originally posted in:Secular Sevens
I think the internet [u]should[/u] be policed. It's not a meaningless abstraction, but a physical artefact with great sway on human lives. It seems absolutely absurd to me that the wires and machines of the internet are policed, and this is accepted without deviation, but people rebel at the idea of policing the content that travels through those wires and to those machines! If one intends to disturb the peace they should be susceptible to punishment, regardless of method.
The internet is new, and trolling has become a pastime for many, but things will change. Spiteful comments are not expressions of thought, they're knee-jerk reactions. Not at all worth preserving.
English
-
That really sounds like something out of 1984.
-
The only thing I can conclude from this statement would be that [i]you've never read 1984[/i].
-
I haven't read it. Do you care to explain what it's about, and the relevance?
-
Edited by Ninja Guardian: 12/4/2013 7:01:24 PM1984 is a dystopian novel about a future where every thing is policed, even thoughts. So every time someone describes something such as a law as "Orwellian" they're saying its a law that sounds like something the governments in 1984 would enact. The internet is supposed to be a free area and its one of the last bastions where a person can voice their thoughts and opinions freely with no censors and no editors as how other forms of media such as TV and print have censorship and editors. The internet should stay that way.
-
[quote]The internet is supposed to be a free area and its one of the last bastions where a person can voice their thoughts and opinions freely with no censors and no editors as how other forms of media such as TV and print have censorship and editors. The internet should stay that way.[/quote] Right, so people should be free to share child pornography and tell others how to make bombs?
-
Bombs yes, child porn, no. Two very different categories there.
-
No, pedophiles should be arrested. But the free nature of the internet where ideas can be shared freely without editors or censors should be preserved.
-
Ideas about making bombs?
-
Edited by Ninja Guardian: 12/6/2013 5:31:21 AMYou can find that stuff in the Anarchist Cookbook which was released in 1971 before the internet was born anyways. Also to me bombmaking instructions don't come off as an idea, they just come off as a set of instructions.
-
And what's the point of stopping at 'ideas'? Do you think ideas can't have negative consequences?
-
The thing is that "dangerous" ideas can have loose and manipulated definitions. Right now Socialism isn't considered a dangerous idea anymore, but back in the mid-20th century when the US Government was cracking down on Socialists it was considered a dangerous idea. Socialists were added to a government blacklist which essentially ruined their prospects of finding a job. If the internet and the NSA's tools were available during the McCarthy era, then the NSA wouldn't be going after terrorists, they would be going after Socialists. My point is that if we actively try to stop ideas which we deem dangerous today, then it could open up possibilities of ideals going against the status quo (such as Socialism and Libertarianism) being deemed "dangerous" by governments. And I'd rather have ten insufferable people have a voice on the internet rather than having one person of reformative ideological change go silenced.
-
Edited by Seggi: 12/6/2013 6:02:17 AMOh, right, yes, I keep forgetting that you're incapable of distinguishing different situations.
-
Are you insulting my intelligence again?
-
Edited by Seggi: 12/6/2013 7:48:58 AMI'm pointing out the failings of your 'argument', and that you refuse to acknowledge them.
-
[quote]The internet is supposed to be a free area and its one of the last bastions where a person can voice their thoughts and opinions freely with no censors and no editors as with other forms of media such as TV. The internet should stay that way.[/quote]Firstly, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watershed_(television)]TV is censored just about everywhere, including the US[/url]. Secondly, the Internet should not be a lawless place and people should be held accountable for their actions when the break the law.
-
Yes I meant that TV is not censored, I cleared that up with an edit. I agree however that the internet should be monitored for stuff such as child pornography, but other then that governments should have a hands-off approach to the internet.
-
The problem with this is that you're thinking of "the Internet" as some kind of singular entity that exists outside of all nation's sovereignty. It isn't and doesn't. "The Internet" is merely a name for the amalgamation of networks that carries data globally. Nothing exists "on the Internet". It's a misnomer. The data you access exists on end-systems; databases and servers that exist on physical machines (including VMs). Those physical machines, and therefore the data on them, exist in locations where law enforcement has jurisdiction.