Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I feel like every day we march closer and closer to an internet becoming nothing more than a fenced off playground. An internet that has gone from a market place of new ideas to an intelectual safe space that has been sterilized into nothing more than an interactive shopping network.
We have already seen steps taken by certain companies such as Facebook, Google, and Microsoft to track and identify everyone on the internet. Even with only a handfull of days left in office, the President of the United States of America has even called for an end to the "wild west days of the internet" which is a very concerning thing when you take into account the previous track record of those who wish to limit our personal freedom.

However, even with this in mind, people like David Cameron, Barrack Obama, and Angela Merkel have all stated that they believe that it would be in the best interest of the people to have Goverment control of the internet. Bringing up such concerns as cyberbullying and online trolls as a threat to our international security.

At what point should we be drawing the line though? What balance should we be seeking in order to ensure both sides are pleased.

While the internet is a powerful tool, and I think its day to day interactions are best left out of the government's hands, there are things the government can do without direct intervention or ownership to resolve a lot of problems. Make Facebook liable for civil suit in cases of pervasive cyberbullying. Some of that is just an unavoidable aspect of using social media, but we've seen extreme cases of hounding that have lead to suicides, and we've seen how Facebook (and other sites I'm just using them as an example) could ban the behavior. We should not pretend the internet is some ideal place where good people just exchange good ideas. There's lots of people who are just disgusting, and lots of exchanging of bad ideas too. It's always been that way.

Company's just plain shouldn't be allowed to collect and distribute identifying information without explicit permission.

Safe space is little more than a loaded term at this point. Yeah, a forum for survivors of child abuse is probably gonna ban the twit who jumps in and tells John he deserved to have his head beaten with a tire iron for dropping daddy's beer. If you jump into an off topic section and post racist gak, you can bet someone is going to call it racist gak. You can either stop posting racist gak, go to a place that loves racist gak (Stormfront will be very welcoming), or just rage quit. Don't complain to me about how you're being shouted down for having a "different opinion." If you have an opinion, there's somewhere on this information highway for you to share it without anyone disagreeing with you. Otherwise get over it. You can call the sky blue and somewhere out there is someone reading to argue with you for hours about how it's not blue, it's teal. If you're too immature to get over it do like a disgruntled Wikipedia editor and make a blog.

Also, most of the government 'intrusion' is there to preserve net neutrality. That helps to preserve the marketplace of ideas.

Perhaps you could be a little clearer about what exactly you're talking about here? Your thread title says "censorship", but you're also talking about the actions of private companies towards the users of their services.

And I'd say that the wild west wasn't all roses and sunshine, either. Your freedoms end where another's begin. But you probably know all that. So instead of making vague pronouncements, do you have specific cases that come to mind?

As for the tracking on social media, it's in the EULA. We should seriously read it before agreeing. And if we want to keep something private, we shouldn't put it on the web.

There was a case on tv the other day. A guy drugged this woman he hated, undressed her, took pictures and raped her, then published them on Facebook (just for his personal use, see?) and would sell copies of the pictures on cd. He made this whole thing about his freedoms being violated by the state, and he clearly being the victim of the feminist agenda and government overreach.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
And if we want to keep something private, we shouldn't put it on the web.

This. Whatever you put on net will be there, will be seen and is practically impossible to remove. So don't put on anything there you think you might not want somebody to see couple decades later.

Go by that and you have lot less to worry about.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:

There was a case on tv the other day. A guy drugged this woman he hated, undressed her, took pictures and raped her, then published them on Facebook (just for his personal use, see?) and would sell copies of the pictures on cd. He made this whole thing about his freedoms being violated by the state, and he clearly being the victim of the feminist agenda and government overreach.

What the feth?

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:

There was a case on tv the other day. A guy drugged this woman he hated, undressed her, took pictures and raped her, then published them on Facebook (just for his personal use, see?) and would sell copies of the pictures on cd. He made this whole thing about his freedoms being violated by the state, and he clearly being the victim of the feminist agenda and government overreach.

What the feth?

Facebook needs an opt out for this kind of posting......

 Nurgle wrote:
I feel like every day we march closer and closer to an internet becoming nothing more than a fenced off playground. An internet that has gone from a market place of new ideas to an intelectual safe space that has been sterilized into nothing more than an interactive shopping network.
We have already seen steps taken by certain companies such as Facebook, Google, and Microsoft to track and identify everyone on the internet. Even with only a handfull of days left in office, the President of the United States of America has even called for an end to the "wild west days of the internet" which is a very concerning thing when you take into account the previous track record of those who wish to limit our personal freedom.

However, even with this in mind, people like David Cameron, Barrack Obama, and Angela Merkel have all stated that they believe that it would be in the best interest of the people to have Goverment control of the internet. Bringing up such concerns as cyberbullying and online trolls as a threat to our international security.

At what point should we be drawing the line though? What balance should we be seeking in order to ensure both sides are pleased.

It was inevitable at some point. The Establishment cannot allow a venue for free exchange of anything to not have some measure of content/monetary control forever. But the internet isn't completely screwed as of yet. It'll be a while before it goes down the same sewer tubes as those of the Old Media organs.


What's really ironic in all of this is that a government giving up (mostly) exclusive management, and stewardship, of the interbutts is the biggest threat to it in it's current form. Usually, it's the other way around when it comes to government "oversight" of anything.


The control and management of the internet by IANA and U.S. Department of Commerce was what was keeping the internet a relatively free venue of ideas. With Obama surrendering control to ICANN (which plans on handing over the reins to a so-called “multistakeholder group") is troubling to say the least. Nothing may really change, but the old cynic in me has a bad feeling to the contrary.

I'm afraid I am going to have to redact most of this thread.

For science.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
It was inevitable at some point. The Establishment cannot allow a venue for free exchange of anything to not have some measure of content/monetary control forever. But the internet isn't completely screwed as of yet. It'll be a while before it goes down the same sewer tubes as those of the Old Media organs.


What's really ironic in all of this is that a government giving up (mostly) exclusive management, and stewardship, of the interbutts is the biggest threat to it in it's current form. Usually, it's the other way around when it comes to government "oversight" of anything.


The control and management of the internet by IANA and U.S. Department of Commerce was what was keeping the internet a relatively free venue of ideas. With Obama surrendering control to ICANN (which plans on handing over the reins to a so-called “multistakeholder group") is troubling to say the least. Nothing may really change, but the old cynic in me has a bad feeling to the contrary.

ICANN has been managing IANA for 2 decades.

As a side note, I don't envy the ideological pickle you find yourself in. On the one hand, something got privatized, which is always good to a conservative. On the other hand, it happened under Obama's watch. What an excruciating conundrum.

 Ouze wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
It was inevitable at some point. The Establishment cannot allow a venue for free exchange of anything to not have some measure of content/monetary control forever. But the internet isn't completely screwed as of yet. It'll be a while before it goes down the same sewer tubes as those of the Old Media organs.


What's really ironic in all of this is that a government giving up (mostly) exclusive management, and stewardship, of the interbutts is the biggest threat to it in it's current form. Usually, it's the other way around when it comes to government "oversight" of anything.


The control and management of the internet by IANA and U.S. Department of Commerce was what was keeping the internet a relatively free venue of ideas. With Obama surrendering control to ICANN (which plans on handing over the reins to a so-called “multistakeholder group") is troubling to say the least. Nothing may really change, but the old cynic in me has a bad feeling to the contrary.

ICANN has been managing IANA for 2 decades.

As a side note, I don't envy the ideological pickle you find yourself in. On the one hand, something got privatized, which is always good to a conservative. On the other hand, it happened under Obama's watch. What an excruciating conundrum.

I'm well aware that ICANN has been involved in the technical management of the internet. The issue is that ICANN will no longer be under contract to the U.S. government in that role, and the key domain name and functions will no longer be under the oversight of the NTIA (the office in the U.S. Commerce Department that oversees and manages those key domain names and functions). Instead, those key domain functions will be overseen (i.e. controlled) by a "global multistakeholder community". In other words, ICANN will no longer be bound by the First Amendment in this role (which they were as a contractor to the United States Government). And internet content will be subject to whims of a completely private entity, under the oversight of unelected bureaucrats in a vaguely labeled "global community" .


We've already seen the pressures put on social media corporations by supposed "free" countries to stifle free speech and free thought. And we've seen how nations with tight censorship, like the PRC, block domains and websites. This move could very easily see users in nations that don't regulate the 'Net in such a matter have content blocked from the Web because of the whims of nations not their own. And that doesn't jibe with me.


And, no, I'm not in some sort of "ideological pickle", as you put it. Nor am I making exceptions just "because Obama". Privatization is good to an extent.. But in this age of "public-private partnerships" between multinational corporations (where the bottom line is EVERYTHING), and censor-happy governments (particularly in Western Europe and the PRC), having the internet being completely privatized is not a good thing (especially when the protections of the U.S. Constitution are not there). You have me mistaken for a neocon, buddy. And that's not how I roll.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
In other words, ICANN will no longer be bound by the First Amendment in this role (which they were as a contractor to the United States Government).

Uh, what? Are you talking about something specific to the contract with ICANN, or are you under the mistaken belief that anyone who does business with the government must obey an imaginary version of the first amendment that has nothing to do with the real one?

And internet content will be subject to whims of a completely private entity, under the oversight of unelected bureaucrats in a vaguely labeled "global community".

{citation needed}

Do you have any evidence that anyone is going to be controlling the content of the internet (outside of police efforts to remove illegal activity), or are you simply assuming that it will happen because the US is no longer in control?

We've already seen the pressures put on social media corporations by supposed "free" countries to stifle free speech and free thought. And we've seen how nations with tight censorship, like the PRC, block domains and websites. This move could very easily see users in nations that don't regulate the 'Net in such a matter have content blocked from the Web because of the whims of nations not their own. And that doesn't jibe with me.

And, given that these things have been happening already, despite the supposed idea that the internet was bound by the US constitution, what exactly has changed? What evidence do you have for the belief that countries which censor things within their own borders will suddenly gain the ability to apply that censorship to people in other countries?

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

The control and management of the internet by IANA and U.S. Department of Commerce was what was keeping the internet a relatively free venue of ideas. With Obama surrendering control to ICANN (which plans on handing over the reins to a so-called “multistakeholder group") is troubling to say the least. Nothing may really change, but the old cynic in me has a bad feeling to the contrary.

Ted Cruz is neither a reliable nor an honest source for information.

 Peregrine wrote:
Perhaps you could be a little clearer about what exactly you're talking about here? Your thread title says "censorship", but you're also talking about the actions of private companies towards the users of their services.

Believe it or not, but the government isn´t the only actor that can censor people.

This guy has been saying this for years.

In all seriousness, some censorship is good. Sure, people should retain the right to free speech, but the level of harassment people can get away with on the internet is astonishing.

 ulgurstasta wrote:
Believe it or not, but the government isn´t the only actor that can censor people.

Not really. People declining to listen to you or give you a platform to speak from is not the same thing as censorship. The government can prevent you from speaking by force. Individuals and corporations can not.

I feel like this is relevant.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ulgurstasta wrote:
Believe it or not, but the government isn´t the only actor that can censor people.

Not really. People declining to listen to you or give you a platform to speak from is not the same thing as censorship. The government can prevent you from speaking by force. Individuals and corporations can not.

Lots of things are censorship. You're mixing up censorship with the right to freedom of speech. Censorship doesn't have to be governmentally imposed, if it is then it may be impinging on the right to free speech, but if it's not then it doesn't stop it being censorship.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Censorship doesn't have to be governmentally imposed, if it is then it may be impinging on the right to free speech, but if it's not then it doesn't stop it being censorship.

