aramoro wrote:Well, because he's an Elected official of the party. If someone with Party Governor next to their name says , the pirate party proxy should do X. As a reader am I to simply know that a Governor has no authority? How do I know this exactly?
Ah, I see a bit of ambiguous phrasing on my part has caused a page of arguments. Perhaps it should have said "will" rather than "should"; the usage rules of will/shall still confuse me, something to do with first person vs second or third person. Plus I use the passive voice too much. Anyway, the intended meaning of my statement could be clarified as so:
Duke wrote:I think the tech people are currently working on a generic proxy, that will work on any website. So I think the child/violent porn and bestiality stuff, and even BNP-related materials
shouldwill be available through that if it works the way I think it will, if the executive decide to set it up, and if they exist on the web already.
As for the authority of Governors, you could have a look at the Constitution
or the Board's wiki page
, which make it fairly clear that the Board is "responsible for proposing amendments to the Party's constitution and is also the final body of arbitration, appeal, and discipline for the Party", neither of which have a direct role in executive function of the Party unless some sort of complaint is lodged.
Duke wrote:I don't know about other people here but, personally, I prefer the idea that certain types of information should be available and uncensored until there is a reasonable level of evidence indicating it is harmful enough (in some way) that censoring it is proportionate. That's also pretty much what Article 10 ECHR says, for anyone interested.
I'm glad to see that no one managed to mistake *this* part for an official Party line... perhaps I should add this level of qualification to everything I say.
As for the terror of circumventing the IWF blocklist, aside from the easy way of circumventing them (such as using Google Translate), bear in mind that it is an entirely voluntary list (at the ISP level), and doesn't cover about 5% of commercial internet connections in the country, nor any number of academic or other non-commercial connections. Due to it being more of a political stunt than a sensible tool, my impression is that even the IWF aren't that keen on it, and they do seem to push the idea that they see their reporting role as far more important.
Given that, I think, personally, in my own opinion, as just a random person, not in any official capacity as a Governor, policy advisor, former press officer etc., that setting up a generic proxy that was not subject to the IWF list (or any other ISP-level filtering) would send a clear message that this Party is serious about opposing web-blocking, in more than just a press-releasing way. It might open up the debate on the IWF blocklist again, which is something that, personally, in my own opinion, I think is needed.