Great Firewall of UK Blocks Game Patch Because of Substring Matches 270
Sockatume writes "Remember the fun of spurious substring matches, AKA the Scunthorpe problem? The UK's advanced 'intelligent' internet filters do. Supposedly the country's great new filtering regime has been blocking a patch for League of Legends because some of the filenames within it include the substring 'sex.' Add one to the list of embarrassing failures for the nation's new mosaic of opt-out censorship systems, which have proven themselves incapable of distinguishing between abusive sites and sites for abuse victims, or sites for pornography versus sites for sexual and gender minorities."
Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I do not understand. I just can not understand.
China is a communist country, a country in which the regime is NOT elected.
They have their "Great Firewall" in place in order to protect their totalitarian regime.
Why in the world the UK, with a supposedly "ELECTED" and "DEMOCRATIC" government, want to follow China in erecting their "Great Firewall" ??
Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Same shit, different team.
Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The world will be destroyed with the best intentions at heart.
Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the last election result was such that no party had enough votes to secure power. It was a hung parliament as a result (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010). The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formed a Coalition, gaining the required combined majority to form a government.
Conservatives: 36.1%
Labour: 29%
Liberal Democrats: 23%
Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The British populace voted to allow minorities to dictate policy when they rejected AV.
AV wasn't the be all and end all, it didn't create proportional representation, but it did at least force MPs to have to cater to at least half of their constituents wish to some degree.
That's far better than the status quo our country voted to retain, whereby as little as what, 20% of the population for a constituency, i.e. the Daily Mail readers can be enough in some constituencies to dictate the voice of the entire constituency.
Oh and really, the coalition is the most representative government in decades anyway, a compromise government with 49% of the popular vote is still a far higher proportion than the proportion of combined support of any other ruling party in decades by a margin of as much as about 15%. Contrary to popular belief, the Lib Dems have neutered Tory policy (i.e. blocking the Interception Modernisation Programme, bringing tuition fees from the £12,000 the Tories wanted to £9,000, blocking removal of the highest tax rate) etc.
So yes, our populace has got exactly what it voted for. We still got exactly what we elected through a horribly broken system of un-representation that our populace agree to continue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When you only get to vote for a government once every 4 years, a lot of shit can happen in the 4 years preceding the next opportunity to get them out of power. Most (all?) democracies really aren't very democratic at all when it comes down to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the shit needs to happen just before the election. For example the Great Fire Wall of the UK goes 'er' nuts and blocks all protest and political opposition websites for some strange reason. Now if it does that, it does exactly what in reality it has been designed to do, protect those gullible grown children from reality so they continue to vote for the fantasy where conservative politics serves them and not just the richest 1%.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because apparently if children see breasts, vaginas and penises, the whole fabric of British society will collapse.
Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (Score:5, Informative)
Where the US leads, the UK inevitably follows...
Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Say the word "nipple" to the average yank in games chat, gets usually a warning by yanky moderators... Even tho "ingame content is unrated".
Apparently Yanks don't have nipples.
One thing for sure, they sure don't have balls.. Other wise they would stand up and defend their constitution, but no they so far take it laying down for the past decade yet spout on forums about "one more straw and we will huff and puff... and eat more fries"
Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is unfair to paint all the "yanks" as ball-less.
Some of them still have their intact.
For example: Edward Snowden. That guy did what he had to do in order to dislodge enough information from the secretive (and apparently illegal) activities within the American government, and then revealed the information to the world.
Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (Score:5, Insightful)
and Fox news (Score:3)
Maybe slightly off-topic, but the bit I could never quite understand in the States (and I accept you're a lovely bunch of people with differing views), was how the demographic allegiances are flipped related to pretty much the rest of the world.
Usual (for the rest of us) seems to be that the more affluent you become, the more right-wing your views - "I want to keep my money, not redistribute it to the proles"
The coasts of your country contribute the majority of tax-base to the country,
Re: (Score:2)
On can be against redistribution in principle, yet still take free money when offered. There's a lot of that here.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also a lot of "The damn government better keep its grimy hands offa mah medicare!"
Re: (Score:2)
Usual (for the rest of us) seems to be that the more affluent you become, the more right-wing your views - "I want to keep my money, not redistribute it to the proles"
The coasts of your country contribute the majority of tax-base to the country, and in return get the centre hoovering up the money whilst whining about 'big government
Mass delusions.
The highly affluent who want to "keep my money and not redistribute it" have managed to convince the bible belt that the sinners and gays on the coasts are the rec
Re: (Score:2)
you still want to play this asinine partisanship game
Its nothing to do with partisanship.
When will you wake up to the fact that you, an "enlightened liberal" (since you used the word "delusion" to describe your opponents), is as much a victim of the so-called, in your own words, "mass delusion" as those "deluded nemesis" of yours, the "Bible belt Republicans" ?
Meh, the far left is just as deluded. The rest of the left is a spectrum of what the rest of the world would call "right" and "left".
Re: (Score:2)
The Rs want big brother and to funnel all the money to the 0.1%. The Ds want big brother and to spread the money around.
I'm better off with the Ds if I have to pick one even though they're resembling the Rs more and more these days. I would be better off still with a left-libertarian that wants no big brother and an equal playing field, but that doesn't seem to be on offer at this time. The odds of it ever being on offer go up with more Ds and less Rs though.
Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (Score:5, Funny)
A good friend of mine got into a "conversation" about the Janet Jackson nip-slip incident.
It went roughly like this:
Antagonist: "But what if my children saw it"
My Friend: "But nipples are for children..."
Touche.
Re: (Score:2)
You have never played with Americans on PSN or Xbox Live. CoD?
There seems to be an age cutoff with americans on line. Below all they do is scream about fucking your mum, sucking cock, calling everyone niggers and fags and all kinds of filty insults. Then they become ultra reserved and refuse to acknowledge the mere existence of a nipple. *speaking broadly, does not apply to all yadda yadda yadda
Re: (Score:2)
The US has a national censorship firewall? Since when?
Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (Score:5, Interesting)
What US has is not a "firewall" per se, but the effect would, at the end of the day, be similar.
By tapping into everybody's phone, email and whatnot, the US government is sending out a message to all (including the hundreds of millions of the American citizens) that they better be careful of what they wrote/talk (or even think), or they will be subject to very very close scrutiny.
Thus, what available in the USA is akin to "censorship via intimidation".
Re: (Score:2)
You think those things are the same? Really?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In the UK the Internet is being censored on a massive scale, they have to ask the government for permission to look at porn, and you can be arrested for insulting Islam or saying something racist. Don't pretend that the US even remotely close to the same.
It's all over the Western society, including what is happening right here, in /.
Don't believe me ?
Try posting a comment which is anti-Liberal and/or anti-Islamic and watch for yourself how your comment would end up be modded into the oblivion.
Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Because apparently if children see vaginas, penises, and female breasts, the whole fabric of British society will collapse.
FTFY.
Male breasts are usually considered OK.
Tweaked a bit more to ward off any overly anal types pointing out that there are no male vaginas or female penises.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Elected by who exactly?
2. Democratic just means the lowest common denominator, the tyranny of the majority, and you can convince 50.1% of the people of almost anything long enough to get elected.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why in the world the UK, with a supposedly "ELECTED" and "DEMOCRATIC" government, want to follow China in erecting their "Great Firewall" ??
Why the "supposedly"? Do you have evidence that the UK's election results were not legitimate?
The British government is enacting this censorship policy with the full support of millions and millions of people who don't post on Slashdot.
I certainly don't support the filtering, but the fact that it's opt-out makes it VERY different from China's firewall.
Re: (Score:3)
The British government is enacting this censorship policy with the full support of millions and millions of people who don't post on Slashdot.
Quite possibly (almost certainly the bit about Slashdot), but they do not necessarily provide a majority with "full support" for the policy. The UK has voluntary voting. Only 65.1% of eligible voters voted in the 2010 election. Outright you can say the 44.9% non-voters are indifferent to the policy. If only 5.1% of the voters voted against this policy, or voted for it only because of other issues, then the majority of voters do not provide "full support" for it. There is no way to know for sure. Anyway
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're assuming that everyone who didn't vote agrees with you? That's reasonable.
