Last Shabbos, I heard the story of a man who couldn't understand why the Daf Yomi's Siyyum haShas (celebration of completing a cycle of daily Talmud study) wasn't happening until August; he was done already! What was taking the rest of us so long?
Upon further exploration, the problem became clear: He was learning over the Internet, and his filter had erased half of Masechet Niddah…
More seriously, though, a month after the much-ballyhooed and much-maligned New York "Asifa" regarding the Internet, I'm still hearing about it. Many comments are thoughtful, pointing out the positives and negatives of this gathering. But I've heard quite a bit from people who ridicule the whole idea of the gathering as Luddite, benighted, medieval.
For the record, then:
1. I believe the Internet is a tremendous force for good. From on-line libraries like Hebrewbooks.org, to listservs dedicated to Torah discussion, to websites organizing tzedakah and chesed, the Internet can be our third arm or second brain, enabling us to fulfill our mission as Jews and human beings.
2. I use a filter on my laptop. I think that everyone should use filters, both on computers which are accessible to children and on computers which are used only by adults.
It's common sense, not religious paranoia. Why on earth would I want to empower vendors to determine what goes into my brain, and webmasters to serve as curators of my mind? Why on earth would I want to look at things that I know will distract me from that mission of Jew and human being? Why would I want to look at things the erudite Talmud, worldly Rambam and dispositive Shulchan Aruch prohibit? I can be a broad, informed, connected person without being exposed to every website.
A filter doesn't limit personal freedom - I can edit my 'whitelist' of acceptable websites and referrers as I choose - but it ensures that I think about what I am going to see, and it serves as a helpful reminder of the person I am and the person I wish to become.
My current model is a simple whitelist filter, a modified version of the general-audience Privoxy filter; you can get it here. [You can laugh all you like at the fact that I am using a filter found on Hareidi.org, but you should know that they also offer an on-line JPS translation of Tanach here.]
Yes, it was time-consuming at first to add all of the sites I use. (Complaint: The Rebbetzin's Husband was not on the pre-loaded whitelist. On the other hand, The Muqata and The Renegade Rebbetzin were there – is there a message in this?). And yes, my customized whitelist is probably a bit broader than those of most people who use filters. But it's still worth it.
Why? Because pretending that I am not a human being, with human distractability and human desire, would be silly. It's common sense.
Yes, filters are inadequate; I've tried different versions over the years, and I know that there is no substitute for 1) self control, 2) study of Torah and mussar and 3) the presence of other people around me.
I also know that the filter is only as good as my commitment not to disable it at any given moment.
Nonetheless, its presence is a reminder that I am vulnerable, and that I need to be smart about what I do. Really, who could argue with that?
3. I understand very well why some would ban the Net entirely; that is not my path, but I certainly wouldn't denigrate it. I don't know that my path of filtering is any more correct than theirs, and I would be suspicious of anyone arrogant enough to claim the Correct Path. What I do believe is this: We will be a much stronger nation when we sit down together to discuss these concerns, develop solutions, and pursue our mission together.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Some filtering schemes depend on the use of internet service providers who do the filtration. Whoever uses one of these should find out ahead of time whether their filtration is strictly for sexually offensive content, or whether other content is also blocked. That other blocked content just might include Jewishly acceptable ideas or sites that the ISP or its circle of sponsors don't like.
ReplyDeleteA very honest post. Accepting that we are human is something that we all need to do
ReplyDeleteI liked the concept I heard around the time of the asaifa that rather than banning we should stive not to have "yichud" with a computer with internet connection.
ReplyDeleteBob-
ReplyDeleteTrue; I prefer the filter on my end for that reason, although I can see where others might want to have less personal control.
Neil-
Thanks! I will always aim for honesty.
Thoughtful-
Indeed.
That was a really lovely meditation on being human and vulnerable and capable of making decisions.
ReplyDelete"Why on earth would I want to empower vendors to determine what goes into my brain, and webmasters to serve as curators of my mind?"
ReplyDeleteYou wouldn't. I wouldn't. But despite how beautifully you've written this passage, electing not to use a filter absolutely does not constitute giving anyone the kind of power of which you speak above. Yes, there is a tremendous amount of trash on the Net, but an affirmative decision on the part of each individual user to seek it out is required in order to see any of it: i.e. clicking a link, entering a URL into a browser's address bar, using a search engine to find it.
I see how filtering would fit in with the "put a fence around it" philosophy, and that's an entirely reasonable decision for someone to make, but it's a mistake to assume that those who choose otherwise are relinquishing control over what they see.
Maya-
ReplyDeleteThank you very much.
bratschegirl-
I understand what you are saying, but I am thinking of specific circumstances which I suspect you are not. Two examples:
1. Ads loaded on a sidebar - which are blocked by a whitelist, because they are hosted on a separate server
2. Links from news articles or twitter feeds which are bit.ly or t.co shortened, so that you don't know where you are going until you are there - but which a filter will ask you about, letting you know where you are going.
When people click on a hyperlink, they are often surprised by what shows up. Some links aren't well-described in the text they're part of.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, let's be clear that almost everyone has a filter of some sort. The default setting on Windows and Firefox for instance blocks certain sites, and people put adblockers on. So if holy is equivalent to having a filter, and non-holy is equivalent to not having a filter, just about everyone is holy.
