NationStates Jolt Archive

Nations of the world. Those of you who's existence span the length of recorded history have well documented the fact that the internet during its infancy was free of advertising of all kind. An ideal situation where infastructure was funded by academic institutions in the name of science, the preservation, accumulation and accessablity of knowledge for all mankind for free.
Through the passage of time, many corporations realized the potential of such an infustructure and due to their large capital managed to hijack the internet and transform it into a place where free quality information and all the merits of the internet were sold or placed not in the spirit of sharing but for the commercial benefit of corporations.

We therefore propose:

1: Banning all advertising on the internet
2: The creation of an international organization responsible for making sure corporations comply to the rules and having the power to "offline" corporations that advertise using any methods including "spam" and all types of banners.
3: Corporations will be allowed to have websites as long as they donate 50% of their online profits to internet infustructure and free services that will be assigned by the international body proposed in part 2 of this article.

This proposal is intended as a draft, and suggestions are welcome in the spirit of cooperation between nations.
Y.G.
The Community of Ecodigitalias.

3: Corporations will be allowed to have websites as long as they donate 50% of their online profits to internet infustructure and free services that will be assigned by the international body proposed in part 2 of this article.


A regulation like this is bound to have one of two effects on internet commerce:

1) Companies will double their prices to cover their inflated overhead
2) Companies will stop doing business online.

Either one will eventually drive these companies out of business, depriving this "international body" of funding and causing the net to collapse.

Advertising is annoying but it helps to provide services to the public free of charge. Without ads, we'll have a proliferation of fees, registrations and licenses. Do you want that?

Why not just ban the internet?

1: Banning all advertising on the internet
In other words, violating the property rights of server owners. So this is an evil idea.

2: The creation of an international organization responsible for making sure corporations comply to the rules and having the power to "offline" corporations that advertise using any methods including "spam" and all types of banners.
In other words, an organization to enforce a law that shouldn't exist in the first place and has near-dictatorial powers (KGB, anyone?). So this is an evil idea.

3: Corporations will be allowed to have websites as long as they donate 50% of their online profits to internet infustructure and free services that will be assigned by the international body proposed in part 2 of this article.
In other words, a private entity is told what it can and cannot do with money that is rightfully its. So this is an evil idea.

Whoa, closet socialist.

1: Banning all advertising on the internet
2: The creation of an international organization responsible for making sure corporations comply to the rules and having the power to "offline" corporations that advertise using any methods including "spam" and all types of banners.
3: Corporations will be allowed to have websites as long as they donate 50% of their online profits to internet infustructure and free services that will be assigned by the international body proposed in part 2 of this article.

Ban all advertising? Wow. Half the money in the whole internet just disappeared. A good three-quarters of all the sites just died. Geocities? Gone. Search engines? Gone. Something Awful, FARK, Newgrounds? Gone. Without advertising, the only sites left will be retailers -- sure, there might be a select few amatuers with the time and money to fund themselves, but how will we find them without the advertising-funded search engines?

Having the power to "offline" corporations... sorry, but what does that mean? This proposal would have been much better off if it had just banned spam. You'd probably get lots of legitimate support for that.

And companies will have to donate half of their profits? HALF? Do you have any idea how much freaking money that is? How the hell would any organization created for the express purpose of fighting advertising even begin to spend that much? Why would any online business survive in that kind of environment? If businesses have to give their profit to the UN and can't advertise, do you really think they'll spend thousands of dollars to hire website designers and get servers and bandwidth? Do you think it'll still be a profitable venture when consumers realize they can just walk to their local stores and get things for 3/4 the price?

1: Banning all advertising on the internet


Why not just banning popup advertising? The non-popup ads don't really do anything. Without advertising in general, people can't effectively convey the message that their site or product even exists.

1) true IP's that includes direct links back to your site...you spam with someones email acount and you get fined

2)pop ups from you company or any self installing software or data miners will result in the arrest of EVERYONE in your company,and the trun over of all of you stock etc.. and the money after liqudation is given to areas that need it...foriegn aid...health care...etc...

why not just banning the idiots who spawn such ri-damn-diculous proposals instead?

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I think that just the banning of pop-ups would do. Other than that, banning of all advertisement is just plain ludicrous.

Ecodigitalias may enjoy having a fragile economy, but Nevermoore doesn't plan on having anything under frightening anytime soon. Banning Internet advertisement would inevitably have a major effect on not only our economy, but the entire UN's economy! Is Ecodigitalias trying to lock the UN out of the Information Age?

Nevermoore's Ambassador to the United Nations:
Emelia Hearting

Allright, i did post this in the light of cooperation between nations, so your feedback is most welcome. Here is my feedback on your thoughts:

1. According to a recent study the EU lost 2 billion euros (a bit more than 2 billion dollars) on spam this year. Concider all the bandwidth used up from pop up windows, and that adds up to a conciderable amount of money that could have been spent on usefull purposes, such as free web hosting, that ought to buy a lot of banner free web space.

2.The funding of the international body can be arranged by alternative sources.

3. The reason i suggested an international body (UN like) is to minimize bias and control by any one nation and corruption due to individual national interests. There will be no security council with big powers having vetos. An international body that acts for the benefit of all.

4. Most of the most innovative services and ideas on the internet have been started by individuals in the spirit of sharing, remember napster anyone ? Academic institutions would play a large role in creating and sustaining innovative technologies and services.

5.As for the impact on the economy and other money related issues , a good economy serves to provide a high standard of living, that would be boosted if the internet would have a more socialist face and less of capitalist one where it would be driven by a system that tries to benefit all, instead of profit seeking motivations.


Looking forward to hearing your response.

Y.G.
The Community of Ecodigitalias.

5.As for the impact on the economy and other money related issues , a good economy serves to provide a high standard of living, that would be boosted if the internet would have a more socialist face and less of capitalist one where it would be driven by a system that tries to benefit all, instead of profit seeking motivations.

No.

Economy is not the concern of government. All it is is a means of resource allocation--and the only ethical means of doing that is doing it without government interference.

Banning all advertising would have profound affects on all aspects of life in NS and in the real world. Some of the advertising on the internet is done to support numerous worthwhile organizations
American Red Cross, International Red Cross, American Cancer Society, Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity, United Way, etc., etc.
A portion of the funds that are earned on the internet are used for funding research and development for biological solutions to the human condition. Granted the majority of the funds are profits of large corporations, but the R&D of these large corporations has created more solutions to human tragedy than what could have been accomplished without this form of revenue generation. We live in a global economy and the internet is part of the global communication system. If we want to have restrictions on advertising, then we might as well eliminate the telephone, televisions, radio, movie theaters, highways (billboards??), newspapers, magazines, etc. etc.
Are we really willing to sacrifice our future and our freedoms just to give everyone an advertising free life??? :shock:
As the bumper sticker I saw today said
Get in
Sit Down
Shutup
Buckle Up
and Hang On
:idea:

1. According to a recent study the EU lost 2 billion euros (a bit more than 2 billion dollars) on spam this year. Concider all the bandwidth used up from pop up windows, and that adds up to a conciderable amount of money that could have been spent on usefull purposes, such as free web hosting, that ought to buy a lot of banner free web space.

And how, exactly, did they lose this money? Advertising money is not "lost." Cash transactions go from one account to another, not from one account down the toilet. Do popups really use all that much bandwidth? What about flash sites or image sites? Don't those use much more bandwidth than a few popup adds? Should we ban those, too? Oh, that's right, freedom of speech only protects things we want to see. I forgot.

If you really find popups to be that annoying, why don't you stop being a lazy tard and, I dunno, get a popup blocker?

I'm really, really failing to see the incredible bandwidth usage involved, here. Spam email... okay... I hope you realize that a few thousand spams may add up to less than a single mid-sized image. The much more likely problem is for the mail servers. Popups? Those are essentially images, of which we see a couple dozen on every page on the average website.

Advertising money could have been spent on free hosting? Don't you mean that it WAS spent on free hosting?

2.The funding of the international body can be arranged by alternative sources.

