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.

This Thread is my opinion based on something I have seen in the last week and something I have been observing over a number of months. I am not pro- Capitalism or Pro-Socialism, I am trying to be neutral and make an observation and share something I believe is happening.

Up until about 2010, the Internet has been a creative (in both a positive and negative sense) driver for people, commerce, business, industry. It has literally changed everything. I like to think of the Internet in it's 1st 25 years has been like the settling of the American West, expanding with people finding roles and starting businesses, communities (like this one) setting up. Startup companies have been making vast sums by providing services, goods and also providing lots of information to even the most basic internet user. It has also been a provider for nefarious activities, piracy, terrorism, money laundering, co-ordinating criminal activity, demonstrations, active intervention against corporations (Like Anonymous etc). It has put the world at your fingertips, information is power, and we have near limitless information at our fingertips if we seek to use it.

Many people have believed they were anonymous in this great plain of Information, they could do what they want, say what they want and no one would bother them because the entire thing is just too big to be policed effectively. However the last 3-4 Years have seen evermore regulation, evermore commercial exploitation, more protections and policing. It seems that standardization and commercialization is changing and shaping the internet of the future.

It seems yesterday, 28 March 2012 that it finally hit home to me that we are in the midst of a Massive change. The story below is of a young man who wrote Racist comments on the Internet and was prosecuted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17515992

This is a major step change, people are accountable under Law, but will actually be prosecuted. Anyone that has been on You tube can see some very offensive material in the comments section and I for one will be encouraging everyone to watch what they say.This I believe will change in the next 10 years, the number of people who act like this is staggering, it has even been given a title "Internet dissociative disorder".

Also talking of Youtube remember when everything didn't have Video Adverts at the start of a clip? A sudden change by Youtube has a profound effect, suddenly we have to tolerate this. Don't like it oh well? The power is now with the Provider. The shift has been slow at 1st but now I believe is at critical mass.

Other stories from Yesterday, was Tumblr banning blogs from Pro-Anorexic's, (which is not illegal) on purely moral grounds. So are companies now determining what we can and cannot read about? Where does this end? Should the Catholic Church be allowed a Website after the controverse of Child abuse in Ireland? Equally will ISP's be forced in the US Mid-West of blocking Darwinian Evolution from search engines on a Moral basis, to promote Intelligent design.

What is the purpose of the Internet? To give everyone a voice? Share Idea's? Entertain us? Or to enslave people to a consumerist commercial enterprise. Mega-upload being taken down is another good example.

Here are some internet headlines from the BBC in the last 24hrs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17510776
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17523020
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17524815
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17472447
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17494723
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/17525349

Everyday highlights evermore regulation, evermore controls. Our ISP's are now providing (and have to Legally) produce details to commerical entities which believe they maybe owed money or suffered from Piracy. The development of a two tier internet is likely, the Corporate one and then the under-net or sub-net where piracy and nefarious activities will be carried out. Access to the internet will be increasingly difficult as ISP's start to crack down. As have other corporations with DRM.

The shift to cloud base computing seems to be the catalyst for this extra control and tectonic shift. I personally use ONLIVE the Cloud gaming system, and they have my details, I get the benefit of this service. However they get to control what I see, what I am exposed too. The same with NETFLIX or other subscriber services. I believe the internet will become a homogenous corporate subscription system, for services. The ability of individuals to build communities could be hindered by Corporate interference (as a Forum like Dakka could be construed as detracting from the GW website), the freedom of the individual seems to be being eroded.

I am not personally against it, but we should recognize what is happening. This is going to be interesting because the future could be one of 4 possible results (according to the internet society anyway). Watch the 4 video's below, (If pressed for time I would watch the Boutique Network one)

http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/how-it%E2%80%99s-evolving/future-scenarios

These will have huge ramifications for how we use the internet and what we see, our access to information and ultimately who provides this information. I do not get a warm fuzzy feeling from Giant Corporations controlling the internet, what I get to see and what they expose me to, especially after the last 5 years of crazy sub-prime nonsense and their faceless powerbase. The current backlash in the UK toward Rupert Murdoch's Empire more than illustrates the public disdain for a none elected official to have so much power that they can disregard the law.
I don't know what the future of the Internet will be, but I guarantee it will not be the unbridled and almost unlimited freedom we have experienced in the last two decades. I'm not sure if this is a good or a bad thing yet, but it should be at the fore front of all our minds as the consequences will be far reaching.

Its almost like, people on Dakka are already yelling at Frazzled about this...
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/439261.page

No Frazzled, but we view the Great State of Texas and texan's as (how can i put this diplomatically) very forthright. You are not shy in your opinions and are can be quite confrontational, maybe it's the Lone Star thing. But having been to the states I like Texas, but every state is so different. I found Washington State to be the most like my personality. I enjoyed the in your face, straight talking Texas, straight shooting no BS Texan's. It's all about family, community, State and Country and I respect that. Your Law and Order in Texas is very black and white.

Everything was bigger better and brasher in Texas, enjoyed a couple of backyard BBQ's with some US Navy Officer buddies near Corpus Chrisit.

In the UK we are alot more circumspect.

Back OT anyone got any thoughts on the above? Took a while to write

Personally I am disgusted by the outcome of that student's prosecution.

Racist remarks on Twitter! Shock Horror! Some opinionated moron has access to the internet!

Minor incidents of inciting racism tend to get served with fines or community service orders (they don't jail everyone who turns up to a EDL protest), but because the mass-media decided to start baying for his blood the courts have handed a heavy sentence that has effectively crippled his future. This just results in another person with a jaded and contemptuous view of the court system who cannot go on to contribute effectively to society (imagine trying to get a job having to disclose that you were locked up for inciting racism).

Note: I am not defending his actions and/or motive, I am annoyed that someone can say bad things on twitter and go to jail, yet we allow much more strongly opinionated organisations to do this sort of thing every day without so much as batting an eyelid. This was all just to appease the media and now someone will not be able to fulfil their life goals as a result.

Tumblr banning blogs from Anorexic's, (which is not illegal) on purely moral grounds
I'm guessing we are missing a word in front of the word anorexic, probably pro-anorexic (please provide info if I'm wrong) which a good 90% of the world would agree is probably not a good moral stance to occupy.

As for freedom of the internet, of course it's going to be controlled by the corporations, they control everything else and it was just a matter of time before they found a way to enforce control over a massive non-physical entity such as the internet.

As for corporations controlling what you see and are exposed to, look around you now, everything you see (with perhaps a few exceptions) has been carefully crafted to make you want it, the building you live in, the keyboard you typed this on, the minis on your shelf that drew you in and got you to buy paints to paint them in schemes that were suggested to you by magazines, other artwork, movies, TV, even this very forum, is all examples of how with a little research we can exert a small amount of control over you as a consumer.

You didn't pick the space marines because you liked them, you picked space marines because space marines have been carefully crafted to appeal to you.

The drink you are currently drinking has been marketed to [i]make[/] you want it. every part of the computer you type on was painstakingly designed because they know that x number of people would buy something that looked like that.

And this was all before the internet was even envisaged. The internet was never free, because every opinion and thought and idea placed upon it was merely and extension of our commericially controlled reality.

edit: ninja'd! how's that for more thoughts? btw I'll get down off my soap-box now...

I disagree, it took corporations a while to catch on and they were then behind the times.

Your position on the Racism is wrong in my opinion, he did incite racial hatred, people complained (not the media) to the police. Your position is to say there are worse things out there, therefore why prosecute him. You could use that argument ad infinitum, to defend a Rapist compared to a mass murderer. Breaking the law is enough to be accountable in Court and punished, you cannot mitigate it by saying "It's not like anyone died" you still broke the law.

