On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, João Pais wrote:
Predicting some critiques, someone can say "with the IPs I don't know what are the sites", but they don't really have to know. It should be enough to get an idea of the quantity of manipulated sites,
The number of blocked sites isn't meaningful : a one-page, one-topic site might count just as much as a million-page site that took a million more man-hours to write (think wikipedia). And then there is the relevance of those pages to each person.
There are many sites that we wouldn't mind getting blocked, and sometimes sites that we may believe ought to be blocked, but the problem is more about the criteria being used. If my government were to specifically only block IPs of the foreign sites that are used for the purpose of massive banking fraud in my country, I'd agree, and I'm sure that this would get massive support. OTOH, freedom of speech also gets massive support, but making a website faking a famous bank isn't considered Speech in that sense.
Censorship itself is easy to justify, but what can be censored, and how we decide what to censor, and what we reveal about the decision process, are the big questions.
if you have a clear process/concept that gives it's identity to the project, it's a bit of a pity that the final result looses power because there isn't a strong enough "palpable" (whatever that is) connection. Going too far with the "palpability" could result in a "technical demonstration", but letting things too loose means that you're not expressing anything at all,
Do you think that increasing palpability, by itself, causes something to look like a technical demonstration ? And do you think that technical demonstration, in itself, isn't able to be expressive ?
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC