UK Report Blames The Internet For Terrorism, Says ISPs Should Take Down Contentby Mike Masnick
Feb. 08, 2012
Christian Refugee Returns to Syria: 'I Was Scared When I Saw How Many Refugees Openly Pledged to ISIS'
California: Woman Fakes Car Trouble, Has Armed Kids Rob Good Samaritan Who Stopped to Help
Orban: 'The Youth of Western Europe Will Live to See When They Become a Minority in Their Own Country And Lose the Only Place in the World to Call Home'
GOP Says Voting Machines 'Miscalibrated' in District Lamb Won, Saccone Votes Switched to Lamb
Sweden: 65yo Woman Charged After Saying Mass Immigration Will Lead to 'Goldfish Level' IQs
It appears that technologically clueless, reactionary politicians blaming the internet for terrorism and demanding ways to censor content are not just limited to US Senators named Lieberman. Nope, it appears that some elected officials over in the UK have similarly allergic reactions to the internet. The Home Affairs Committee in the UK Parliament has released this fear mongering report about how the internet is somehow radicalizing the youth into being terrorists, and how ISPs need to pull down content.
All of these reports seem to assume that because some kids used the internet to learn about terrorism, that it's the internet's fault they became terrorists. There's no thought to the idea that these disenfranchised kids were likely to seek out whatever way they could to join a terrorism organization. That would involve actually understanding the root causes of terrorism, though, and it's much, much easier to just point a finger and blame the internet. Of course, since it appears these luddites don't understand the internet at all, it's no surprise that they confused ISPs with hosting companies -- and demanded that the ISPs "take down" content, when the only thing they really could do would be to block content. Hosting companies would be able to remove it. David Meyer, the ZDnet UK reporter who wrote the story linked above, asked a spokesperson for the committee to explain this rather glaring error, and the person "was unable to explain." That should tell you just about everything you need to know about this report, and it should be laughed out of any further discussion should it ever be brought up again.