How could a supposedly educated man, about to Graduate become one of the top 1% of society and contribute to it, lead it, protect it and uphold it have such purile and unjustifiable position. He wanted to become a Police Forensic scientist, I'm sorry but extremism in any form is dangerous to any Society. If the EDL actually said Offensive racist language in public it would be locked up, and disbanded. They walk a tightrope of racial disharmony without spilling over into outright racial hatred. They may harbour it, they infer it, but they never come out and say the "N word" they wrap it up in Anti-islamic, antisemitism and xenophobia.

I still think my point on Moral issues stands, what is immoral to one is not to another. Explain Monogamy to a Muslim Man or a Mormon on a moral standpoint. Gambling is not illegal, drinking or smoking is not illegal. Have group sex is not illegal, the moral component must be avoided because it is a form of censorship and morals are subjective to the individual.

Corporations do not control my local library or town centre, or the roads. I am free to walk around goto public parks. I have freedom to do as I will, within the bounds of the law. I am not beholden to one Corporate entity for everything, I have freedom to pick and choose or avoid. The Internet will in the future, take away this freedom and limit this ability to surf the net freely. We see it in the way Google controls search returns. If you don't know what you are precisely looking for it will be harder to search as these search parameters will be under the control of giant corporations. Have you watched the Boutique Network video above? It will be a giant step backwards like back in the early days of the Internet.

If it's not illegal, then what is the problem?

This is part of the cycle of new technologies.

The rise of Radio is a great example. At first, it was the "Wild West". People who were interested in Radio would be the equipment and soon learn that the early stuff could transmit and receive a signal. Right away, these "wildcats" would set-up there own stations and start playing and saying what they wanted to the locals who could pick it up.

Now, let's take a look at Radion in the US today. It is mostly run by two major companies. Disney and Clear Channel. These two companies "run" the airwaves of the majority of stations. In addition, the Government now "regulates" the airwaves and provides licenses for it.

Of course, there are a lot of steps between the "wild West" and the "Monopolization" phase, but the same cycle is occurring to the Internet. Just like it did for the Printing Press, Television, and Motion Pictures.

Adventerous new lands then exploited and commercialised, now its virtual!

Same old story new medium. Is it that new though, I'm aware of companies doing extensive internet searchs on prospective employees for some time. All of a sudden those "LOL, me smashed on holiday" pictures arent that funny.

The Racist Student story does highlight a significant reason for intervention by law/the State - Facebook were doing feth all about the douchebag making the comments. They only acted when the papers were sniffing about I believe. FB shold be allot more attentive to what is put on its site but to this point doesn't seem to care what is going on so long as it gets those all important hits to drive revenue.

I recently saw a documentary on Trolling, particularly of RIP pages on facebook; pretty disgusting stuff. there were a few convictions for it in the last year. I welcome this sort of thing. Nicking scumbags that hide behind the annonimity of the web is a pretty good thing IMHO.

Dakka is a good example of how a responsible commmunity should be run. There room for all views but within the bounds of decency.

Was that the Richard Bacon thing you recommended to me?

Yeah, BBC3 about a week ago.

The Racist Student is just the most recent in a series of cases in which people misused the internet for nefarious purposes that apparently seemed innocent because they were done on the internet not IRL (as people see it.)

Condign punishments have been handed down to inform the public that you don't get away with stuff by putting lol on the end.

The individuals concerned were guilty of little more than being particularly stupid and thoughtless, and they have been made examples of, to discourage others. That is part of the function of the legal system.


Corporate Control
Unless we want return to caveman lifestyles we are all beholden to corporations and the government for the many fruits of technology, group endeavour and economies of scale that we enjoy every day.

For example, anyone can get a computer, link it up to the internet and run a web site using the freely available standard protocols. Obviously your computer, phone line and the electricity to run them, is all provided by corporations.

mwnciboo wrote:I disagree, it took corporations a while to catch on and they were then behind the times.