Technically yes it does. Censorship is by definition an action that is taken by a state to suppress undesired information.

That's what laws protecting free speech rights don't protect you from being banned from Dakkadakka for calling another poster a stinky poo poo brain (or something more insulting I imagine). Private organizations by definition cannot censor you (unless they are simply state proxy, in which case they can but that just goes back to the state censoring you). They cannot suppress your ability to speak because their reach is limited to their own property rights. Penguin Books refusing to publish your novel while it contains the use of curse words 854 times doesn't mean you can't publish your book, it simply means Penguin books won't publish it.

 LordofHats wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Censorship doesn't have to be governmentally imposed, if it is then it may be impinging on the right to free speech, but if it's not then it doesn't stop it being censorship.

Technically yes it does. Censorship is by definition an action that is taken by a state to suppress undesired information.

That's what laws protecting free speech rights don't protect you from being banned from Dakkadakka for calling another poster a stinky poo poo brain (or something more insulting I imagine). Private organizations by definition cannot censor you (unless they are simply state proxy, in which case they can but that just goes back to the state censoring you). They cannot suppress your ability to speak because their reach is limited to their own property rights. Penguin Books refusing to publish your novel while it contains the use of curse words 854 times doesn't mean you can't publish your book, it simply means Penguin books won't publish it.

But... lordy... those Private organizations are only expressing their own first amendment rights.

Unless, of course, said private organizations are claiming religious reasons... I mean, Mystic pizza and religious bakeries are simply expressing what they believe in as well. It doesn't mean you can't get your pizza/cake elsewhere, it simply means those particular entities won't participate in something they believe against.

Oh well... it works for some private entities...

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Censorship doesn't have to be governmentally imposed, if it is then it may be impinging on the right to free speech, but if it's not then it doesn't stop it being censorship.

Technically yes it does. Censorship is by definition an action that is taken by a state to suppress undesired information.

That's what laws protecting free speech rights don't protect you from being banned from Dakkadakka for calling another poster a stinky poo poo brain (or something more insulting I imagine). Private organizations by definition cannot censor you (unless they are simply state proxy, in which case they can but that just goes back to the state censoring you). They cannot suppress your ability to speak because their reach is limited to their own property rights. Penguin Books refusing to publish your novel while it contains the use of curse words 854 times doesn't mean you can't publish your book, it simply means Penguin books won't publish it.

But... lordy... those Private organizations are only expressing their own first amendment rights.

Unless, of course, said private organizations are claiming religious reasons... I mean, Mystic pizza and religious bakeries are simply expressing what they believe in as well. It doesn't mean you can't get your pizza/cake elsewhere, it simply means those particular entities won't participate in something they believe against.

Oh well... it works for some private entities...

So let's bring back segregation?

Don't play dumb, Whem'. You know there is a difference between civility rules and discrimination.

 whembly wrote:
But... lordy... those Private organizations are only expressing their own first amendment rights.

Indeed, which is why it's also not censorship because my right to call someone the n-bomb does not compel Penguin Books to grace their own speech with my words.

I don't know that I'd consider limitations on Churches to be censorship (limitation on free speech yes, but not all limitations are censorship). The Church isn't allowed to not speak, it's simply not allowed by letter of law anyway to speak about politics while holding tax exempt status as a religious institution. It's not really that outlandish. Religion holds a great influence on a believer, and having your pastor say "God wants you to vote for X" is a toxic thing and is really undesirable.

At the same time it's kind of pointless to disallow, because Churches are oft larger than the specific organizations of the religion itself and no one can really stop people from talking behind closed doors. In this way the gag order currently on religious groups is fairly dumb because it's not reasonably enforceable. I do think churches should be banned from donating to candidates though because their tax exempt status is predicated on the ideal that the church is charitable and political campaigns are not charitable (really a lot of organizations should be banned from donating to campaigns, not just churches).

As for business owners saying stuff like "No Jesus no service", well suck it up. Not all speech is desirable, and if you're going to tell someone that gay people go to hell, the least you could do is sell them an overpriced designer cake for them to drown their hellbent sorrows in.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Censorship doesn't have to be governmentally imposed, if it is then it may be impinging on the right to free speech, but if it's not then it doesn't stop it being censorship.

Technically yes it does. Censorship is by definition an action that is taken by a state to suppress undesired information.

That's what laws protecting free speech rights don't protect you from being banned from Dakkadakka for calling another poster a stinky poo poo brain (or something more insulting I imagine). Private organizations by definition cannot censor you (unless they are simply state proxy, in which case they can but that just goes back to the state censoring you). They cannot suppress your ability to speak because their reach is limited to their own property rights. Penguin Books refusing to publish your novel while it contains the use of curse words 854 times doesn't mean you can't publish your book, it simply means Penguin books won't publish it.

But... lordy... those Private organizations are only expressing their own first amendment rights.

Unless, of course, said private organizations are claiming religious reasons... I mean, Mystic pizza and religious bakeries are simply expressing what they believe in as well. It doesn't mean you can't get your pizza/cake elsewhere, it simply means those particular entities won't participate in something they believe against.

Oh well... it works for some private entities...

So let's bring back segregation?

erm... wut?

Don't play dumb, Whem'. You know there is a difference between civility rules and discrimination.

There's no fundamental difference between Penguin Books refusing service to publish a book full of cuss words, and Mystic Pizza refusing to (hypothetically) cater to a SSM ceremony.

Zero.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:
But... lordy... those Private organizations are only expressing their own first amendment rights.

Indeed, which is why it's also not censorship because my right to call someone the n-bomb does not compel Penguin Books to grace their own speech with my words.

I don't know that I'd consider limitations on Churches to be censorship (limitation on free speech yes, but not all limitations are censorship). The Church isn't allowed to not speak, it's simply not allowed by letter of law anyway to speak about politics while holding tax exempt status as a religious institution. It's not really that outlandish. Religion holds a great influence on a believer, and having your pastor say "God wants you to vote for X" is a toxic thing and is really undesirable.

At the same time it's kind of pointless to disallow, because Churches are oft larger than the specific organizations of the religion itself and no one can really stop people from talking behind closed doors. In this way the gag order currently on religious groups is fairly dumb because it's not reasonably enforceable. I do think churches should be banned from donating to candidates though because their tax exempt status is predicated on the ideal that the church is charitable and political campaigns are not charitable (really a lot of organizations should be banned from donating to campaigns, not just churches).

I agree that many tax exempt organizations ought to be banned from donating to campaigns... particularly churches.

But, you'd have to admit, it's be pretty hard to define what's not kosher.

I'm not sure saying ALL tax exempt organizations should be banned from participating in the political arena is a good idea either. (I can sure as gak see it challenged in court).

Maybe that's a tradeoff.

It'll certainly kill off the 504(c) or 503(c)... or something like that...

Meaning, single issue organizations, (like PP or NRA) couldn't contribute politically if they're tax exempt.

Hrmph... the idea does have merits.

 whembly wrote:

So let's bring back segregation?

erm... wut?

Well, that's what your suggesting. You know what segregation was? It was businesses operating by their belief that non-whites were inferior (plus some from the government, but it was the choice of those business to put these signs up).

Don't play dumb, Whem'. You know there is a difference between civility rules and discrimination.

There's no fundamental difference between Penguin Books refusing service to a book full of cuss words, and Mystic Pizza refusing to (hypothetically) cater to a SSM ceremony.

Zero.

Actually there is, a group of people is being discriminated against rather than an action.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

So let's bring back segregation?

erm... wut?

Well, that's what your suggesting. You know what segregation was? It was businesses operating by their belief that non-whites were inferior (plus some from the government, but it was the choice of those business to put these signs up).

You are being silly.

I'm not advocating in getting rid of the legal concepts of Anti-Descrimination Laws & The Protected Class.

Don't play dumb, Whem'. You know there is a difference between civility rules and discrimination.

There's no fundamental difference between Penguin Books refusing service to a book full of cuss words, and Mystic Pizza refusing to (hypothetically) cater to a SSM ceremony.

Zero.

Actually there is, a group of people is being discriminated against rather than an action.

If that groups falls in The Protect Class...sure, you'd have a point.

 whembly wrote:
Meaning, single issue organizations, (like PP or NRA) couldn't contribute politically if they're tax exempt.

For me the difference is that the NRA is explicitly a political organization (at least in part). Part of the reason it exists and continues to exist is to lobby on behalf of second amendment rights.

While the Church might have a vested interest in religious freedom, it is not an organization that is explicitly political. The service it provides is to fulfill the religious tenets of a community of believers, who themselves might have political interests that extend from their religion but are distinct from the actual organization of their faith. The body of the faithful is not a political entity, and thus should not be donating money to political campaigns (this does not prevent a church of group of believes from establish a separate explicitly political entity to serve their political interests).

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

So let's bring back segregation?

erm... wut?

Well, that's what your suggesting. You know what segregation was? It was businesses operating by their belief that non-whites were inferior (plus some from the government, but it was the choice of those business to put these signs up).

You are being silly.

I'm not advocating in getting rid of the legal concepts of Anti-Descrimination Laws & The Protected Class.

Don't play dumb, Whem'. You know there is a difference between civility rules and discrimination.

There's no fundamental difference between Penguin Books refusing service to a book full of cuss words, and Mystic Pizza refusing to (hypothetically) cater to a SSM ceremony.

Zero.

Actually there is, a group of people is being discriminated against rather than an action.

If that groups falls in The Protect Class...sure, you'd have a point.

Sure it depends on the state.
https://www.aclu.org/map/non-discrimination-laws-state-state-information-map

But it's still wrong even if it's legal. Discrimination based on someones actions is fine (I'm not going to hire a racist donkey-cave, for example). Discrimination based on a non-chosen thing (sex, race, gender, sexual preference, ect) is not. Things like political party and religion get a bit iffy, but I stick them in their because they are often not actively chosen, and it should still be based on actions not labels. Every Christian believes different things, every Muslim believes different things, every Jew believes different things, ect.

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Meaning, single issue organizations, (like PP or NRA) couldn't contribute politically if they're tax exempt.

For me the difference is that the NRA is explicitly a political organization (at least in part). Part of the reason it exists and continues to exist is to lobby on behalf of second amendment rights.

While the Church might have a vested interest in religious freedom, it is not an organization that is explicitly political. The service it provides is to fulfill the religious tenets of a community of believers, who themselves might have political interests that extend from their religion but are distinct from the actual organization of their faith. The body of the faithful is not a political entity, and thus should not be donating money to political campaigns (this does not prevent a church of group of believes from establish a separate explicitly political entity to serve their political interests).

Oh... I see what you mean.

:pondering:

My gut feeling is that you're right, and I think that's how it works these days anyways. I don't think the Church itself is legally able to contribute to a political entity. (or, if they do there's weird stipulation like no more than 50% of their activity can be construed as political activities).

Fundamentally, I think what you're saying that just because the entity is a Church... it shouldn't have a need to be "tax-exempt"?

 whembly wrote:


Fundamentally, I think what you're saying that just because the entity is a Church... it shouldn't have a need to be "tax-exempt"?

At the end of the day my opinion of church tax exemption status is that most churches are small, and all the money they make goes to their own maintenance or "good works." They couldn't afford taxes,and there's not really any profit in them, so why bother?

Mega churches are another story. They are by all rights, massive business operations that happen to be tax exempt by virtue of being tied to a church body. Some mega churches are literally indistinguishable from a mall, but because the entire property is owned by a church, the whole endeavor gets to pay no taxes. It's an abuse of the current non-profit system that should be disallowed (even admitting that many mega churches put forth much of their proceeds to charity).