Censorship at Berkeley University [Closed]


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Censorship at Berkeley University [Closed]

1 · 2 · Next
Author Message
AC
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 3413
Credit: 119,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 423979 - Posted: 21 Sep 2006, 0:03:40 UTC
Last modified: 21 Sep 2006, 0:34:21 UTC

Since the Berkeley University SETI@home administration has decided to go down the ugly path of censorship here at the SETI@home message boards, and appointing certain moderators that use their personal agendas to censor here, I thought that I'd start this thread with a little information to bring attention to it.

Censorship is the authoritarian control of speech and other forms of human expression. In many (but not all) cases, it is exercised by governing bodies. The visible motive of censorship is often to stabilize or improve the society that the government would have control over. It is most commonly applied to acts that occur in public circumstances, and most formally involves the suppression of ideas by criminalizing or regulating expression. Furthermore, discussion of censorship often includes less formal means of controlling perceptions by excluding various ideas from mass communication. What is censored may range from specific words to entire concepts and it may be influenced by value systems.

Moral censorship is the means by which any material that contains questionable morality is removed. The censoring body disapproves of the values behind the material and limits access to it. An example is pornography.

Goskomizdat

.....was the State Committee for Publishing in the Soviet Union.

It had control over publishing houses, printing plants, book trade and was in charge of the ideological and political censorship of literature.

Prevention and bypassing

Since the invention of the printing press, distribution of limited production leaflets has often served as an alternative to dominant information sources. The use of widespread distributed network communication, data havens and decentralized peer-to-peer file sharing systems such as Freenet has overcome some censorship. A recent phenomenon attempts a form of counter-censorship, speaking directly to members of society in a culture jamming effort. Individuals or non-conforming groups use mass communication techniques to attack implicit domination, offering trivial or deliberately irrelevant messages to blunt the impact of dominant mass communication.

Throughout history, mass protests have served as a method for resisting unwanted impositions, though modern technology often affords control of mass meetings to the groups who control the sound amplification systems around which the meetings are organized. Modern sound-reinforcement technology has sometimes led to a perhaps mistaken perception that all those in attendance at mass gatherings agree on a broad spectrum of ideas, when in reality, individual members of the crowd might agree only in narrow measure with those whose voices are amplified. It has been suggested that mass reproduction, through broadcast, print, and network technology, of the ideas amplified from a podium can effectively censor the voices of individual members of a crowd.

Interestingly, the censorship of coarse vernacular in the United States doesn't always extend to non-American pronunciations. Instead of shit, the Scots and Northern English variant shite may apparently be used, as may fook for fuck. (Note: this was witnessed on broadcast television in early 2004, before the FCC levied several highly publicized fines.)

In recent times, censorship has taken the form of limiting access to public information in more useful formats, such as electronic information used by regulatory agencies, while the right to access and disseminate reports based on public information is limited to forms of information that can only be analyzed by scanning or reading paper documents. Fees for paper and other materials used to release public information that are disproportionate to the actual costs of paper copying also serve to regulate dissemination of information about government activities. In an age of distributed electronic networks, of advanced security algorithms that can facilitate supervised limited access to such networks and of low-cost photo-reproduction technology, limiting the availability of information that can be mass produced by imposing disproportionate fees as a condition to release of information is said by some to be a parallel to media taxes imposed but then outlawed in American in the 17th century.

Even apparently open network communication can be the target of allegations of censorship. Such networks rely on technology not evenly distributed among all population segments. Groups with the most time and resources to participate in networked communities may, perhaps unbeknownst even to most group members, use their superior access to supplant the information that would be provided by non-users with versions that are preferred by the dominant sector.

Source: Wikipedea
____________

cdr100560
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 May 06
Posts: 681
Credit: 65,502
RAC: 0
United States
Message 423982 - Posted: 21 Sep 2006, 0:06:08 UTC

Using the words "Censorship" and "Berkeley" in the same sentence is kind of...

creepy.

AC
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 3413
Credit: 119,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 423985 - Posted: 21 Sep 2006, 0:11:46 UTC - in response to Message 423982.

Using the words "Censorship" and "Berkeley" in the same sentence is kind of...

creepy.


Oh, a serial lurker found a bandwagon to jump on.

Eh, your avatar is "creepy"

____________

cdr100560
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 May 06
Posts: 681
Credit: 65,502
RAC: 0
United States
Message 423992 - Posted: 21 Sep 2006, 0:20:43 UTC - in response to Message 423985.

Using the words "Censorship" and "Berkeley" in the same sentence is kind of...

creepy.


Oh, a serial lurker found a bandwagon to jump on.

Eh, your avatar is "creepy"

No doubt about it.

However, no carbon-based life forms were harmed in the posting of said avatar.

And I like cereal. Especially fruit loops. Nothing like a bowl of sugar in the morning to spike my glucose levels.

AC
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 3413
Credit: 119,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 424000 - Posted: 21 Sep 2006, 0:29:24 UTC - in response to Message 423992.
Last modified: 21 Sep 2006, 0:29:51 UTC

Using the words "Censorship" and "Berkeley" in the same sentence is kind of...

creepy.


Oh, a serial lurker found a bandwagon to jump on.

Eh, your avatar is "creepy"

No doubt about it.

However, no carbon-based life forms were harmed in the posting of said avatar.

And I like cereal. Especially fruit loops. Nothing like a bowl of sugar in the morning to spike my glucose levels.


Well besides intentially hijacking this thread so you can intentionally annoy and be deliberately hostile, do you have anything else to add?



____________

Profile Michael Buckingham
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 99
Posts: 4508
Credit: 2,676,597
RAC: 0
United States
Message 424003 - Posted: 21 Sep 2006, 0:33:58 UTC

Do you need a tissue A/C ?
____________


http://www.mikesbawx.org/photo/

cdr100560
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 May 06
Posts: 681
Credit: 65,502
RAC: 0
United States
Message 424007 - Posted: 21 Sep 2006, 0:39:01 UTC

Nothing of the sort is intended or inplied at all sir. My intentions were to point out that indeed the use of censorship in any form specifically (or epecially) within the Berkeley Campus/Arena is a sort of oxymoron in it's own sense. I find it a little disturbing that it would exist at all and find your post stimulating. I just hope it is read by others in the context you have meant it to be taken in.

Don't sweat it man. I'm not poking fun at you in any way.
(But the term "serial lurker" is a little harsh, don't you think?)

Respectfully.

Profile Knightmare
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Aug 04
Posts: 7472
Credit: 94,252
RAC: 14
United States
Message 424009 - Posted: 21 Sep 2006, 0:45:36 UTC

Let me interject something here and then I will sit back and let the thread flow...

Just for the sake of argument...Let's say that there is a 14 year old who decides to run SETI@home on his/her computer.

Now let's say that his parents decide to look in on his/her activities online.

Those parents come into the SETI Cafe, because they can just as easily as the kid can.

Now the parents see something that they deem completely inappropriate. Something that they feel the kid shouldn't be exposed to.

First thing they do is banish the kid from reading the forums. Second thing is, they start writing letters to the administration at Berkley.

SETI has lost some computer power, and Berkley is put in a position to have to defend itself from some irate parents.

I know that Berkly has long been a bastion of free speech, but people need to keep in mind that there is no age limit for who can use the Boinc program and no age limit for posting and reading the forums.

The project admins were put in a bad spot, and they made a decision about what to do.

You can call it cencorship if you choose, but there are some cases where the proper action has to be taken because of the people who view and post here.

-------------------------------------------

This is only a statement. I used to post in the BOTD thread occasionally, and my g/f was named a BOTD shortly after she started running SETI@home. I had no problems with that thread, but the admins had to take a look at the bigger picture.

------------------------------

Profile Michael Buckingham
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 99
Posts: 4508
Credit: 2,676,597
RAC: 0
United States
Message 424010 - Posted: 21 Sep 2006, 0:46:56 UTC

And I don't need my kid to see the F word here either :)
____________


http://www.mikesbawx.org/photo/

Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3133
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 424013 - Posted: 21 Sep 2006, 0:56:47 UTC - in response to Message 424009.

Let me interject something here and then I will sit back and let the thread flow...

Just for the sake of argument...Let's say that there is a 14 year old who decides to run SETI@home on his/her computer.

Now let's say that his parents decide to look in on his/her activities online.

Those parents come into the SETI Cafe, because they can just as easily as the kid can.

Now the parents see something that they deem completely inappropriate. Something that they feel the kid shouldn't be exposed to.

First thing they do is banish the kid from reading the forums. Second thing is, they start writing letters to the administration at Berkley.

SETI has lost some computer power, and Berkley is put in a position to have to defend itself from some irate parents.

I know that Berkly has long been a bastion of free speech, but people need to keep in mind that there is no age limit for who can use the Boinc program and no age limit for posting and reading the forums.

The project admins were put in a bad spot, and they made a decision about what to do.

You can call it cencorship if you choose, but there are some cases where the proper action has to be taken because of the people who view and post here.

-------------------------------------------

That's ludicrous. Simply ludicrous.

Any parent, and I mean ANY parent, had better be SIGNIFICANTLY more worried about Google Images. In fact, those said same kids will nearly INSTANTLY abandon SETI for some seriously offensive photos and comments. In fact, those said kids have been raised using search engines. Even the most incompetent and stupid of them aren't coming here to get their thrills. Google doesn't defend itself against such things, any more than Berkeley does. In fact, their students can dip into this stuff all they want--all of it coming to their student internet account across Berkeley's servers.
____________
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Profile Knightmare
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Aug 04
Posts: 7472
Credit: 94,252
RAC: 14
United States
Message 424016 - Posted: 21 Sep 2006, 1:06:18 UTC
Last modified: 21 Sep 2006, 1:07:40 UTC

Rush. I wasn't referring to Google images. I was referring to something that Berkley has control over.

I agree that search engines such as Google make it far too easy for children to see images that they probably shouldn't. I also agree that parents should be far more concerned with the various search engines and other placs to get images. But this is not Google....or Yahoo....or Ask.

Those are things that Berkley has no control of.

Are you saying that parents should concern themselves with one part of the internet but not another???

AC
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 3413
Credit: 119,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 424018 - Posted: 21 Sep 2006, 1:12:59 UTC - in response to Message 424007.
Last modified: 21 Sep 2006, 1:13:27 UTC

Nothing of the sort is intended or inplied at all sir. My intentions were to point out that indeed the use of censorship in any form specifically (or epecially) within the Berkeley Campus/Arena is a sort of oxymoron in it's own sense. I find it a little disturbing that it would exist at all and find your post stimulating. I just hope it is read by others in the context you have meant it to be taken in.

Don't sweat it man. I'm not poking fun at you in any way.
(But the term "serial lurker" is a little harsh, don't you think?)

Respectfully.


Then I misunderstood entirely what you were trying to say, and I apologize for my reaction cdr100560. Yes the term serial lurker was probly harsh and I apologize for that too dude. lol




____________

Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3133
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 424023 - Posted: 21 Sep 2006, 1:20:16 UTC - in response to Message 424016.

Rush. I wasn't referring to Google images. I was referring to something that Berkley has control over.

I agree that search engines such as Google make it far too easy for children to see images that they probably shouldn't. I also agree that parents should be far more concerned with the various search engines and other placs to get images. But this is not Google....or Yahoo....or Ask.

Those are things that Berkley has no control of.

Are you saying that parents should concern themselves with one part of the internet but not another???

I said, A) no kid raised using search engines (in essence all of them now) does not come here, of all places, to find racy images--they know full well their time would be spent nearly anywhere else. And B) any parent that considers this place a threat is, quite simply, a fool. Their energies are misguided and utterly ineffective in protecting their children.

If Berkeley actually cared, they would shut down their internet servers. They don't.
____________
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

cdr100560
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 May 06
Posts: 681
Credit: 65,502
RAC: 0
United States
Message 424026 - Posted: 21 Sep 2006, 1:22:07 UTC


Then I misunderstood entirely what you were trying to say, and I apologize for my reaction cdr100560. Yes the term serial lurker was probly harsh and I apologize for that too dude. lol


Thats OK. No harm, no foul. The fact that this discussion is allowed to continue under its own merit could be viewed as a step in the right direction.

@knightmare.
I had thought, until recently, that the forums here posed no threat to the internet or a "younger" audience. But I do agree with Mike that at least foul language ought to be curbed.

Profile Knightmare
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Aug 04
Posts: 7472
Credit: 94,252
RAC: 14
United States
Message 424028 - Posted: 21 Sep 2006, 1:28:24 UTC - in response to Message 424023.

Rush. I wasn't referring to Google images. I was referring to something that Berkley has control over.

I agree that search engines such as Google make it far too easy for children to see images that they probably shouldn't. I also agree that parents should be far more concerned with the various search engines and other placs to get images. But this is not Google....or Yahoo....or Ask.

Those are things that Berkley has no control of.

Are you saying that parents should concern themselves with one part of the internet but not another???

I said, A) no kid raised using search engines (in essence all of them now) does not come here, of all places, to find racy images--they know full well their time would be spent nearly anywhere else. And B) any parent that considers this place a threat is, quite simply, a fool. Their energies are misguided and utterly ineffective in protecting their children.

If Berkeley actually cared, they would shut down their internet servers. They don't.


I'm not saying that the kids come here to find the images. That wasn't my intended point.

Should a parent that finds something that they think is inappropriate just sit there and say nothing since there are so many other places on the Net that could show their kids worse things?

-------------------------------------

Anyway, my intention was not to get into an argument. There are two sides to every argument. Some are going to agree with one side, others will agree with the other.

I happen to think that parents should monitor what thir kids are doing online, and keep an eye out for things they don't feel their child should be easily exposed to.

Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3133
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 424033 - Posted: 21 Sep 2006, 1:34:49 UTC - in response to Message 424028.
Last modified: 21 Sep 2006, 1:46:04 UTC

I'm not saying that the kids come here to find the images. That wasn't my intended point.

Should a parent that finds something that they think is inappropriate just sit there and say nothing since there are so many other places on the Net that could show their kids worse things?

You tell me. Are they going to write hundreds of millions of letters to these sites? No, they are going to control their kid. The internet is inherently unsafe.

Anyway, my intention was not to get into an argument. There are two sides to every argument. Some are going to agree with one side, others will agree with the other.

That's just a bromide. That people agree with a given side does not mean that it has any validity.

I happen to think that parents should monitor what thir kids are doing online, and keep an eye out for things they don't feel their child should be easily exposed to.

Sure. And that's on them. This isn't a kid-safe atmosphere by any sense of the word. If that were the case, there should be no profiles and no posting. At all.

Edit: I should make the following clear. What the mods have done is not censorship. This is their private project, they can make whatever decisions they like concerning it, including removing threads at will. Though much of the moderation here is incompetent, that's their baby as well. But it's simply silly to think that the loss of a profile thread makes this place any safer, friendlier, or anything else, let alone pulling posts containing profile links out of any given thread.
____________
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

AC
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 3413
Credit: 119,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 424076 - Posted: 21 Sep 2006, 2:33:58 UTC - in response to Message 424009.
Last modified: 21 Sep 2006, 2:59:03 UTC

Let me interject something here and then I will sit back and let the thread flow...

Just for the sake of argument...Let's say that there is a 14 year old who decides to run SETI@home on his/her computer.

Now let's say that his parents decide to look in on his/her activities online.

Those parents come into the SETI Cafe, because they can just as easily as the kid can.

Now the parents see something that they deem completely inappropriate. Something that they feel the kid shouldn't be exposed to.

First thing they do is banish the kid from reading the forums. Second thing is, they start writing letters to the administration at Berkley.

SETI has lost some computer power, and Berkley is put in a position to have to defend itself from some irate parents.

I know that Berkly has long been a bastion of free speech, but people need to keep in mind that there is no age limit for who can use the Boinc program and no age limit for posting and reading the forums.


It's the responsibility of parents to know that a certain forum that is mostly populated by adults may contain language that they find unsuitable for their children to see.

Banishing the kid from reading the forums doesn't sound all that bad. I mean why not? If they think that their 14 year-old kid is going to hear or see something that they wouldn't normally see or hear at school or wherever else they hang out (internet blogs etc). That's better than shifting resonsibility to the forum and imposing the values that they invision for their children on others.

When it comes to other things like cable and satellite television, parents have the ability to block programs that they don't want their kids to see. Similarly, it's possible to control where they might browse on the internet.

Berkeley can also deal with irate parents. Having a standard response that addresses any objections with a statement explaining that there may be things on the forums that may not be suitable for their kids.

The project admins were put in a bad spot, and they made a decision about what to do.


I was also talking about simple free speech. I and many others here have had their views and opinions censored outright. Just a few hours ago I expressed an opinion in a thread started by Rush, where I said that an email that he got from a moderator was rude, and sounded like it was personal. Not at all aggressive in nature, and yet it was censored in quick new-technology fashion. The moderator didn't agree with it and it was censored. That's a person in power using their given power to make a person that doesn't agree with them shut up.

-------------------------------------------

This is only a statement. I used to post in the BOTD thread occasionally, and my g/f was named a BOTD shortly after she started running SETI@home. I had no problems with that thread, but the admins had to take a look at the bigger picture.

------------------------------


Well I'm not trying to defend Misfit here, but come on, on a bad-taste scale from 1 to 10 I'd give that thread a 2 at most. And the term "babe" is such a mild term used for describing a female it's ridiculous. That term was very commonly used WAY back in the 20th century days by high school kids. lol

As for the content of that particular thread, well, again, on a scale from 1 to 10 for bad or offensive content... well it doesn't really score high.

[edited]



____________

Profile BillHyland
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 30 Apr 04
Posts: 907
Credit: 5,764,172
RAC: 0
United States
Message 424080 - Posted: 21 Sep 2006, 3:00:24 UTC - in response to Message 423982.

Using the words "Censorship" and "Berkeley" in the same sentence is kind of...

creepy.

It is simply what Berkley has been doing for decades. It is one of the testing grounds for what became known as "political correctness", which is a euphamism for censorship of, mostly, conservative values.

Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3133
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 424083 - Posted: 21 Sep 2006, 3:17:57 UTC - in response to Message 424076.

I was also talking about simple free speech. I and many others here have had their views and opinions censored outright. Just a few hours ago I expressed an opinion in a thread started by Rush, where I said that an email that he got from a moderator was rude, and sounded like it was personal. Not at all aggressive in nature, and yet it was censored in quick new-technology fashion. The moderator didn't agree with it and it was censored. That's a person in power using their given power to make a person that doesn't agree with them shut up.

Hence the dilemma. It, once again, seemed personal.
____________
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

AC
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 3413
Credit: 119,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 424097 - Posted: 21 Sep 2006, 3:40:32 UTC - in response to Message 424003.

Do you need a tissue A/C ?


No Michael, I don't need a tissue *sniff, sniff* *wipes tears from eyes*

:-D

____________

1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Censorship at Berkeley University [Closed]

Copyright © 2014 University of California