Who do you think should have control over Internet content?
by Marc Bennett - 7/18/06 12:16 PM
Who do you think should have control over Internet content and why?
I don't care
by: Marc Bennett July 18, 2006 12:16 PM PDT
0 people like this thread
Lets spam not ruin the Internet
by varun8 - 7/19/06 2:20 AM
Ecven though I am a real supporter of free speech and would ideally see the content providers have full control over the content that goes out there, I have to be realistic.
I think the Internet is being ruined to some extend by the vast amounts of spam and unwanted advertising content out there. I typically receive between 300 and 400 spam emails per day, because I have had my main email address since 1996 which were registered as webmaster.
Also many Internet searches lead to plain advertising that often has absolutely nothing to do with your target. Editorial content on the net also does not seem to be nearly as independent as that in print (not saying that that is always independent). I seem to notice that Dell computers always receive glowing reviews on web sites where they advertise heavily. recently I came accross a Dell Notebook which was given a runner up position as an ULTRAPORTABLE even though its weight was 8.8lbs, more than double than any other in the review of 7.
So if we can't rely on content providers, we should be able to rely more on the service providers, because we are their customers, not the content providers.
Maybe Change Your System
Can you get some kind of spam blocker to eliminate what you receive and what gets posted? Either that or change your e-mail addy. That's probably easier than dealing with the number of things you're getting every day.
I agree that you cannot always trust what you see on a web site. But that is the same with TV and newspapers, etc. Don't believe everything you read.
Also, if you're looking for a fair review of anything, go to sites that are more accurate and want to provide the best information regardless of any advertising, bribes, etc. Go to sites you know and trust. For example, I'd certainly go to amazon if I wanted to buy a CD, rather than to "Uncle Bob's Cheap CD Collections" ... my apologies to all of the Bobs.
If you are looking at buying an expensive item, you must check out numerous web sites and reviews for that item. Then, you should get a fair assessment, or at least, a more accurate one. You can even check out publications, like magazines, for more information. Many reliable sites have forums where you can ask about an item and get some valuable and knowledgeable feedback.
re:Lets spam not ruin the Internet
Well, you want them go even farther with the control now? You want them to decide who you can and can not get email from? Sad truth is, that would not keeep out the spam, much of the spam is sent by personal computers, the owner having no clue, why do you think it is so hard to stop? The adds, well, much addware is installed along with "free" software, DEEP in the EULA is a blurb saying you agree to it, do you really read the thing? I have had my email since when ever it was that Charter picked it up after running @home out with crazy fees, and I may get 3 or 4 spams a day (and use the term spam loosely, likely I did not see the send me info thing some where), but, I am careful what I sign up for using that one, MOST the time. I use a throw away email for stuff I think will generate spam. My email in 98 was, not so good, but I used my real email in usenet, the bots got me, spam came.
Doesn't really matter....
by FallonTerry - 7/19/06 2:27 AM
Free Enterprise really does work, when left alone without everyone trying to meddle.
If some service providers play favorites with their own products, others will not, and people bothered by that can go there.
by Bobby312 - 7/19/06 2:40 AM
This issue should remain open as opposed to being controlled at all, but I doubt that the Internet would benefit from service providers' control. They would just do that to their own gain.
If I plant a garden, I choose who eats
by gthurman - 7/19/06 2:59 AM
It's the service providers that created the pathway. Neutrality applies to equal access. Unfortunately, people like spammers demand more than their share for profit with little or no investment. With something like more than half the world wide traffic being unwanted media, we will be forced to create private nets. To protct the net, a little more legislation would go a long way. I already block entire countries just to prevent spam. If all traffic from a country like Nigeria was blocked, the country would take action.
Your reasons, on the first part of your message, are sensible. Then you end it all up with a threatening commentary:
Are all inhabitants of a country to be treated the same way just because a handful of spammers, thieves or porn dealers (probably not even being of the same race nor living in that country) are taking the lead in bit-space? Doesn't this happen in all human activities all the world round? Why it is then that certain countries invade certain others "looking for arms of massive destruction", but not certain others who definitively build them under their very eyes?
Your naming of a particular country sounds nasty and out of place. But, to-date, all is accepted on the Internet. Should I have misinterpreted you - which I might - do please accept my apologies but bear in mind that one day, any day, some might come to your orchard and eat whatever you chose to plant there, without asking for your permission.
Racism has no place here
Please keep your offensive and racial remarks out of this discussion. If the poster had said Ireland instead of Nigeria you would have said nothing. Who is the true racist.
Dear EdMiller: Your impromptu reply reveals that your intimate feelings regarding the country you mentioned consider that there IS a difference. I never suggested anything like that. Btw, why don't you fill your profile in and stop being anonymous?
It's already determined...........
by 9mmammo - 7/19/06 3:24 AM
First of all, NO REGULATION BY GOVERNMENT!. Since when has the government done anything FOR the people?
Who will have control? BIG BUSINESS, of course! The people with the best looby group wins. That's how it works, I know it sucks because you can replace the US Flag with a dollar sign or whatever logo the top corporate dog is at the time. I predict that big pockets will get it.
Is there any way we can save this so we can look at it after the fallout???????????
Net Neutrality - phrase conjured by the minions of darkness!
by dgbvan - 7/19/06 3:52 AM
The naissance of the Internet was specifically so that people (specifically Scientists) could have free and unfettered access to information. The idea was that if scientists could talk to each other, wherever they might be, research, hence knowledge, would be disseminated more quickly and would be unfiltered.
Those who champion "Net Neutrality" have chosen to utterly turn their back on this share and share alike principle. Shame on them!
Their pathetic argument is that those who post the most content AND HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY FOR PRIVILEGED ACCESS, deserve to benefit at the expense of the people who do not have the money to pay for enhanced access.
The Telcos and Cable providers claim that, since they have financed the backbone of the Internet, they deserve to benefit financially.
That is like saying that Bell, Telus, Sprint, AOL, Verizon and others in the distribution sphere should charge more to clients who use the telephone more that those who use the telephone less. In other words, they say that home subscribers (of any financial ability) should subsidize the big, rich corporations and multinationals.
If Net Neutrality comes to pass, The World Wide Web, as we know it today, will be the exclusive territory of the major global corporations. If you thought you got a lot of spam now ... just wait! WWW traffic will decline precipitously and the non institutional Internet will die.
Sure, the Telcos may ram Net Neutrality through an incredibly inept Congress in the US, but I doubt that ANY other nation will follow suit. Once again, the US is poised to bite itself in the foot.
As to the Internet (which is NOT the WWW) will be sidelined and forced to run it's own network.
Net Neutrality is the absolute worst idea to be floated about the Web since its inception. It deserves to be buried. Pronto!
CONTENT PROVIDERS MUST HAVE SOLE CONTROL OVER INTERNET CONTENT! MUST! MUST!! MUST!!!
by djujecmaoseoionnn - 7/21/06 8:43 PM
In Reply to: Net Neutrality - phrase conjured by the minions of darkness! by dgbvan
yes, sole control and be held accountable for it.\
Without the content providers, we wouldn't need broadband
by GreggN - 7/19/06 3:52 AM
The multimedia content providers have motivated people to buy broadband. Now that the service providers are experiencing slower customer growth, they want to increase the fees for companies and services that attracted the consumers.
Who should dictate...
by sen - 7/19/06 4:10 AM
Who should decide what is served on your dinner table? You as the cook, or the supermarket check-out clerk? And if there is too much salt in the food, what should be done? The cook should be told to be careful, or should the supermarket stop selling salt? The argument is as simple as that...
The cook should also have th right to shoot the damn clerk if the clerk comes into the cooks home without permission and tries to force a different diet on him.
Content - Free Speech
by 3psoft - 7/19/06 5:09 AM
Excuse me for standing on a soap box but one of our Constitutional Amendments is under attack, again. Service providers can not guarantee that all content(Underlined) will be posted for the world to see. That First Amendment (Free Speech) should never be for sale or restricted by those that bow to the whims of special interest groups. Writing your Congressman or Congresswoman and letting them know how you feel will be the roadblock that will kill any legislation pending.
I vote 4 neither
by Argie-Salvador - 7/19/06 5:43 AM
Learn why in my other posting down below (not actually explained though). No matter our age we can see the same human conduct repeat itself over and over. Be happy: you'll see more of it...
by swathingscientist - 7/19/06 6:10 AM
WHY should anyone "Have Control" of the Internet?.In spite of some of the drawbacks,the Internet ought to be a totally freespace,no government,especially NO service providers getting their hands on it.
Those who would advocate restrictions,boundries,rules,just aren't capable of looking after themselves and ought to get a life,need a keeper.
Sure,certainly,there are some bad apples out there but isn't there a few bad apples in every barrel,no matter the area?.The good far outweighs the bad and putting anyone "In Charge" of the Internet,places their views,interpretations on us all.Don't like something?,don't go there.Why should you or anyone be able to tell the rest of us we can't?.Set your own limitations if you wish,mine are different than yours.Service providers already have far too much control and we DON'T NEED Government being involved in every aspect of our lives.Leave the Internet alone for goodness sakes!!.
I agree with you but it's all wishful thinking
You know the golden rule, dont' you?
Yep, they should go after the REAL problems, like...
SPAM! That's the biggest online problem!
Some might say get another email address, but I should NOT have to have TWO email addresses just to avoid this flood of UNWANTED crud! PERIOD!
What part of ''unsolicited'' don't these greedy morons understand? The net needs to stay free!
We PAY for access to the net/web already and that's all we should have to pay! They're trying to slide more fees under our noses disguised as additional "special services"!
by djujecmaoseoionnn - 7/21/06 8:51 PM
In Reply to: Yep, they should go after the REAL problems, like... by BlazeEagle
This is the best post I have read on this so far. Thats all.