I assume that by "international body," you mean "internet." What a good thought -- instead of allowing private industry to run things just fine, let's have the government step in, waste billions of tax-dollars, change around everything, and maybe, just maybe, get an end product that's half as good as the original -- only this time tightly regulated by paper pushers so that it's worthless, anyway.

3. The reason i suggested an international body (UN like) is to minimize bias and control by any one nation and corruption due to individual national interests. There will be no security council with big powers having vetos. An international body that acts for the benefit of all.

Yeah, I'll give you that.

4. Most of the most innovative services and ideas on the internet have been started by individuals in the spirit of sharing, remember napster anyone ? Academic institutions would play a large role in creating and sustaining innovative technologies and services.

I know, let's cite one of the great illegalities of our time as a reason to support an idiotic proposal. Unless you were trying to point out that Napster and Kazaa highlight the need for internet regulation, I honestly can't see what point you were trying to make with that.

Never mind that file-sharing is FAR more of a bandwidth problem than popups and spam could ever possibly be. I love your consistency.

5.As for the impact on the economy and other money related issues , a good economy serves to provide a high standard of living, that would be boosted if the internet would have a more socialist face and less of capitalist one where it would be driven by a system that tries to benefit all, instead of profit seeking motivations.

Riiight. Things designed to make money are terrible and, if we take your word for it, uneconomical. Your argument is basically a nice way of saying "Hurting the ecnonomy is good for it!" Uh-huh.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3068627.stm
Read for yourself

Santin please take the time to read full thread.

Do beg pardon Ecodigitalias but the BBC article talks about how unsolicited emails, or spam, has cost the EU 2.5 billion euros. Thus the point about banning internet advertising is moot.

2.The funding of the international body can be arranged by alternative sources.

Question: What are these alternative sources? If businesses, then do we not have contradictions? If government, then this means another tax hike... not that I really care about that.

Academic institutions would play a large role in creating and sustaining innovative technologies and services.

Just want to clarify. This means that we get services from universities and government research institutions? If so, how is that different from getting the same services from businesses for businesses are just as good as the economy as a business-like academic institution.

5.As for the impact on the economy and other money related issues , a good economy serves to provide a high standard of living, that would be boosted if the internet would have a more socialist face and less of capitalist one where it would be driven by a system that tries to benefit all, instead of profit seeking motivations.

Here we get into the issue of trodding on the right of the government and people to choose for themselves how they want to run their country, and economic system is one of them. The Internet is so global that by forcing a socialist state on the Internet, we force socialism on the world. A good thing? Perhaps, but it belies the person's right to choose. Many people's livelihood would be instantly destroyed, or at least severly incapacitated, by this resolution.

Thus, the stance of this government is that the whole idea of regulating Internet commerce for anything other than fraud is not an appropriate use of power [lol... this coming from a dictatorship...]

Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

well..
1.Advertising is a subset of spam

"Just want to clarify. This means that we get services from universities and government research institutions? If so, how is that different from getting the same services from businesses for businesses are just as good as the economy as a business-like academic institution."

Yes the difference is that academic instituitions reinvest their money in education, research, grants etc. Thats infinetely more useful than inflating already inflated bank accounts.

Although we may have different opinions we do appreciate your transcendence Baron Porkonia (lol).
;)

Perhaps dictatorship is the wrong word. Our leader prefers to refer to himself as an "englightened despot." Like Louis X!V. Or... the Austrian one in the time of Mozart. Can't remember his name for the life of me.

Edit: Oh and I see your point about the academic institution. You've got me there.

Advertising, while anooying, helps to keep many great sites and games like this one free.

The proposal will not receive our endorsement.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3068627.stm
Read for yourself

Santin please take the time to read full thread.

Wow. Two sentences in rebuttal to my entire argument. How amazing you must be that you can dismiss me so smoothly. Never mind that I've been posting in this thread just about since it started, if you'd care to notice. Never mind that this particular article has little to nothing to do with the better half of your proposal. Never mind that this article reveals no facts on the matter of spam costs, only quotes an apparently arbitrary figure and gives us a name or two. Are we supposed to believe that to be sufficient research?

