|
Post by Black Dragon on Jun 8, 2006 22:40:19 GMT -5
Hey all, I am not typically a very political minded person, but for this topic, I have to make an exception. *Begin Political rant* The idea of Network Neutrality is basically how the net is right now where the user chooses what they want to see. However, there is legislation in the House and soon in the Senate that the Telcos and Cable companies want that will make it so that these companies will get to decide what is available on the internet by having the content providers pay for the privelege of being allowed on there systems. You can find more info through the links below: Google Videoswww.savetheinternet.comWikipedia entry on Net NeutralityWashington Post article by Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney about Net NeutralityThis is scary that this may go through and fundamentally change the entire landscape of the internet as we all know it. *End political ranting*
|
|
|
Post by Indagatrix on Jun 9, 2006 7:47:16 GMT -5
I've been trying to spread the word about this in the library realm as well -- could have a massive impact across the board...
|
|
|
Post by Quintare on Jun 9, 2006 8:22:16 GMT -5
It's almost eerie how far below the radar this issue is flying. A few articles have been written perhaps, but nothing headline. A lot of people are bringing it up around the 'net, but I don't see a ton of debate over it. I think people on the net that hear about it either don't believe it's possible, or else don't believe their representatives would let it happen. I've even heard a couple of people say 'oh well, if they do that then people will just find another way to connect'. :blink: Oh, so like yay for you being telepathic and all, but as for me... I need some kind of cable or wire or something to bring signal into my house! Am I going to have to purchase a sattellite dish and pay by the megabit for my bandwith just so I have the ability to view content I probably don't want anyway? I like to be able to search through 100 million idiots blogging on the 'Net but I doubt I'd pay for it, and that's what this means. Anyway you slice it, it's the end consumer that foots the bill.
|
|
|
Post by Eldarion on Jun 9, 2006 8:42:23 GMT -5
Here's another one to watch out for that could potentially redefine the meaning of "fair use" in copyright law. I for one do not welcome our new DRMing, copy-protecting, obtrusive licensing, privacy invading overlords.
|
|
|
Post by kelkhil on Jun 9, 2006 9:51:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Black Dragon on Jun 9, 2006 10:02:17 GMT -5
actually, from the end of that article, I think that is bad.
|
|
|
Post by Aeron Serabien on Jun 9, 2006 10:12:33 GMT -5
Exactly. A GOOD bill to preserve network neutrality was shut down.
|
|
|
Post by kelkhil on Jun 9, 2006 10:41:12 GMT -5
There are parts that are good but there are also parts that are bad for people and the Internet itself.
"Net Neutrality would reverse Congress’ policy of leaving the Internet unregulated – a policy that has been a success and encouraged billions of dollars in investment.
Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. There is no evidence that broadband and network operators have engaged in discriminatory treatment of ANY content provider. Net Neutrality would force consumers to pick up ALL of the costs of upgrading networks, raising broadband prices for everyone. "
It will spike costs acrost the country. If you think that yje cost is high now if this was passed ISPs would have to increase the price for less service to cover the new costs involved with this. (Of course not for me. I work for Charter Communications). I think that it started out as a good Idea but then the the people with "the power" decided to add more to it and it became a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by ren on Jul 19, 2006 10:26:16 GMT -5
I thought this issue came up due to some providers considering a sort of VPN internet service for large corporations and businesses. It wasn't the ISPs though. This service would be offered by the companies that acutally maintain the internet communication lines (telephone, cable and fibre-optic.) They don't really make a lot of money relative to the ISPs right now, but they are integral to keeping the internet running. So by constructing specialized internet pathways, companies can rent bandwidth on them for an additional price, but with almost no internet traffic and less worry about security.
|
|
|
Post by Black Dragon on Jul 20, 2006 11:14:39 GMT -5
A funny video from the Daily Show regarding the speech by Alaskan Senator Ted Stavens about how the internet works and why Google and others are evil and why we don't need Net Neutrality.\ quite funny
|
|
|
Post by bainsoulsmite on Jul 21, 2006 8:09:26 GMT -5
A funny video from the Daily Show regarding the speech by Alaskan Senator Ted Stavens about how the internet works and why Google and others are evil and why we don't need Net Neutrality.\ quite funnyToo Funny
|
|
|
Post by Indagatrix on Jul 21, 2006 8:20:05 GMT -5
They have a follow up to it (from the 19th) here -- funny!
|
|
|
Post by Sollo on Jul 21, 2006 8:33:43 GMT -5
They have a follow up to it (from the 19th) here -- funny! That's a riot. I like that dudes sense of humor...
|
|
|
Post by Eldarion on Dec 12, 2006 11:42:03 GMT -5
From a Slashdot story, linking to a story at CNet: "Senator John McCain has proposed a bill to extend federal obscenity reporting guidelines to all forms of internet communications. Those who fail to report according to guidelines could face fines of up to $300,000 for unreported posts to a blog or mailing list. The EFF was quick to slam the proposal, saying that this was the very definition of 'slippery slope', and citing the idea of 'personal common carrier'." politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/12/1344233&from=rssnews.com.com/SenatorIllegalimagesmustbereported/2100-1028_3-6142332.html?tag=nefd.ledeISPs have to do this sort of thing now, but this would expand the responsibility to individual webmasters, forum moderators, bloggers, etc. McCain also wants to maintain a list of IM handles and email addresses used by sex offenders. Heaven help you if someone makes a typo and your IM handle ends up on that list...
|
|
|
Post by Fate on Dec 12, 2006 15:41:21 GMT -5
I understand how we are scared of losing the freedom of the internet, but something has got to be done. My kids will soon be roaming the internet and even with net nanny and such, it should be harder for them to get a hold of this stuff until they are at least 18. I don't think that a click here if you are 18 is going to stop them. And if that means I never get to see porn on the web to keep it out of the hands of my kids, then so be it. Of course it not just porn but also radical dangerous ideas, hate groups, etc. To tell you the truth I have not encouraged the kids to go on the internet however I see that changing as soon as my son is asked for his email or im id by a girl at school. It would all be so easy if everybody in the world would just do the right thing. I'm not saying this is the right thing but something needs to be done.
Just read the CNET one. This is aimed at Child Porn. I have no problem with moderators having to report any child porn posted in their forums.
|
|
|
Post by Quintare on Dec 13, 2006 2:01:52 GMT -5
The net nanny that I use at home blocks even stuff such as nickelodeon.com and noggin.com until you push the settings up to 'teenager' level, at which time it blocks next to nothing.
My twins are 5 and use the computer daily. My son is 8 and uses the computer whenever he hasnt' had his privilege revoked (my problem child). So instead of a block list we maintain an allow list and if we haven't looked at it first, they don't go there. Given that my son has already (twice) stolen his mother's credit card to subscribe to something on the 'Net, I expect it's going to stay that way for a long long long time.
However, it's still my option and my responsibility to monitor and control what my kids have access to. If they get under the kitchen sink and drink a bottle of glass cleaner it's my fault for not having secured the poison better. Should I sue Windex for not putting the stuff in a child-safe container? Should the government forbid Windex from being sold because my kid might think it's Kool Aid?
I don't think so. Similarly I think that it's not the government's to job filter my internet content for me, even if it's for the sake of my kids.
Another thought that occurs to me on the issue of having moderators responsible for reporting child pornography is just what exactly IS this stuff, who defines it, who educates the moderators on what is acceptable and what is not. Who is responsible for doing a 'reality check' on all the posts that are reported? Lets say someone comes to my forum and posts a link to a hentai site. Is this really porn? Is it child porn if the subject appears to be a minor? What if it's not porn in Mexico and it's posted by a Mexican. Do I have to remove it because I have the ability to and also live in the US? Do I have to report this mexican citizen to the US government so they can put him on whatever ban list they've formulated? If I don't report this guy do I have to pay 300,000 dollars? Can I pay it in Pesos? What if my forum is unmoderated? Or its posted in a section of my forum which is not moderated? What if I just take it down and don't report the guy? What if some third party sees and is offended by the content and reports me for not reporting it before I even have a chance ro report it? Do I then have to defend myself in court against the $300000 fine?
|
|
|
Post by Sollo on Dec 13, 2006 8:12:16 GMT -5
As long as the internet is international and each nation has its own laws, the internet will not be moderated. Our government can try to put laws into place but that will just send the criminals to servers in countries that don't have such laws. Case in Point: Lagos Nigeria is a haven for internet scammers. Criminals there can't be prosecuted or extradited so that's where you find them.
Personally, I believe that if someone is actually doing something illegal they should go to jail. If you are a US Citizen and post/posses child porn as defined by US law, then absolutely someone should go to jail. But they really are wasting their time if they think they are going to censure the internet itself.
|
|
|
Post by Fate on Dec 13, 2006 8:47:22 GMT -5
However, it's still my option and my responsibility to monitor and control what my kids have access to. If they get under the kitchen sink and drink a bottle of glass cleaner it's my fault for not having secured the poison better. Should I sue Windex for not putting the stuff in a child-safe container? Should the government forbid Windex from being sold because my kid might think it's Kool Aid? No but their are child safety caps on childrens aspirin. vitamins, and cough syrup. Because they taste good and windex doesn't. And because mistakes happen and your giving your child cough medicine at 2:00 in the morning and your too sleepy so you forget to putthe bottle back in the cabinet out of his reach. Also your child will not always be in your house. So now he goes over to Uncle Larry's or to his friend Steves house. Maybe Steve's parents have different standards that you. They think streaming porn is okay. Porn cartoons are okay. Who know what else? Or Steve is smart enough to get around their parental controls? God knows if this had happen when I was a teenager, my parents wouldn't have had a clue and I would have had every hack on the computer to prevent them from controling what I see. As far as servers in other countries, I think it is just a matter of time before they get banned from connectivity in the US. Firewall them out. Lets face it guys. The internet is a good thing. However their are a lot of evil things on it and a lot of evil people oput there. Quint I agree with you whole heartidly that the parents should be monitoring their kids. I also beleive that theri should be responsiblitly at all levels on this. I mean we all hate censorship but I think we can all agree that we don't want Deep Throat played on the air by some local TV station cause they can make a buck off of it. If only people were reasonable and good we wouldn't need locks on our houses or police or armies. But unfortunately we do. And idealistic ideas are good you just can't build a working world on them.
|
|
|
Post by Quintare on Jan 9, 2007 0:18:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Indagatrix on Jan 9, 2007 16:57:19 GMT -5
I believe all things The Corporation tells me. The Corporation is my frieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeend.
|
|