Re: (Score:3)
No. Nothing to do with my opinion. There are three broad positions on the policy, not two; support, indifference, opposition. Only one of those positions could be said to offer "full support." The people that did not vote do not care about the policy enough to vote either for or against it, they are indifferent. It is as unreasonable to say non-voters offer "full support" for the policy as to say they fully oppose it. It follows that counting the indifferent in the "full support of millions" would
Re: (Score:2)
Worse than that, there's a minority conservative government. So they didn't even win 50% of the votes either.
If around 65% of eligible voters actually voted, and of those 36% voted Tory. Then less than 24% of eligible voters supported the Tories. Hell of a mandate.
Re: (Score:2)
Outright you can say the 44.9% non-voters are indifferent to the policy
No, that's what politicians use to justify their rediculous policies.
Not voting does not mean indifference.
It also means that all 3 parties are equally crap.
Sure there's the pointless protest vote, but everyone knows that has no real function anyway.
the Government of the day sets the policy regardless of promises or actual majorities.
fuck knows where they get half of the ideas from.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The real problem is that the government has *not* done this. Instead, they have threatened the ISPs that they *will* if it isn't done voluntarily. And all thanks to one shrill unelected bitch on a committee who got some reason has a direct line to Cameron. The "support of millions" is from the hypocritical mouth breathers at the Daily Fail and the cretins who read it.
Re: (Score:3)
Why the "supposedly"? Do you have evidence that the UK's election results were not legitimate?
They're a minority government elected by around 20% of the British people. In the last election, the British people resoundingly said that they didn't want any of the three main parties on offer.
Any civilized country would be embarrassed by putting in place a government that about 80% of the people didn't vote for.
The British government is enacting this censorship policy with the full support of millions and millions of people who don't post on Slashdot.
None of my British relatives and friends have ever demanded the government 'protect' them from pr0n. Most Britons who do are idiots like the batty old Mary Whitehouse.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait until the Great Firewall of The United States, as carried out by business interests now that Net Neutrality is all but dead.
This site has been blocked by your content provider. If you feel this is in error, it is you who are terribly, terribly wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't say Net Neutrality is dead, only the attempt by the FCC to enforce it without the congress's say-so. Net Neutrality by law instead of arbitrary regulation is still an open door. Of course, that will involve democracy, and thus it would have to be popular (ie.e, actually matter to most people). Right now, most people don't care, but if the problem ever because actual, not theoretical, they would.
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't say Net Neutrality is dead, only the attempt by the FCC to enforce it without the congress's say-so. Net Neutrality by law instead of arbitrary regulation is still an open door. Of course, that will involve democracy, and thus it would have to be popular (ie.e, actually matter to most people). Right now, most people don't care, but if the problem ever because actual, not theoretical, they would.
Most people don't understand. And even if you were to dedicate a half hour show on prime time television explaining it and why it's important to preserve liberties, people's eyes would glaze over and they still wouldn't understand. Though if some demagogue on radio or TV told them how they should feel about it, tens of thousands would queue right up behind whatever the position is.
It's like a return to the 1920s.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but that's how democracy works: a terrible system, but better than anything else that's been tried. But if (the lack of) Net Neutralityactually stats affecting people, not just geeks working about the future but real problems really happening, then the average voter will care. And most of politics operates on the basis of preventing the average voter from ever caring, so it's possible that some sort of Net Neutrality law will happen if content-based throttling starts reaching the threshold of screwi
Re: (Score:2)
The problem being that the people who want to "preserve liberties" tend to be...selective...about which liberties need preserving.
Note that many First Amendment fanatics tend to be utterly opposed to the Second Amendment. And vice versa, of course.
Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (Score:5, Informative)
The USA doesn't need a Great Firewall. Anything it doesn't like, it takes down for everybody instead of blocking it.
When Slashdot commenters posted things the Church of Scientology didn't appreciate, the USA didn't block Slashdot for USA visitors, they forced Slashdot to remove the content for everybody.
When 2600 linked to DeCSS, the USA didn't block 2600 for USA visitors, they forced 2600 to remove the links.
