Having one of my goals in the next year is (again) to start a web comic; research has become essential. My life experience is, frankly, stale. If I were to let my imagination alone dictate what to write, it would fall flat - become something even I wouldn't like to read.
Note: Opposed to previous comics, I'm looking at drawing something that takes itself as irreverent. When the piece is too serious on first glance, people fail to see humour. Being ridiculous doesn't stop me from trying to bring up some sort of point.
Note 2: This post is unrelated to technology, with which I'm more well versed. It is a slight distraction which I found interesting to research.
Enter political commentary / editorial cartoons; a fine form of expression which limits the story to a few panels and without any obligation to recycle characters. Better yet, grounded in reality to the point that I don't see employers even caring (consider someone in modern times making a life's work / novel / sculpture / game -- for many people they can't as if they do, they don't own it and it won't come out in any shape or form).
Oddly enough, I'll be link-bombing what I believe to be respectable web-sites (whose contents is not my responsibility); with my opinion of what is in the linked articles (so read the articles to get the whole picture):
UK Tories demand a "ban this terrorist filth" button for the ...
Boing-Boing brings up this interesting factoid. Wikipedia got swept up and blocked for posting an album cover (that was banned). This goes hand-in-hand with an idea for a strip where questionable organizations would upload dubious material to publicly editable sites to have them banned. More as an "haha", internet trolls.
David Cameron pledges anti-terror law for internet after ...
The Guardian has a nice piece describing how the Charlie Hebdo attacks have sparked the ideal of being able to access all communications over the Internet. There is increased ability to track users via IP. Yet - you just need a few people good with stenography to hide communications in seemingly innocuous places. In other words, it would be a game of cat and mouse as communications become hidden in more clever ways masked as your routine day-to-day Internet traffic. Alternatively, if people were to send a letters encrypted with a one-time pads -- wouldn't we have the same issue but with regular mail?
Despite Ban, YouTube Is Still a Hotbed of Terrorist Group ...
FastCompany. I don't know them. I post the link since all the videos have already been taken down. They describe how "promotional" videos are disseminated to video sharing sites. It is interesting as I initially assumed the issue was mainly point-to-point communication and nothing so overt. Bad me.
Why Tolerate Terrorist Publications?
From the New-York Times. And I'm surprised. Really. It is an opinion piece about an online magazine available to the general public describing all sorts of ways to do "bad things"(tm) at airports and whatnot and questions if the American ideal of free speech is proper in such cases. Sure, a well-written, impassioned article. Why am I surprised? The author didn't filter himself. He states the name of the magazine. No links, but anyone could probably Google it and find it.
In India, is web censorship justified in the name of national security?
From PBS, this one is a bit more nefarious I find. Github was blocked. Completely. As was The Internet Archive, Vimeo, and other sites. Notice that these sites are all driven by content not under the control of the creators. Just so happens they can be given or mirror content that is undesirable to be shared. Github I used often enough to say it can be essential. The Internet Archive has the WayBack machine, which I used to see how things were. This article, essentially, goes full-circle to the idea that a bunch of jokers could have sites driven by user-content banned in certain places by uploading material which governments determine is bad for public consumption.
Farewell Magna Carta: the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill
Published by OpenDemocracy. My conscience tells me that I should say they are biased towards the left. However, from what they say, it is quite eery. Literally scary. More so than the taking of passports based on suspicion. That is of reporting all suspicious activity / people. And that it typically targets people of a certain faith. I heard that Germany once used this tactic... Moving on...
'Terror has no religion': MP urges ban on phrase 'Islamic terrorist' in ...
From RT. Said by a Russian MP. Title says it all.
Australian broadcaster bans 'unsuitable' Peppa Pig episode ...
From DailyMail.co.uk - I don't think we're trying anymore. It's easier to ban. Ban the children's comic! I guess that's what happens when television raises kids. (Yes, I realize everything in Australia, including spiders, are deadly. I think we should ban Charlotte's Web in that country.)
Russia Moves To Ban Tor And Anonymous Web...
From Vocative (hope Google News only brings up good sources), seems like leading a political campaign is a crime in Russia. There's a little screenshot of Twitter at the bottom saying that the site of the opposition party was blocked. Interesting - especially when combined with "Terror has no religion".
China cracks down on 'vulgar culture' of web pseudonyms
From the BBC. I don't know what to make of this. In a sense, people should publicly stand behind their convictions. But at what point must people be able to put out subversive messages against the governing bodies? They aren't run by deities or people impossible to corrupt.
'Islamist terror threat' shuts down largest festival in northern Germany
From Haaretz, found on Reddit's WorldNews subreddit. Title says it all. Why just filter data on the Internet when you can filter events off the Internet as well?
A quick perusing for blocking of sites (wholesale) in America led to no results. I'll keep an eye out, but the links above have been quite informative.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment