Google, which has recently been involved in a censorship spat with China, has been one of the filtering policy’s harshest critics. It has identified a range of politically sensitive and innocuous material, such as sexual health discussions and discussions on euthanasia, which could be blocked by the filters.
Last week, it said it had held discussions with users and parents around Australia and “the strong view from parents was that the government’s proposal goes too far and would take away their freedom of choice around what information they and their children can access”.
Google also said implementing mandatory filtering across Australia’s millions of internet users could “negatively impact user access speeds”, while filtering material from high-volume sites such as Wikipedia, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter “appears not to be technologically possible as it would have such a serious impact on internet access”.
“We have a number of other concerns, including that filtering may give a false sense of security to parents, it could damage Australia’s international reputation and it can be easily circumvented,” Google wrote.
Conroy, unsurprisingly, instead of defending his policy against these criticisms simply attacks Google for uttering them.
630 comments, most of them calling him a dill, 96% opposition on the online poll (not scientific, as we know).
Related Posts:
- Quickhit: Conroy admires Google China’s censorship, plumps for censored Youtube Oz by Lauredhel
- A False Sense of Security by tigtog
- Iinet, Censorship, and Conroy’s Lies by Lauredhel
- Mandatory Australian Internet Censorship: Conroy’s Bait and Switch by Lauredhel
- So simple, even your mother will be opposed by Mary
* Quicklink to recent open threads
mindyhoyden: 
bluemilk: 
vivsmythe: 
CastIronBalcony: 
puzzlement: 
ChallyWrites: 
ilauredhel: 
Meh, scientific schmientific. It’s not like Conroy is basing his action on accurate research either.
You’re quite right!
I strongly suspect Senator Conroy has been told the ‘net filter must be implemented No Matter What. This would explain why he’s carefully ignoring all the public feedback on the thing and keeps proclaiming it as the next best thing since sliced bread, telling us it’ll wash our whites whiter, make the colours brighter, beat as it sweeps as it cleans, and get all the weeds out of the lawn. It also explains why he strongly resembles the marketing manager tasked with selling something unnecessary to someone who doesn’t want to buy it in the first place.