Censorware at the Marriott

[William Joyce]

Right-wing content and porno, banned.

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/09/06/censorware-at-the-marriott/

 

[mattskramer]

Right-wing content and porno, banned.

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/09/06/censorware-at-the-marriott/

(Yawn) Marriott is not the US government. As a private for-profit business, it can practically provide what it wants to provide. If it does not want customers to use its network to see right wing stuff (or left wing stuff) it does not have to do so. You are free to refuse to patronize Mariott. Go to a different hotel. If you are really annoyed by Mariott’s activity call on acquaintances to not do business with Mariott. This is such a non-issue for me.

 

[jillian]

Awwwwwwwwwww,,, waaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh

couldn't get a neo-nazi site at a marriott... bummer.

we'll all shed crocodile tears for you neo-nazis everywhere.

 

[jillian]

(Yawn) Marriott is not the US government. As a private for-profit business, it can practically provide what it wants to provide. If it does not want customers to use its network to see right wing stuff (or left wing stuff) it does not have to do so. You are free to refuse to patronize Mariott. Go to a different hotel. If you are really annoyed by Mariott’s activity call on acquaintances to not do business with Mariott. This is such a non-issue for me.

In all honesty, I'm not real big on censorship. If I had to guess, Marriott is actually being mercenary in blocking the porn sites (which is really what the protective software is for) so that people will pay per view and charge it to their rooms. It also happens to block some violent content and, as a byproduct, certain types of sites. We have only the neo-nazi whining about VDARE being blocked. But we have no idea if other sites of that nature are blocked as well. I think it's a fair bet that the person who wrote the article for VDARE wasn't looking for communist blogs.

I think it's pretty much a non-issue, too. If someone doesn't like what's available through the hotel's computer, they are free to bring their own laptop. It's not like they'd be excluded from the hotel.

I mean, heck, I don't like the fact that one can't get Nickolodeon on the TV's in the hotels at Disneyworld but can only get the Disney Channel for the kids. But such is life.

 

[William Joyce]

(Yawn) Marriott is not the US government. As a private for-profit business, it can practically provide what it wants to provide. If it does not want customers to use its network to see right wing stuff (or left wing stuff) it does not have to do so. You are free to refuse to patronize Mariott. Go to a different hotel. If you are really annoyed by Mariott’s activity call on acquaintances to not do business with Mariott.

You are right in principle, but I don't think it's this simple. First, how do you even KNOW what's being censored unless someone reports it? My decision not to do business with Marriott has to be based on available information... and this is how we get it. Second, the fact that government isn't involved does not answer the question totally. The fact is, as liberals love to point out, that some corporations and other institutions are so big and monopoly-like that you have no choice. What if your ISP blocked certain sites, and didn't let you know? How would you feel about that? Third, the government IS involved (did you read the whole thing?) - check out the Army.

 

[mattskramer]

You are right in principle, but I don't think it's this simple. First, how do you even KNOW what's being censored unless someone reports it?

If customers at hotels are so concerned about what types of sites they block, the customers should ask. There will be people who are able to access sites from one ISP or network but not from another. Those people, if so concerned, will spread the word. It is called person-to-person networking. Word gets around. Also, there are groups and clubs interested in the issue of “censorship” they have web sites and books. They also spread the word.

My decision not to do business with Marriott has to be based on available information... and this is how we get it.

Yes. I can’t argue with that. Okay. You found a web site and got the information. You even fest the need to inform us about it.

Second, the fact that government isn't involved does not answer the question totally. The fact is, as liberals love to point out, that some corporations and other institutions are so big and monopoly-like that you have no choice.

Uh. What is the question. So, some liberals say that choices are limited. I disagree. I think that there are many options and choices available.

What if your ISP blocked certain sites, and didn't let you know? How would you feel about that?

I asked my ISP about its policy. I even got a written statement from my ISP. I am satisfied with the large number of sites that I can access. I watch the news, read magazines and newspapers, and communicate in real life with friends, neighbors, relatives, classmates, and co-workers. I visit the library, and surf the Internet. If I learn of a web site that I might be interested in, I will try to get to in through my ISP. If it is blocked, I’ll ask my ISP about it. If I am dissatisfied with the reply that I am given, I will change providers. It is as simple as that. If I get suspicious I might surf to find out how to access blocked sites.

Third, the government IS involved (did you read the whole thing?) - check out the Army.

I did not see anything on that particular page about the government blocking sites. Certainly the military should be able to block sites for it soldiers on taxpayer equipment. Employers should monitor employee work and block sites that the employer disapproves of. Once the employee goes home, the employee should be free to do as he pleases. While on leave the soldier may surf through his own ISP.

 

[William Joyce]

Once again, you destroy a perfectly good thread by being relatively reasonable. Dammit!