Your position on the Racism is wrong in my opinion, he did incite racial hatred, people complained (not the media) to the police. Your position is to say there are worse things out there, therefore why prosecute him. You could use that argument ad infinitum, to defend a Rapist compared to a mass murderer. Breaking the law is enough to be accountable in Court and punished, you cannot mitigate it by saying "It's not like anyone died" you still broke the law.

The EDL does incites racism on a daily basis, numerous extremist groups incite hatred against one ethnic group or another on a regular basis, some even do so in a public forum (shouting in the streets). Do we arrest and imprison everyone who attends such events? no, even in specific cases, sentences are typically much softer than the one handed to the student.

My position on the case is the fact that the courts have handed out a much harsher sentence than is typically given because of media interest in the story. If newspapers hadn't gotten involved he would probably have gotten community service/fine/supervision order (or whatever that ankle tag thing is called). But because he was famous, and the media got involved, all of a sudden he gets a harsher sentence. Will it make him a better person? probably not, he's just going to develop bitterness towards the law and by the time he's 30 he'll be so jaded as a result of this situation he will probably become worse rather than better (assuming his time in prison doesn't cause psychological issues, physical injury or cause him to become addicted to hard drugs that will mess him up first).


Your local library is run by the largest corporation of all, HM Government. The roads are designed, built and maintained by private contractors who determine where they go and how they get there, you are not beholden to a corporate entity, but a corporate entity made the advertisement that made you think 'hey that looks like a fun place to go', or 'that looks like a fun thing to do rather than that other thing'. You are beholden to many corporate entities, one crafted the clothes you wear, one designed the haircut you currently have, etc. Even the things that make you feel like you are somehow rebelling against the consumerism have been carefully crafted to appeal to you as a 'rebel against the consumerism' person.

Leigen_Zero wrote:

mwnciboo wrote:I disagree, it took corporations a while to catch on and they were then behind the times.

Your position on the Racism is wrong in my opinion, he did incite racial hatred, people complained (not the media) to the police. Your position is to say there are worse things out there, therefore why prosecute him. You could use that argument ad infinitum, to defend a Rapist compared to a mass murderer. Breaking the law is enough to be accountable in Court and punished, you cannot mitigate it by saying "It's not like anyone died" you still broke the law.

The EDL does incites racism on a daily basis, numerous extremist groups incite hatred against one ethnic group or another on a regular basis, some even do so in a public forum (shouting in the streets). Do we arrest and imprison everyone who attends such events? no, even in specific cases, sentences are typically much softer than the one handed to the student.

My position on the case is the fact that the courts have handed out a much harsher sentence than is typically given because of media interest in the story. If newspapers hadn't gotten involved he would probably have gotten community service/fine/supervision order (or whatever that ankle tag thing is called). But because he was famous, and the media got involved, all of a sudden he gets a harsher sentence. Will it make him a better person? probably not, he's just going to develop bitterness towards the law and by the time he's 30 he'll be so jaded as a result of this situation he will probably become worse rather than better (assuming his time in prison doesn't cause psychological issues, physical injury or cause him to become addicted to hard drugs that will mess him up first).


Your local library is run by the largest corporation of all, HM Government. The roads are designed, built and maintained by private contractors who determine where they go and how they get there, you are not beholden to a corporate entity, but a corporate entity made the advertisement that made you think 'hey that looks like a fun place to go', or 'that looks like a fun thing to do rather than that other thing'. You are beholden to many corporate entities, one crafted the clothes you wear, one designed the haircut you currently have, etc. Even the things that make you feel like you are somehow rebelling against the consumerism have been carefully crafted to appeal to you as a 'rebel against the consumerism' person.

It's the Crown Prosecution Service that decides if they have been inciting Racial Hatred not me or you or the great british public.

The Judges are there to make examples of people, setting precedents in case law. Remember the riots last year, two boys got 2 years for posting lets have Riot on the internet.

