"Banning" something on the Internet is virtually impossible, and in fact, only draws more attention to the offensive items and encourages copycats. Firstly, YouTube is still easily accessible from Thailand via proxy servers and anonymisers, so people can still reach it or any other website the government has tried to block. (I've noticed that they have tried to block access to most of the popular proxy servers too. However, it's impossible to block access to them all.)

Secondly, there are plenty of other video/photo-sharing websites out there, including Revver, Google Video, iFilm, Flickr and MySpace. Does the minister plan to block access to every website that hosts these offensive videos? If so, then he is essentially ceding authority to misanthropes and juvenile delinquents. Now these immature people know that they can "control" what Thai people can or cannot see by simply using an offensive video or photo to goad the government into blocking access to that website. What's next? Will everyone in Thailand suddenly lose access to Google or MySpace just because some lone idiot uses one of those websites to post something offensive?

On the Internet, we call this type of person a "troll", because he gets a thrill out of annoying or offending people. The more attention trolls get, the more aggressive and numerous they become. The Thai government has let every troll in the world know that they can be goaded into overreacting. What spoiled 14-year-old American brat could resist the "thrill" of getting some faraway government to ban an entire website? It's the ultimate "denial of service" attack (in hacker-speak), and sure enough, several more copycat videos have already appeared on YouTube and more are certain to come.

The people who control the Internet in this country have a lot to learn about it, and the first thing they should learn is that if they have a particular "button" they don't want people to push, the last thing they should do is paint big red arrows around it and put up a sign saying, "Don't push this button!"

Blocking a very popular website was a big mistake. Trolls crave attention (don't feed the troll), and so things like this are best dealt with quietly. Unfortunately, we now have CNN reporting on this matter - which is a worst-case scenario because now every troll in the world knows exactly how to goad the Thai government. While the offensive video posted on YouTube was certainly very hurtful to Thai people, it was only one video out of millions posted on that site, and probably would have languished in obscurity were it not for Sitthichai's heavy-handed overreaction.

What he fails to understand is that many people on the Internet actually enjoy offending other people, and that the best way to deal with these "trolls" is to ignore them.

George Carroll

Bangkok

--------------------------------

Censorship attempt has only drawn greater attention

 Re: "More Internet blocks are needed to protect Thai people", Letters, April 7.

Klai Muk's view just goes to show how far apart Thai and First World culture really is. Almost 10 years ago the US Supreme Court declared: "The Internet is a free speech zone, deserving of at least as much First Amendment protection as that afforded to books, newspapers and magazines." "The government," the court said, "can no more restrict a person's access to words or images on the Internet than it could be allowed to snatch a book out of a reader's hands in a library."

Not so Thailand. Since the military took power last September, it has banned websites, instructed the media to minimise reporting about Thaksin and has at times blacked out broadcasts of international news channels like CNN.

Although it was indeed a perversely disrespectful and ugly post on YouTube, your Opinion piece ("Principle of freedom of expression works both ways", April 7) also asks that people take responsibility for the claims they make in the guise of freedom of expression. Who, in their right mind, would ever admit to this defamation?

You cannot censor the Internet and you cannot blame Google for "not assisting in implementing censorship" to remove the video clip; all that would have happened is that as soon as this highly controversial post was removed it would be posted again. And again.

The problem now is that it has received worldwide publicity, with all the international news channels talking about it. This means it will be viewed by millions, rather than the 16,000 times it is reported to have been viewed already, if Google decides to leave it there.

In the world of the Internet, censorship is a non-starter. Thailand really has to wake up and realise that they live in a world that is not controlled by localised diktat.

Sucatash

Bangkok

---------------------------------------

Offensive clip may in fact be a message to Thai citizens

 Amid all the controversy over the recent "lese majeste" video posted by a YouTube user from America, has anyone stopped to consider the message of the video content? Everyone has just jumped to the conclusion that the clip was intended to insult Thais, when perhaps it was intended to wake up the Thai people to the plethora of schisms that are destroying this once peaceful and pleasant country. Perhaps the poster of the clip was saying, "Hey, Thai people, wake up! Look what you're doing to the image of your king."

Maybe the message is that by allowing corruption to rule this country and leaders to rob the country of billions of dollars, by allowing religious violence to continue unabated, by allowing teenage gang violence and rape to remain at one of the highest levels in the world, by allowing alcohol to continue to be consumed at alarming levels, by allowing prostitution to remain a multimillion-dollar business, by allowing gambling to continually destroy the fabric of family values, and by allowing military leaders to continue to tell us what we can think and what we cannot, Thailand has completely forgotten the very basic Buddhist precepts the Kingdom was based on. By allowing this to happen, we are all stepping on the wisdom and greatness of the monarchy here.

KJ Rosser

Bangkok

--------------------------------------------

Childish reaction or attempt to be seen as a new N Korea?

 I think the blocking of YouTube is a childish way of dealing with the problem. I do understand that the video clip mocking His Majesty the King is a bad thing, but there are other ways to solve this problem.

Instead of blocking the whole site they should have tried to block that particular video or the user who posted it (or catch him or her - it's not difficult to find someone through their IP address). Due to the government's awkward actions the video gained popularity and the only result was upsetting the users of YouTube in Thailand. It was not a civilised way to tackle the problem. The Thai government, in saying like little children that Google did not agree to its request and is bad, shows that they are bad diplomats.

YouTube is a wonderful site with exclusive videos and documentaries. I am a farang and I enjoyed watching news reports about my home country. There are thousands of other users in the same situation.

Thailand's image is getting worse and worse and introducing censorship in this childish way is quite ridiculous. I don't understand what is the government's purpose. To be compared with communist China or, even worse, North Korea?

Not long ago I was fascinated by Thailand; now I'm getting disappointed to see the government, instead solving the major problems, playing childish censorship games.

Victor

Bangkok

------------------------------------------

Websites need to have some level of editorial standards

 The suggestion that Google and its YouTube website are championing free speech is laughable. The Internet company is driven more by commercial consideration, and the so-called media watchdogs should know better.

I remember the time when both Google and Yahoo shamefully caved in to the Chinese authorities and removed "offensive" materials from their sites. Well, China is a huge market; it is not in the best interest of Google to undermine the Chinese government.

YouTube's Julie Supun insists she has no problem ridiculing US President George Bush - I suggest that she put up a video clip of herself burning an American flag and see what the reaction from her fellow Americans will be. Only recently, a Danish cartoonist ignited worldwide protests and riots because of his lack of understanding of other people's culture and belief.

Information technology experts say new media like the Internet are a challenge for governments bent on censorship. Absolutely. It is because many Internet publishers do not follow any decent editorial guidelines as adopted by mainstream conventional media organisations.

The controversial clips posted on YouTube were at best bad taste. Mocking the sovereign of a foreign country in such a demeaning manner is not the way to express political opinion in a civilised society. It reflects the editorial standard of the publisher.

Somchai Suwanban

Essex, England

---------------------------------------

Education, not censorship, is correct approach to problem

 Re: "More Internet blocks are needed to protect Thai people", Letters, April 7.

I strongly suspect that "Khai Muk" is the one with no education if he or she seriously promotes censorship as the way to solve any problem.

It would be better to educate people from a young age about the dangers and problems that come with a medium like the Internet. Censorship is not only the wrong way, it's also a complete useless measure as it can be easily outsmarted even by ordinary Internet users.

Apart from that, the people at the ICT Ministry have once again proved their incompetence since, as of 12.16pm on Saturday, YouTube was freely available without the use of a proxy server through DTAC's network using a smart phone with a GPRS connection.

SB

Bangkok