ReplyDeleteAs for the feel good closing line, "We will be a much stronger nation when we sit down together to discuss these concerns, develop solutions, and pursue our mission together. ", that's a lovely sentiment but the Citi Field hafganah was anything but the achdus event it marketed itself as. It was a hafganah by the torah true for the torah true to give chizuk to sincere individuals who want to do the right thing but who unfortunately are pawns of the askanim.
But once again rabbis are using code words. "Filter" to a rabbi probably means filtering out sites with hashkfafot they don't approve of, hence the opening post noted certain sites blocked.
As for white filters, well and good, but hardly practical when kids have to do homework and assignments.
Really the point of filters is to prevent inadvertently stumbling on a problematic site. It does absolutely nothing to prevent someone who wants to go on a particular site. It is a false sense of security. It is more annoying than effective.
As for the anti-internet hafganah in Citi Field, even before it happened I knew it would be the useless counter productive PR disaster it was. And are all these chareidim really watching porn all day, and hence the need for the hafganah? Or is the issue actually the Korach bloggers that R. Avi Shafran so excoriates?
One thing I was wrong about though. I thought that this hafganah wouldn't affect me and it wouldn't have a trickle down effect. The torah true have effectively imposed their shtick on everyone else by having broccoli banned, or strawberries, or quinoa on pesach. But I thought to myself, the Internet is here to stay. And it isn't something the rabbinic orthodox power structure can do anything about when it is in the privacy of my own home. The rabbis have lost this battle even before it starts. But posts like this make me realize I was wrong, that the Right Wing are taking ownership of this issue and the dialogue, and less RW rabbis are getting into this as well. There indeed is, unfortunately, a trickle down effect.
As noted in the opening post, even in the secular world there is growing internet safety awareness. But like everything else, the Orthodox take messages and values from the outside world and pretend they invented the concept.
The Internet is like everything else. The telephone is a vehicle for lashon hara. But I can't help but think what is behind all this is the rabbis simply want to control access to knowledge since knowledge is power. Plus obviously they want their followers reading critiques.
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteI get the sense that these are just ramblings, since they have nothing to do with the post. Nonetheless:
You wrote:
First of all, let's be clear that almost everyone has a filter of some sort... So if holy is equivalent to having a filter, and non-holy is equivalent to not having a filter, just about everyone is holy.
I'm not clear on why filter = holiness. Was that in my post?
You wrote:
As for the feel good closing line, "We will be a much stronger nation when we sit down together to discuss these concerns, develop solutions, and pursue our mission together. ", that's a lovely sentiment but the Citi Field hafganah was anything but the achdus event it marketed itself as.
Did I write anything about the hafganah being for achdus in my post?
You wrote:
But once again rabbis are using code words. "Filter" to a rabbi probably means filtering out sites with hashkfafot they don't approve of, hence the opening post noted certain sites blocked.
Did I mention anything about how to choose which sites to block in my post? Have I recommended anything?
You wrote:
As for white filters, well and good, but hardly practical when kids have to do homework and assignments.
Did I talk about kids at all in my post? I specified my own computer.
You wrote:
Really the point of filters is to prevent inadvertently stumbling on a problematic site. It does absolutely nothing to prevent someone who wants to go on a particular site. It is a false sense of security. It is more annoying than effective.
I believe that having a reminder isn't a bad thing. I seem to recall something like that regarding tzitzis, yarmulka and certain elements of muktzeh, too. Do you find those useless?
You wrote:
[A]re all these chareidim really watching porn all day, and hence the need for the hafganah? Or is the issue actually the Korach bloggers that R. Avi Shafran so excoriates?
Again: Is there anything in my post about the hafganah?
You wrote:
One thing I was wrong about though. I thought that this hafganah wouldn't affect me and it wouldn't have a trickle down effect... But posts like this make me realize I was wrong, that the Right Wing are taking ownership of this issue and the dialogue, and less RW rabbis are getting into this as well. There indeed is, unfortunately, a trickle down effect.
Getting into what, exactly?
You wrote:
As noted in the opening post, even in the secular world there is growing internet safety awareness. But like everything else, the Orthodox take messages and values from the outside world and pretend they invented the concept.
Where? Again – not in this post, which called it common sense?
You wrote:
The Internet is like everything else. The telephone is a vehicle for lashon hara. But I can't help but think what is behind all this is the rabbis simply want to control access to knowledge since knowledge is power. Plus obviously they want their followers reading critiques.
I assume you meant "don't want". But in any case – again, this doesn't reflect anything in the post on which you are commenting.
Yes, I think your comment was just venting. Maybe a couple of rounds with a heavy bag, or a long run, would do you good?
Ads loaded on a sidebar are actually far more determined by what the ad server "sees" on the viewer's computer, i.e. cookies from sites you've visited, than by the content of the site hosting the ads. Different viewers of the same page, on the same site, at the same moment, in other words, will see different ads. The second issue can be resolved by only following links from trusted sources. And yes, those trusted sources can be hacked, but it's almost always obvious from 50 paces when that's happened.
ReplyDeleteIf one finds the extra layer of a filter a useful reminder, the way tzitzis/kippah etc. serve, then fine. As I said, it's an entirely reasonable personal choice. But I still maintain that deciding to be filter-free is absolutely not the same thing as handing over control of what you see to some scary faceless other.
Now that you're an expat, do you still celebrate the 4th? Or have you switched over to Canada Day? In any case, happy whatever!
Bratschegirl-
DeleteRe: Ads - On more sophisticated sites, yes. But not on simpler ones.
Re: Links - Using only trusted sources will limit you far more than a filter...
I celebrate July 1 and July 4 now; I may be confused, but I know a good party when I see one!