Content Providers are a Must...
by Uchiha.Sasuke - 7/19/06 6:18 AM
You can never rely on organizations, corporations etc. to police themselves...It never worked...Never will...
by bkadin - 7/19/06 7:04 AM
The question of Net neutrality is simple as the old adage: why fix something that isn't broken.
We should keep the Net in its status quo.
As evidenced by both the cable and telecommunications industry once these monsters start getting their way the only losers are the consumers. With either cable and telecommunications companies controlling the speed of the net, then we the public will be subject to the commercialized content similiar to what we get on the current mass communications systems. The Net was set-up for everybody to use equally. THERE SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENTATION OVER SPEED BECAUSE THE CABLE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS GIANTS SAY SO.
The Net is one of the few places left on earth where the little guy has the same rights as the big guy.
KEEP THE NET NEUTRAL.
What about this from Cnet, hmmm?
'' All submitted content becomes the sole property of CNET Networks, and may be used, edited or rejected at CNET Networks' sole discretion. You acknowledge that you, not CNET Networks, are responsible for the contents of your submission.''
I KNOW the reasons for this notice, but it still rankles..
I think you are special. Everything I have read that you have written is as if it came from my own lips and mind. Keep up the stuff. Seriously, we think alot alike on some of this stuff.
We must protect our freedom to contact each other
by Podcaster2 - 7/19/06 7:34 AM
For the first time in our civilisations history we have the ability to talk to each other directly without interference from political, corporate or spiritual control.
The party agendas of these controlling bodies has held back our development as a species for millennia and now has been removed. We are free to talk in a way never possible before and find out more about each other without some bias being applied or controlling us.
This is a truly awesome time for mankind. I don't care who should have control of internet content because nobody should have control. Endlessly we are told that a FREE market works so why try and control this one?!!
Re: We must protect our freedom to contact each other
You misapply "freedom". Your argument is akin to saying that we the community need the freedom to take somebody's property away from them for our own use. That's a reprehensible attitude.
The Internet doesn't belong to the public. It is a PRIVATE network.
If we want the freedom to send messages back and forth at our pleasure on the Internet, then we should support the free market to keep the Internet unregulated. If we accept governmental controls, that is the first step AWAY from freedom and the ability to send messages as you please.
The Internet has been a tool for worldwide freedom precisely BECAUSE it has not controls and each individual network owner (ISP) can control content as they please. When governments get involved, censorship is inevitable, like has happened in plenty of countries where that portion of the Internet is controlled by the state.
No, our freedom to contact each other is subordinate to the freedom and rights of ISPs to censor the content of their own wires as they please.
by chris02364 - 7/19/06 7:41 AM
I guess the best analogy I can use here is that of television. While our cable providers may have the theoretical ability to exercise control over what we watch, the market really drives the content. I believe the same process should apply to the internet. Let the content and hence the demand, drive what we receive. While I do believe that parents, for example, should be able to apply filters to what their children access, I believe those of us adults should be allowed access to anything we want! Demand drives content, so let the process happen!
The 'net MUST stay free of censorship!...
I do agree that parent's have the right to filters UNTIL their kids become adults.
Parent's have a responsibility to oversee what their children do, watch and consume. It's not the governments responsibility to take the place of a parent's responsibility.
Even though I'm an adult, I still goto my dear, sweet mother for advice and guidance. She gives excellent advice and I love her dearly!
There needs to be some way content providers can try to lighten the load that parents have keeping certain content off of the screen at home. I have an 8 year old son and a 7 year old son. The 8 year old has been sitting in my lap since 2 months old watching me repair computers, write little programs and generally interface with the computer, games internet , all of it. I thought at the time he may learn something and that would be good. Now he knows how to access things I cant figure out. Hes a genius at the computer. Ill leave him playing Delta force (which is about as graphic as an 8 year old needs to see even though its less violent than the d%*& cartoons on Cartoon Network) He shows no violent tendancies or any abnormal traits, but when he sees uncensored porn that pops up while he is on the SpongeBob Squarepants site playing a game it makes me furious. No one on this planet has the right to expose my young children to this kind of crap. If he wants to see it when he is old enough fine, but Ill decide that not some bum with no morals of any kind writing cookies to spread around to force people to even for brief moment view his trash and have the gaul to ask for payment for removal tools to make it go away for good. I spent 150 bucks on parental control virus, anti spy, software and still I get times when things just pop up for what seems like no reason out of the blue. There needs to be more control of age specific content not to censor the material but to restrict who is able to access it. If people cant see that then this country is going to crap. There is no way to apply responsibility on the net. Therefor the only way to control access to material not suitable for a certain age is for the provider to restrict access to it. I know they can its the same as Best Buy restricting access to its merchandise. You have to prove who you are.And at the same time how old you are. Thats the least they could shoot for. Its all too loose right now. Too easily accessible. I have seen crap on the net by accident that made me ill. War crimes of horrific nature, sick photos for no other reason than to shock culture into remembering it. And I do. That is a vulgar immoral way to advertise and I think its access needs to be controlled a whole heck of a lot better than it is now.