The campaign to prevent the mandatory internet filter in Australia has been like no other campaign before it. Though the subject matter naturally lends itself to the type of campaign we're witnessing - and participating in as never before - it also offers a fascinating glimpse into the way more mainstream campaigns will be run in the future. We are witnessing what may come to be seen as the beginnings of open source government in this country.

Twitter - now among the 100 most visited sites on the internet - has been one of the primary conduits for these conversations. Such is the power of this medium that even with mainstream media focus squarely on stimulus packages and savage bushfires, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy's announcement was met with an immediate response. The interwebs never sleep.

Senator Conroy is trapped by something akin to a virtual hydra - every time he "responds" to one piece of criticism, numerous other more refined, more powerful and more targeted arguments arise from all sides.

Perhaps as a result of this, perhaps just purely by coincidence, the minister recently revealed the first six internet service providers selected to trial the filter.

The three largest ISPs in Australia are conspicuously absent from the list. Of particular interest is iiNet, the company that declared their intent to participate in the trial, "to make sure the public, media and political players are well informed and realise that it is bad policy".

Surely if the minister has confidence in the system - if he genuinely believes that the technical concerns raised can somehow be addressed - then it stands to reason that he'd welcome such intense scrutiny as an opportunity to silence detractors. Alternatively, if he wishes to improve the system, then the feedback provided by a dedicated and highly tech-literate naysayer would be invaluable.

The ISPs selected are for the most part business providers. This could be taken to suggest that this trial is an opportunistic attempt to salvage some credibility by the Government. They could proclaim 'success' without ever testing the filter in a scenario remotely typical of the circumstances it is designed for.

Notably, these enterprise-focussed ISPs are very unlikely to be used by many of the more vocal opponents of this scheme, and thus the Government can mask the deficiencies a little while longer. Some critics are attempting to acquire the services of one of the nominated ISPs, to experience first-hand the impacts - such as speed degradation and "false positives" which the system will almost certainly deliver.

The diversity of people campaigning on this issue has meant that every one of the numerous flaws of this proposal has been exposed - from the numerous technical shortcomings highlighted by a range of experts in the field, to the dubious and perennially secret contents of the expanding ACMA blacklist, from the assault on free speech that the filter represents, to the ineffectiveness of such a system in addressing genuine and valid concerns about internet safety.

With one unified voice this campaign polyglot has resoundingly denounced the mandatory internet filter. They have also, universally, condemned Senator Conroy and his few supporters for their attempts to equate critics with advocates of child pornography.

But most encouraging of all is the agreement that concerns about internet safety are absolutely justified, and warrant concerted action. And therein hopefully lies the next stage of the debate. We're all in vociferous agreement about what won't work. But what will? Can this enormously empowered campaign speak with one cogent voice about what we're for?

How do we empower parents to make the best choices for their families, and law enforcement agencies to prosecute the creators and distributors of the worst material trafficked over the internet?

Is there a way to adequately prepare children to understand other threats such as cyber-bullying, without asphyxiating the greatest information sharing tool in history?

Can we directly challenge the epidemic of sexualised violence against women and children in this country and place the online tip of the iceberg into its proper context?

I believe that most people involved in this debate - including, I suspect, many in the Government - would rather see these issues tackled head-on than pursuing the disturbing and expensive distraction of internet censorship.

Senator Scott Ludlam is the Greens' spokesperson for broadband, communications and the digital economy