When people set up gambling sites that USA citizens were using, they didn't block USA citizens from using them, they seized the gambling sites' domain names so nobody could visit them.
When Dmitry Skylarov wrote an ebook reader that circumvented copy protection so blind people could use it, the USA didn't block people from visiting his employers' website. They arrested him.
These are far from isolated examples. The USA censors all the time without having to bother with a Great Firewall. Why bother blocking something when you can take down the source and send a message to anybody else who might be thinking of doing something similar?
Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (Score:5, Informative)
Firstly, it's not a government filter. The only government involvement was the Prime Minister pressuring the ISPs to offer it.
Secondly it's entirely voluntary. It's not even "opt-out". You have to make an actual choice whether to enable it or not during setup.
China, on the other hand, has a mandatory government imposed filter.
I'm sure you can see the difference.
Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Secondly it's entirely voluntary. It's not even "opt-out". You have to make an actual choice whether to enable it or not during setup.
Not for long: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/ar... [wired.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
Secondly it's entirely voluntary. It's not even "opt-out". You have to make an actual choice whether to enable it or not during setup.
That depends on the ISP. New BT customers, for example, have blocking in place by default and have to opt-out if they wish to do so.
Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (Score:4, Informative)
They have elections in China.....
They just do not have official political parties, like many other democracies.
China is also mostly Capitalistic...
Re: (Score:3)
This is my major beef with the Iraq war. Military industrial complex, next time just have the president and congress write you a big check
Re: (Score:2)
Why in the world the UK, with a supposedly "ELECTED" and "DEMOCRATIC" government, want to follow China in erecting their "Great Firewall" ??
Careful with that word: your message may be blocked by UK 'inteligent' filters.
Not because of the critique implied by your message, it happened [bbc.co.uk] before.
Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Democracy is orthogonal to communism. One is a type of government, while the other a type of economy. You can have a democratic communist country, just as you can have a totalitarian capitalist economy. The fact that we have had so many totalitarian "communist" countries is simply because waving a "communist" flag is a great way to attract the downtrodden masses to support your overthrow of the current regime.
In no sane sense can China actually be considered communist, even ignoring the capitalistic reforms they've been experimenting with. From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs, right? That's not particularly compatible with a group of elites that are radically wealthier than the general populace. From wikipedia
Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a classless, moneyless,[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production
Ergo, if you have a ruling class it's not communism.
In fact arguably the single core tenant of communism is communal ownership of the means of production - and the only way government ownership is compatible with that ideal is if the people own the government. And so far democracy is the only model that even attempts that, for all that it usually fails badly in its efforts. Therefore, a strong democracy is a necessary precursor for communism.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that we have had so many totalitarian "communist" countries is simply because
Labeling something you dont like as communist has been incredibly popular over the last 60 odd years.
Very few of the so called communist countries are actually communist. Even China is only really communist by name. "Communism" has become little more than a dark specter used in propaganda and most people these days couldn't identify real communism of their lives depended on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that you're wrong about the abuse of the word, but I believe quite a few places identify *themselves* as communist. It's hard to pin that on Allied anti-communist propaganda. Pro-communist propaganda perhaps. Certainly there's little enough evidence to justify the label in either case.
Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (Score:4, Interesting)
By that logic every government that collects taxes is totalitarian, and you've rendered all further discussion pointless. And you don't need invasive knowledge to get a good first-approximation of communism - very few people have needs outside the norm, excepting medical care. Socialize medicine, education, transportation,etc., and divide the remainder of the Net Domestic Product equally among everyone. Hell, want to quickly impose psuedo-communism a little capitalistic motivation? Just tax everyone 90%, and then distribute the tax revenue equally. On average nothing would change, but most people would be far better off.
Nobody said anything about taking money from anyone - in fact in an ideal communist economy there would be no money to take. Need food, go get some. Need health care, go get some. Don't want to work to support the system, expect to be in some way excised from society.
It's that last one that gets me, and why I think socialism is more promising as it allows for more personal freedom in a self-regulating manner. I happen to think society is infected by hideously wasteful memes and choose to work far less than the norm, because I don't actually need all the extra cruft to be happy, and working to earn it detracts dramatically from the time in which I can enjoy my life without providing any consummate benefits. That becomes problematic in economic systems where everything is shared equally.
Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Um, the Soviet union probably isn't he best example for anything related to communism - it's practically the poster child for someone cynically waving the communist flag in order to seize power.
As for the rest, I don't see that it necessarily follows. Nothing about communism says it has to be the government doing things, it could as easily be people pursuing their own projects with the proceeds being shared around. Coming from a capitalistic model you could effectively tax all personal income at 100% and then distribute it equally. Obviously we'd need to come up with something a bit less corruptible than modern corporate charters for less-than-government-level collaboration, but I think that's probably doable. It wouldn't quite be "real" communism, but it would be a lot closer than anything yet attempted.
Still, I suspect socialism is a better system in most regards, at least until such time as automation largely eliminates the need for human labor.
Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (Score:5, Funny)
Your comment is now cencored in the UK due to the word 'erect'.
Re: (Score:2)
Same reason. Since the UK politicians can be voted out of office, they have even more reason to defend themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
A LOT of countries have "great firewalls". The only one that everyone seems to know about is China, but there are many, many, many more. And many of them are "ele
Re: (Score:2)
Because the people ask for it. But only to be used against the bad guys. The fact that it gets used against everyone is just more evidence that the government can't do anything right.
Re: (Score:2)
Who do you think developed the software and hardware?
What did you think they would do with it once it's done?
Or are you one of these people that like to pretend that modern West is about freedom of people, rather than freedom of money?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, well, when all of the parties are basically the same and voter apathy is almost total what do you expect?
People in power want to stay in power.
Our system evolves people engineered to keep it.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't even get me started about trying to email a customer about their MSEXCHANGE domain...
--
How do we persuade new users that spreading fonts across the page like peanut butter across hot toast is not necessarily the route to typographic excellence?
Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (Score:4, Funny)
And Nothing of Value Was Lost (Score:2)
ExpertSexChange requires a paid membership anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Redundant comment is redundant (Sorry.)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
She appoints ministers to her government. In essence, she is still the executive. Therefore the government is not actually elected. Members of the House of Commons are elected, beyond that it's practical necessity that Her Maj chooses a Prime Minister who "has the confidence of the House" and tradition that she chooses only from amongst party leaders.
nor enact legislation
Actually, she is the only one with the power to "enact" legislation. Parliament cannot create laws without her consent. She can therefore refuse to sign any le
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, she [Queen E.] is the only one with the power to "enact" legislation. Parliament cannot create laws without her consent. She can therefore refuse to sign any legislation she objects to, and she has on occasion done so (typically tax laws that affect her personal wealth. Yeah.)
Citation badly needed. The procedure you've described is called Royal Assent [wikipedia.org], and has been a formality for ages; the last time it was withheld was... wait for it... in 1708. Yes, in theory Her Maj could veto a law, but that would be the end of her political meddling, if not the monarchy itself.
Along with anyone who lives in Essex (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Just goes to show that most of the time when management types start talking about "smart" software, it's just as bloody-minded and primitive as ever. Software is software is software, at least until someone invents strong AI.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And medical schools and all sorts of vital public health information...
Is it really that sensitive? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
How sensitive is this filter really? How does it affect the residents of Sussex [wikipedia.org]
What about Scunthorpe [wikipedia.org] and Penistone [wikipedia.org], hmmm?
Re:Is it really that sensitive? (Score:5, Funny)
How sensitive is this filter really? How does it affect the residents of
I think you forgot to complete the end of your sentence.
Uh oh (Score:5, Funny)
Reminds me of... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
From my experience, blocking expertsexchange is a good thing from any perspective.
Wrong name? (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, "Great Firewall of UK" is clumsy and doesn't doesn't make much sense in context. Perhaps we should call it "Hadrian's Firewall"?
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, no Roman would ever condone blocking sex in any form. It was their national past-time.
Re: (Score:2)
hardware.jpg (Score:2)
Ah, reminds me when the slashdot had a "bolt" icon for the hardware posts and were blocked by a filter... because any internet image with "hard" in it was obviously porn.
