shutting down the internet

brianluce said:
But that'd take thousands of dollars right? To tap in to satellites?
Click to expand...

Not really that expensive I guess, take a look at this:

http://www.globalstarusa.com/en/airtime/voicepricing/

they have unlimted calls starting at $49.99/ month that goes down every year to $19.99/mon that includes free data service (i.e. internet) (mind you those are for North America, I'm not sure what the costs are for other regions, they cover the whole world pretty much).

The handsets are not that pretty to look at, but its great when you are out sailing in the middle of an ocean or some forest miles away from civilization :D

It's not even a new concept. The same issues were wrangled over concerning the printing press, radio, television, cable, satellite communication, telephones, telegraphs -- everything. Not one of them is completely unchecked and no one seriously argues that they should be.
Click to expand...

Ditto

moral of the story:

The internet is just an expansion of the local Community Village (only now its a Global Village), and it will work in the same work, in the end the Cyber Community will evolve to "Self police" just like in real communities.
 
David Jimerson said:
It's not even a new concept. The same issues were wrangled over concerning the printing press, radio, television, cable, satellite communication, telephones, telegraphs -- everything. Not one of them is completely unchecked and no one seriously argues that they should be.
Click to expand...

The difference is that just about every other media is started and owned by someone who is already powerful, and they then choose who to hire to run/work for that paper/channel/station. And while cable is starting to prove otherwise, there are still only a limited number of sources to choose from, or opportunities to get involved.

The internet provides equal footing for EVERYONE. You are absolutely right that this can be good or bad, but I'll continue to argue that the good far outweighs the bad. You could also argue that sure, I can start my own video camera website, but whats to prevent people from just continuing to go to DVXuser? Nothing, people are free to go the the sites they wish, just as you are free to make available the information you want provide.

Rupert Murdoch owns 9 movie studios, 14 TV stations, 16 cable networks, 6 magizines, 23 newspapers, and Harper Collins publishing...

I bet it wouldn't matter how many times I called any one of those media, none of them would let me say "Rupert Murdoch sucks c(*)ck!". There I have no power...

But I just did it on this website (kinda) and it's available to anyone in the world that wants to read it, with just couple mouse clicks.

The internet and other traditional media outlets are most definitely not that same. And that's way i think it's so important government and corporations don't tell ISO's what and what not to let through.
 
David Jimerson said:
The Internet represents incredible power. Like any power, it's completely amoral -- it's neither good nor bad, but can be used either way.

There are many ways the Internet can be used for bad purposes and hurt many, many people. The idea that it should be completely unchecked isn't any different from the idea that any other form of incredible power should be completely unchecked.
Click to expand...


what types of things should be regulated?
 
Cheesesailor77 said:
The difference is that just about every other media is started and owned by someone who is already powerful, and they then choose who to hire to run/work for that paper/channel/station. And while cable is starting to prove otherwise, there are still only a limited number of sources to choose from, or opportunities to get involved.

The internet provides equal footing for EVERYONE. You are absolutely right that this can be good or bad, but I'll continue to argue that the good far outweighs the bad. You could also argue that sure, I can start my own video camera website, but whats to prevent people from just continuing to go to DVXuser? Nothing, people are free to go the the sites they wish, just as you are free to make available the information you want provide.

Rupert Murdoch owns 9 movie studios, 14 TV stations, 16 cable networks, 6 magizines, 23 newspapers, and Harper Collins publishing...

I bet it wouldn't matter how many times I called any one of those media, none of them would let me say "Rupert Murdoch sucks c(*)ck!". There I have no power...

But I just did it on this website (kinda) and it's available to anyone in the world that wants to read it, with just couple mouse clicks.

The internet and other traditional media outlets are most definitely not that same. And that's way i think it's so important government and corporations don't tell ISO's what and what not to let through.
Click to expand...

It's only a matter of degree. The printing press was a phenomenal revolution -- relatively cheap; easy to mass-print and distribute. It was opposed by many for exactly those reasons, and exactly what you cite.