I do agree with there is a degree of consumerism, however you can buy from local sources and you don't have to buy from TESCO et al. Equally having worked for the HMG, they cannot balance the books never mind make a profit calling them a Corporation is generous. A self serving rable I would agree with.

Still, ask yourself the question:

If he hadn't attacked a celebrity and the newspapers hadn't got hold of the story, would he have receieved the sentence he got?

Not sure, thought the celebrity piece shouldn't be an aggrevating factor. He was arrested before the media got hold of this, infact his arrest precipitated the media deluge. I think the sentence of 57 days is niether here nor there really, his conviction does more damage as he will have a real problem ever getting a job. Well he's a grown up now, so big boys rules, obey the law or face the consequences. I cannot condone or defend him in any way, we all know how to behave in a civil society.

Hey NEWPORT, didn't even see that. You play 40k or FOW? We have a good club over here at Firestorm games on Thursday nights, thats 10mins from you.

Shouting racist obscenities in the street is fleeting enough that posting someting on the net, which for all intents and purposes is permanent.

It has more in common with libel than slander I would have thought?

Pro-anorexia sites are dangerous. Like suggesting to children that they should drink bleach.

Just sayin'.

Grooming the vulnerable would likely see investigation, I would have thought. But dangerous does not equal illegal.

That said child creulty and poisoning legislation exist already to cover the latter situation.

Also on a shallower note, anorexics are ugly, both men and women. I don't care what pop culture thinks about it...

I'm pretty sure anorexics would agree with you, and therein lies their condition.

Anorexics maybe, but not pro-anorexics.

So it isn't illegal to try to convince someone to pretty much kill themselves in the case of the bleach?

Leigen_Zero wrote:Still, ask yourself the question:

If he hadn't attacked a celebrity and the newspapers hadn't got hold of the story, would he have receieved the sentence he got?

He wasn't just attacking Patrice Muamba though, he was writing offensive messages directed at other users of twitter.

So yeah, he may have started off standing in the street (His and Muamba's feeds) shouting about how bad Muamba was because he was black, but from there he moved onto walking into random black people's houses (their feeds) and insulting them over the fact that they're black.

n0t_u wrote:So it isn't illegal to try to convince someone to pretty much kill themselves in the case of the bleach?

Yes that actually is. There was a case last year of this with people being prosecuted of encouraging someone to kill themselves. I cannot remember what they were charged with. Possibly conspiracy to cause murder or Involuntary Manslaughter.

Just because we don't like something, doesn't mean we can ban it, thats the Law's job. We can pour scorn on it, but ultimately it's morality and that's where everything breaks down. There are Right-wing websites we don't close them, there are militant religious groups and equally militant aethist groups. There are those who want Darwinian Evolution disproved and want it removed from the school curriculum.

All of these things disgust me, but I will not seek them banned using the law. Now we are going down the road of internet censorship we are on a sticky wicket, and stand by for some crazy situations. (like last year 2 Teenagers that tried to organise a riot online got 2 Years, despite not actually rioting, yet a Rioter got a fine and a slapped wrist?).

mwnciboo wrote:
Hey NEWPORT, didn't even see that. You play 40k or FOW? We have a good club over here at Firestorm games on Thursday nights, thats 10mins from you.

40k, Fantasy, dabble in Dystopian Wars, want to get into Super Dungeon Explore and Mordheim.

I actually work in Cardiff so it's even easier. I've been meaning to start going by my personal life means I don't get much hobby time at present.

Back on topic, I don't condone/defend in anyway, but I think the sentence was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction in a similar way to the imprisonment of London rioters (most of which were released on appeal within a fortnight of the whole media storm dying down).

Goliath wrote:

Leigen_Zero wrote:Still, ask yourself the question:

If he hadn't attacked a celebrity and the newspapers hadn't got hold of the story, would he have receieved the sentence he got?