Experts Exchange (Score:2)
Reminds me of a time when I went to access expertsexchange.com on the job, to get a quick solution to a coding issue I was having, back around 2000... the web filter classified it as "sexually oriented" and it took me a minute to realize how the name had parsed out.
You can now get to the site via experts-exchange.com, though it is far less useful these days.
Censorship is tyranny by definition. (Score:5, Insightful)
When ever you have people making decisions for the "greater good", they end up making those decisions for their own greater good. So it doesn't matter in the long run what they are censoring, the act of Law in doing so is the objective. The fact that it is not doing what was intended doesn't matter, it just means the censorship must be "refined", and the filters need to be "fixed".
Liberty would mean removal of the filters and government intervention from an act of free will, i.e. looking at sexual content on line for example, and an act of responsibility from people, i.e. monitoring their children's internet access. This will never do for Big Government tyrants, because this would imply that people actually have their own freedoms that are not "given" to them by the government, and their free will and responsibility is more important than the governments ability to intervene.
Blocked Summary (Score:3)
Sorry, but we found the word 'sex' on this webpage, so we're going to have to block it.
Again, dreadfully sorry about all that.
Sincerely.
Her Majesty's Nanny-State
Censorship is easy (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a good thing that there's no way to advertise a porn site with obvious keywords like Porn or Sex. In Britain, users should only be able to see safe sites featuring things like tasty Cream Pies and beautiful Pearl Necklaces and innocent Rimming sites to teach kids how to enjoy decorative rims. It's easy to filter out the bad stuff by looking for the obvious bad words.
Hysteria from the Guardian (Score:5, Insightful)
So the Guardian is doing the Daily Mail thing of nabbing articles from reddit, and accepting them at face value without any actual research. No wonder traditional newspapers are dying.
Re: (Score:2)
No official complaints means about the same as a random poster complaining. I'd say we know as much as we did before anyone posted anything. Jack and shite.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just going to give up submitting stories that aren't in peer-reviewed journals at this point. :(
gender minority? (Score:2)
Anyway, do they have an inline word-destroying filter like some awful 90's filter instead of a point system with an all or nothing blocker? What cheap ass software suite are they even running?
Although, uncompressed and unencrypted plain text in patch file that contain vulgar words is a bit dumb on the developers' part. They shouldn't have allowe
Re: (Score:2)
They mean transgender people.
No. The article is reporting informal speculation and wild guesswork by some LoL fans as verified truth. The ISPs have reported no complaints, and say their filters don't work that way, so it's probably a complete
Re: (Score:2)
Googlebomb Cameron (Score:4, Funny)
Associate it with something "naughty" (ala Santorum) and demand it be added to the filter for the sake of the children and voila slowly but surely Cameron will be filtered out of UK life.
This is a clbuttic mistake (Score:5, Funny)
It happens when you buttume that doing a mbutt replacement of strings consbreastutes a good plan, when it's really just a reRichardulous buttbuttination of words.
It's somewhere between buttstounding and buttinine.
The lure of the passive voice (Score:2)
“Sadly there is no silver bullet when it comes to internet safety and we have always been clear that no solution can ever be 100 per cent. It requires all of us to play our part,” said TalkTalk spokesperson to PinkNews.
Mistakes were made.... but not by us. It's your fault we had to censor you!
whew (Score:2)
well thank *** I've not go** ***wing carrots in the S****horpe ***tant factory!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it, how is Froslass profanity?
Re:The most egregious example of this problem... (Score:4, Informative)
I don't get it, how is Froslbutt profanity?
FTFY... [telegraph.co.uk] Also fixed in the past: President Abraham Lincoln was buttbuttinated by an armed buttailant after a life devoted to the reform of the US consbreastution
Simple (Score:2)
Anyone who is not male or female.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I understand, the censoring (whether it is porn or file sharing sites) is all done by the ISP using their own choice of censoring system. With file sharing sites there were court orders listing specific sites, The Pirate Bay for example, handed down to the ISPs (the big ones at least) but the blocking mechanism is put in place by the ISP. I think for porn, the government / courts have nothing to do with which specific sites get blocked, it's just down to the crappy algorithms / blacklists put in p