Election 2012

[classicman]

Originally Posted by BigV

Why must those computers have a needless filter for non existent children?

Hmm. So what you are saying is that every program pre-installed on a computer is applicable to every consumer?
Don't want it? Don't turn it on. As for the work computers, I'd bet that it would be cheaper than each company having to install their own, no?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by classicman

Hmm. So what you are saying is that every program pre-installed on a computer is applicable to every consumer?
Don't want it? Don't turn it on. As for the work computers, I'd bet that it would be cheaper than each company having to install their own, no?

Why is Romney saying this?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by classicman

Hmm.

We agree. Hmm.

Originally Posted by classicman

So what you are saying is that every program pre-installed on a computer is applicable to every consumer?

I don't know where you're getting that, I didn't say that, I'm not saying that. My question is what is the government's compelling interest in having "pornography filters" installed on every computer sold in America? We have lots of regulations, usually in the public interest, like public safety or public health. Seatbelts come to mind. You can't buy a new car without them. Of course, you don't have to use them, though not using them is usually a violation of the law. And only stupid people continue to argue that NOT wearing them is a good idea.

Originally Posted by classicman

Don't want it? Don't turn it on.

What I don't want is the government deciding what I can access on my computer. Let's follow your preinstalled but unused idea. For the children, of course. Why not include child seats preinstalled on every new car sold in America? I'm giving you a huge advantage here because the evidence for the efficacy of child seats is infinitely better than the evidence of the efficacy of pornography filters. It's a dumb argument.

Originally Posted by classicman

As for the work computers, I'd bet that it would be cheaper than each company having to install their own, no?

Cheaper for who? The company that makes the software that will now have to give it away? Or... cheaper for the company that's buying the computer with some software preinstalled? Who pays for the software? Is it free? If it's free then it's already free, why not just let people get it for free?


You declined my request for your opinion as to why Romney advocated such a position. I'll tell you mine. It was just plain pandering. Playing to his audience who believes such a thing is up to the government "THERE OUGHTA BE A LAW!". That kind of audience. It's still a bullshit thing for Romney to vow. Who decides what is pornographic. Fuck. We dwellars still can't decide absolutely what's nsfw. Now we want the government deciding it? It's technically impossible, short of just making the computer like a cardboard prop Dilbert provides for his pointy haired boss.

My point is Romney's either pandering, which I find disappointing, or he's a dumbass for thinking it's actually possible, which is kinda sad, or he's a zealot, which is scary. Unless you have a more comforting explanation, I'm gonna stick with pandering, kind of a cheap corruption. "I'll trade you an empty peace of mind soundbite for the appearance of your support. I'll accept real support by those among you who actually believe my spiel."

Hmmm.