical reasons) to separate our work environment which, for some, will need to be completely unfiltered (and probably with some “unsolicited” audits running there), and our own activity of web surfing, search, emails.
Chag Sameach & gmar chatima tova 🙂
“@jewishfeminist02
‘Hmm, I didn’t realize that women who are interested in their own health comprise less than 0.01% of the world.’
That’s not what I said.”
Except it is…
“> And yes there are a substantial amount of medical students and women who need to access womens health related sites which have things a filter will find objectionable.
Fine, as I said let them have a permissive filter, or no filter, but that’s an extreme case. On that, we can mostly agree. Now, back to 99.9% of the world …”
You said that 99.9% of the world is not a) a medical student or b) a woman who needs to research women’s health information for personal reasons (and therefore would need a permissive filter or no filter).
Jewishfeminist, any decent filter can be set to allow women’s health information while blocking inappropriate content.
I don’t know much about filters; I was just responding to the incredible assertion that 99.9% of the world does not need access to women’s health information.
Unfortunately, this thread has turned into a debate about filters in general. That was not the direction I wished to take this discussion.
Almost every single thread goes off topic or takes an interesting twist at one point. Some threads went as far as having a totally different topic introduced after a while.
See the thread titled “Post to Post—-Not” started by BaalHabooze. Popa__bar__abba has a good comment there. (I don’t know how to bring the link here. )
Sharp
I was going to say the same. Basically every thread known to mankind has been taken off topic some slightly some extremely.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.