Because they will make their internet filtering optional. You know, personal choice and freedom optional?
So, how did we get here?
-
This is not my beautiful world Shit got real just now, but it took a long
time and a lot of inattention and complacency, basically since the 1950s.
It bega...
1 week ago
1 comment:
I read a comment by Mark Newton (from Internode), quoted in the Government 2.0 consultation (paragraphs 19-24). He said:
"This comes down to a fundamental view of what Government is for.
If one is of the view that the purpose of Government is to shape society into some kind of ideal, where everyone is on the same page working to some kind of utopian goal, then Web2.0 has very little to offer. In that world view, the Government has already worked out what it’s going to do and the job of the citizen is to either help it get there (usually by means of constructive “submissions”, but only when “consulted”) or get out of the way and let the Government do its thing.
If one is of the view that the role of the Government is to act as a kind of social lubricant to enable citizens to employ their own ideals in furtherance of their own goals, then that’s where Web2.0 is strong. Enabling that outcome requires the Government to be part of the conversation, so that it can see where obstacles are and apply its resources appropriately to smoothing the way for citizens without creating more problems than it solves. Government can be a remarkably blunt instrument, which needs to be wielded with care.
I suspect that the slowness of Web2.0 adoption comes from the fact that those of us who support this initiative are in the latter mindset, while much of the Government and its accompanying bureaucracy are in the former mindset.
Resolving this schism is, IMHO, one of the paramount challenges of Government 2.0."
Spot on, I think, and applies equally well to the filtering regime. I wish I were half as eloquent.
(Sorry to go posting a massive chunk of quotation, but I think Mark's comment is worth the attention.)
Post a Comment