Now, I knew that someone would take me as saying that the Internet should be SEVERELY limited, and that I'm saying it's danger outweighs its benefit, but I'm not saying that at all.

Not sure what you mean by "corporate interests," though. What exactly do they do vis-a-vis the Internet that you see as onerous?
 
David Jimerson said:
It's still working itself out.

An immediate example, though -- right here. We're a great site, but it's not a free-for-all. And not everyone is allowed access.
Click to expand...

very different. This site is privately owned and operated. Jarred owns this site and therefore controls how it's used and what is acceptable. And to refer back to my example, I too can start my own camera website and dictate the rules over there, and it will be available to just as many ppl around the world.
 
You were talking about "unchecked and uncensored." A corporation (of one) owns this site and dictates its content. And for good reason.
 
David Jimerson said:
It's still working itself out.

An immediate example, though -- right here. We're a great site, but it's not a free-for-all. And not everyone is allowed access.
Click to expand...


yes, site creators maintain control of what they allow on their website. but what about broader regulations, such as by various governments? i'm interested in hearing what people think the limits of the internet are and what restrictions are acceptable. if anyone else wants to chime in and give your thoughts, feel free..
 
ugafan said:
yes, site creators maintain control of what they allow on their website. but what about broader regulations, such as by various governments? i'm interested in hearing what people think the limits of the internet are and what restrictions are acceptable. if anyone else wants to chime in and give your thoughts, feel free..
Click to expand...

Any governmental regulation should be along the lines of that which governs other types of speech -- there are restrictions on things which may induce panic (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, of course) -- and then there's libel and slander -- it's not hard to come up with examples.

So, again, I'm not sure what form onerous "corporate" restriction would take.
 
ugafan said:
yes, site creators maintain control of what they allow on their website. but what about broader regulations, such as by various governments? i'm interested in hearing what people think the limits of the internet are and what restrictions are acceptable. if anyone else wants to chime in and give your thoughts, feel free..
Click to expand...
Of course some of the obvious should never be allowed on the Net. Example: Child Pornography.

Any documents that are illegal to have in your home should be illegal on the Net as well. Of course the kinks would have to be worked out...
 
David Jimerson said:
It's only a matter of degree. The printing press was a phenomenal revolution -- relatively cheap; easy to mass-print and distribute. It was opposed by many for exactly those reasons, and exactly what you cite.

Now, I knew that someone would take me as saying that the Internet should be SEVERELY limited, and that I'm saying it's danger outweighs its benefit, but I'm not saying that at all.

Not sure what you mean by "corporate interests," though. What exactly do they do vis-a-vis the Internet that you see as onerous?
Click to expand...

Corporations hold just as much or more power than the government holds. To be more accurate, Rupert Murdoch owns News Corp. which is a publicly shared corporation, and News Corp. owns all those media outlets around the world. Not to bash on Murdoch, but it's not secret knowledge that he tends to lean to the right, and its less of a secret many of his papers and news networks like FOX NEWS also tend to lean to the right.

It goes like this: Murdoch wants to start a cable news network, he hires Super-Republican Nixon/Bush consultant Roger Ailes to head the new network, and so on and so on until you have Bill O'Reilly cutting people mics off on his show.

It works the other way around also, I'm sure I could find an equally biased liberal example, but the point stands. I'm in no way capable of responding to Murdoch on his turf. I don't have a media conglomerate and really doubt that I WILL have one at some point. But I do have internet access.
 
David Jimerson said:
You were talking about "unchecked and uncensored." A corporation (of one) owns this site and dictates its content. And for good reason.
Click to expand...

agreed, but he only controls his sites, which accounts for what... 0.000000000000000012% of the internet? Maybe that's generous. Murdoch owns something like 9% of television networks (broadcast, not cable) And ultimately has final say on what goes out over those signals.

Now, I'm not sure how onerous this is, but I'm prone to think it's not terribly "good". And regardless, the internet allows an alternative to that system, regardless of if you like the way Conglomerates or doing it or not. It provides choice to educate yourself rather than just be told, which for the most part other media doesn't really allow.
 