He wasn't just attacking Patrice Muamba though, he was writing offensive messages directed at other users of twitter.

So yeah, he may have started off standing in the street (His and Muamba's feeds) shouting about how bad Muamba was because he was black, but from there he moved onto walking into random black people's houses (their feeds) and insulting them over the fact that they're black.

Again, various people have performed similar actions, but don't tend to receive custodial sentences as a result...

mwnciboo wrote: I enjoyed the in your face, straight talking Texas, straight shooting no BS Texan's. It's all about family, community, State and Country and I respect that.

You forgot about God.

mwnciboo wrote:I enjoyed the in your face, straight talking Texas, straight shooting no BS Texan's.

In the UK we are alot more circumspect.

Never been to Yorkshire then...?

Leigen_Zero wrote:Again, various people have performed similar actions, but don't tend to receive custodial sentences as a result...

Can you give me an example of when this has happened please?

Easy E wrote:This is part of the cycle of new technologies.

The rise of Radio is a great example. At first, it was the "Wild West". People who were interested in Radio would be the equipment and soon learn that the early stuff could transmit and receive a signal. Right away, these "wildcats" would set-up there own stations and start playing and saying what they wanted to the locals who could pick it up.

Now, let's take a look at Radion in the US today. It is mostly run by two major companies. Disney and Clear Channel. These two companies "run" the airwaves of the majority of stations. In addition, the Government now "regulates" the airwaves and provides licenses for it.

Of course, there are a lot of steps between the "wild West" and the "Monopolization" phase, but the same cycle is occurring to the Internet. Just like it did for the Printing Press, Television, and Motion Pictures.

The big thing with radio though, is that as we progressed in our understanding of the science behind it (radio waves, and Herz ranges, etc.).. we realized that some form of contractual bounds needed to be passed. This is why (in the US) the FCC has so much power over what goes on the air, and the licensing. If it hadn't done that, then emergency/military vehicles would not have blocked off chunks of spectrum, TV wouldn't have its own spectrum... each system would jump on top of and over each other, and eventually the whole mess would be so clogged that the over-the-air means of transmitting data to masses of people would break down.


The thing with the internet though, or at least this racial case... I'm assuming that the guy posting racist crap on twitter (or whatever site it was) was NOT a US citizen? I know that saying racist stuff in America is no where near illegal, in person or in cyber space... unless it becomes harrasment, etc. I think that the slippery slope here, is just who has jurisdiction where on the internet... Just because someone is physically located somewhere, can they be brought to prosecution for laws broken elsewhere?

For instance, if I, sitting in America drew a picture of Mohammed and posted it onto a [insert middle eastern, predominately Muslim country here] website, could I go to one of their jails? As an American, I have that right... The problem is, just because of where I am sitting, does that mean I am still protected, or by using a website centered in another nation, do I somehow fall under their laws?


We already know that, in some cases another country can take someone to trial (wikileaks) whether they belong to us or not, though some lawyer types can be slippery eels and try to get other charges brought, in order to get what they ultimately want.


I also have noticed that some employers can hire/fire based on someone's web usage (namely in the realm of social media), and some jobs actually can be eliminated by someone with social media accounts (due to security risks presented to employees and their families)... So, I think that somehow, many of these regulations going on in the world are sort of the next step. Many politicians will view these things as protecting the "people" but who are they being protected from?

I'm afraid I can't take a jeremiad on internet freedom all that seriously when it comes from a Brit.

On an unrelated note, I saw two British people being mean to each other on Facebook this morning. Is there a certain division of MI5 I'm supposed to call, or just the general number?

Seaward wrote:I'm afraid I can't take a jeremiad on internet freedom all that seriously when it comes from a Brit.

On an unrelated note, I saw two British people being mean to each other on Facebook this morning. Is there a certain division of MI5 I'm supposed to call, or just the general number?

They have a new group- MI7 for FB. MI8 is for Twitter.