The Great Nation of Putergeeks does not support this Proposal.


While we agree that internet advertising is a pain, we know that advertising PAYS for the internet. We would prefer to see a ban on advertising directed at children under 18 (or other suitable age) and advertising for pornography. The particulars would have to discussed and clarified.

To Santin:

1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3068627.stm spam costs
2. Flash and images are not advertising they are a form of communication
3. This is not against freedom of speech this is about rutheless profit making dominating the internet.
4. Again 2.5 billion dollars ought to buy a lot of hosting
5. by international body i meant what was mentioned in my first proposal (read it)
6. Most people find P2P services a major innovation. I happen to think its the greatest thing since the invention of ice-cream. Kazaa alone has 3 million users, no one is forcing them to use it. We all buy the programs that we really find worthwile, for the tech support and updates anyway.
That bandwidth is used for peoples pleasure or whatever other reason, its not used for some company to make a quick buck.
7. I grant you it would hurt the economy on the short term but in the long term it ought to increase the standard of living. Read other posts.

Who needs money when you got it all ?


To the rest of you , please take the time to read all submissions before posting,
Thank you.
Y.G.
The Community of Ecodigitalias.

A short term hurt on the economy could lead to a long term one... after all, look how long the Great Depression of the United States went on. It took a war to jolt them out of that one. The transition would require intense regulation and a lot of time.

The spam being a subset of advertising, though a valid point, does not justify the banning of internet advertising in general. Just because people do not like pornography, does not make them go demanding that all magazines be banned, just pornography. So why not amend to banning spam.

Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3068627.stm spam costs

You don't understand my objection to that site, do you? They don't tell us anything significant. The number, for all we know, was picked by rolling dice. Lost productivity costs 2 billion euros? I'd like to see something about how they arrived at that conclusion before I put any trust in it at all. It may well be true, but we can't tell.

All that aside, you still haven't given us any hint of a fiscal reason to ban popups or banners.

2. Flash and images are not advertising they are a form of communication

Again, you miss my point. You say that advertising is a crippling bandwidth threat and must be stopped, yet exempt things like Kazaa and Newgrounds that undeniably use FAR more bandwidth. Besides that, Kazaa uses most of its bandwidth in areas which are already considered illegal by most every government in the world.

3. This is not against freedom of speech this is about rutheless profit making dominating the internet.

Freedom of speech applies to ALL speech. What is advertising, if not speech or expression? Sure, it's geared to make a profit, but isn't all speech, after a fashion?

Ruthless profit making? Does that mean that all profitable enterprises should henceforth be referred to as "evil?"

4. Again 2.5 billion dollars ought to buy a lot of hosting

Yes, and it already does. I see no convincing reason to change that. I'm also not seeing how you got this number -- the only 2.5 billion you've quoted so far was about money lost to spam, and that's not the same thing.

5. by international body i meant what was mentioned in my first proposal (read it)

I tend to like it when people do this funny thing I like to call "being specific." Saying "international body" is a meaningless phrase in this case -- there are literally hundreds of them. You could have just said "International body responsible for enforcing this resolution," or maybe given it some snappy acronym. (Though, admittedly, IBRFETR isn't too great).

6. Most people find P2P services a major innovation. I happen to think its the greatest thing since the invention of ice-cream. Kazaa alone has 3 million users, no one is forcing them to use it. We all buy the programs that we really find worthwile, for the tech support and updates anyway.
That bandwidth is used for peoples pleasure or whatever other reason, its not used for some company to make a quick buck.

Most systems administrators see Kazaa as the biggest bandwidth hog of all time, and henceforth close its ports and stop its function. Most lawmakers see Kazaa as one of the greatest cesspools of digital piracy ever created. Maybe you missed that bit about "copyright" and "violation," so it didn't strike you as being blatantly illegal. Kazaa is used to make money, after a fashion -- people don't want to buy information, so they steal it instead.

And again, your bandwidth thing isn't making any sense. Kazaa uses WAY more bandwidth than spam, popups, and banners could ever hope to.