OK, but how do "corporate interests" censor the Internet? That, you have not explained. You've only mentioned TV.
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
Of course some of the obvious should never be allowed on the Net. Example: Child Pornography.

Any documents that are illegal to have in your home should be illegal on the Net as well. Of course the kinks would have to be worked out...
Click to expand...

There is a good example of where the net must be regulated. Another would be something like this: if I were a terrorist and I illegally immigrated to the United States from Iran and worked my way through the system until I got a high powered job in the CIA or some other top secret Government agency and started to collect information that must be kept secret for the good of the nation; first of all I should be arrested, but second of all if I posted that information on the internet, The US Government should have the right to block it or take it down entirely.

Further, if I was a structural engineer for a high profile building (White House, etc...) and I made note of a flaw/weakness and decided to post a "how-to" manual on blowing up/destroying that building, that information should be taken out as well. Now these are just addressing the Government's right to censor the internet, and only for one reason: national security; but there are numerous other examples of when the net should be able to be regulated as a whole, not just the individual sites.

I am a lare advocate of freedom of speech, and further the ability to post whatever the hell I want, but I also understand there are cirsumstances where I shouldn't be able to post things.
 
David Jimerson said:
OK, but how do "corporate interests" censor the Internet? That, you have not explained. You've only mentioned TV.
Click to expand...

I was trying to use TV to describe what i DON'T want to happen to the internet, and also to show the differences between TV and the internet and the internets current unique traits

And to address the national security thing, I agree that anything illegal off the net should also be punishable ON the net. Things like releasing sensitive data, if illegal to do so in the physical world, should also be be illegal in the cyber world.

However, things get tricky if it's not illegal. For instance, I'm not sure if it would be illegal to post information about structural weakness in the white house. SHould that guy never be invited to work on a government job again, and be watched by the CIA? Of course! But i think effort would be better spent addressing the weakness than censoring the information. (again, assuming releasing that info was not illegal, which it might be, i don't know)
 
Cheesesailor77 said:
However, things get tricky if it's not illegal. For instance, I'm not sure if it would be illegal to post information about structural weakness in the white house. SHould that guy never be invited to work on a government job again, and be watched by the CIA? Of course! But i think effort would be better spent addressing the weakness than censoring the information. (again, assuming releasing that info was not illegal, which it might be, i don't know)
Click to expand...

I see what you mean, and I agree steps should be taken to fix the physical issue, but if that information is available to foreign terrorists or even Americans who are unhappy with the Government, then we can't afford NOT to take it off.
 
ConspiracyPenguin said:
I see what you mean, and I agree steps should be taken to fix the physical issue, but if that information is available to foreign terrorists or even Americans who are unhappy with the Government, then we can't afford NOT to take it off.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think your wrong about this. For example, I recall "20/20" doing a special going into excruciating detail describing a hypothetical terrorist attack where a anthrax bomb would be detonated in the New York subway system. The show went step by step describe exactly how the terrorists could do it and the devastation it would cause.

Yet I didn't hear about anyone at ABC getting arrested and they certainly didn't take it off the air.

I don't believe it's illegal to to point out a weakness in the white house (again, I don't know, so it might be), so assuming it isn't, I don't think that information should be censored.

What if that guy posted that info online saying "ATTN WHITE HOUSE! Please address this weakness immediately!" Would that change your perspective? Yet it's exactly the same information as "ATTN TERRORISTS! This is how you blow up the white house!"

see what i mean?
 
David Jimerson said:
It's not even a new concept. The same issues were wrangled over concerning the printing press, radio, television, cable, satellite communication, telephones, telegraphs -- everything. .
Click to expand...

The one thing substantially different about the net is that it's interactive.

I agree with you though David, the power of the internet is staggering though I'd say its natural tilt is democratic, and if you think democracy is a good thing (not everyone does) then maybe it's not amoral.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top