7. I grant you it would hurt the economy on the short term but in the long term it ought to increase the standard of living. Read other posts.

Since when do popup adds hurt the standard of living? Or spam emails? Get popup killers and spam filters.

Who needs money when you got it all ?

Everyone needs money, because money allows you to trade for and buy "it all." Standard of living and economy are linked -- you can get more products and services when you have more money to buy with, and tax revenues for subsidizing those precious programs relies on the taxes gleaned from the economy's function.

A proposal to shut down the Internet - how quaint. And how stupid. Why don't we get rid of TV and radio and magazines and newspapers, too? Let's all be Luddites and live on grubs and tree bark. That way we won't have to be bothered with anyone trying to tell us about their products - well, ok, we'll have to ban language, too, but no big deal, there won't be anything to talk about. It's a win-win proposition.

And grubs are yummy...... :D

We can get rid of TV? Now we're talking.

1. This would destroy the idea of what is called "dot-communism," the idea that everything on the internet should be free... how to pay for it without advertising. I, IC and OOC, support the idea as much as practically possible.
2. I believe that no regulation can legally be placed on the internet, as it belongs to no one country, again, IC and OOC.

2. Flash and images are not advertising they are a form of communication

Again, you miss my point. You say that advertising is a crippling bandwidth threat and must be stopped, yet exempt things like Kazaa and Newgrounds that undeniably use FAR more bandwidth. Besides that, Kazaa uses most of its bandwidth in areas which are already considered illegal by most every government in the world.

The thing that bothers me most about advertising is a moral issue. Why should i be bombarded everywhere on the net, next thing you know you wont be able to go to your bathroom without being exposed to advertising. I am also sickened at the lengths people go to advertise hiding behind noble causes and issues that appeal to most human people. How much more talent and aesthetics have to be wasted in the meaningless selling of useless material products, ever stop to think if all that charm was invested in things worthlwhile, like pormoting world peace for example. We'd have less wars and therefore would be even economically in a better situation.

3. This is not against freedom of speech this is about rutheless profit making dominating the internet.

Freedom of speech applies to ALL speech. What is advertising, if not speech or expression? Sure, it's geared to make a profit, but isn't all speech, after a fashion?
As far as i'm concerned, blatent lying and the manipulation of people to buy material objects that are useless, paid with by extra time at work, is as evil as say child pornography, which i'm sure most will agree should be outllawed.
If you really want to buy something because you have need for it, you can google it find it and buy it.
I'm not against commerce or profit making, i am against people using a brilliant and promising medium which you have access in your own house to be used to manipulate you. And as any advertiser will tell you, a good advertisement will affect even the most skeptical person.
Its the digital equivalent of corporations setting up billboards in your home without asking you first.


5. by international body i meant what was mentioned in my first proposal (read it)

I tend to like it when people do this funny thing I like to call "being specific." Saying "international body" is a meaningless phrase in this case -- there are literally hundreds of them. You could have just said "International body responsible for enforcing this resolution," or maybe given it some snappy acronym. (Though, admittedly, IBRFETR isn't too great).
Cheap shot and from my previous posts is this:


"The creation of an international organization responsible for making sure corporations comply to the rules and having the power to "offline" corporations that advertise using any methods including "spam" and all types of banners." The reason i suggested an international body (UN like) is to minimize bias and control by any one nation and corruption due to individual national interests. There will be no security council with big powers having vetos. An international body that acts for the benefit of all.



6. Most people find P2P services a major innovation. I happen to think its the greatest thing since the invention of ice-cream. Kazaa alone has 3 million users, no one is forcing them to use it. We all buy the programs that we really find worthwile, for the tech support and updates anyway.
That bandwidth is used for peoples pleasure or whatever other reason, its not used for some company to make a quick buck.

Most systems administrators see Kazaa as the biggest bandwidth hog of all time, and henceforth close its ports and stop its function. Most lawmakers see Kazaa as one of the greatest cesspools of digital piracy ever created. Maybe you missed that bit about "copyright" and "violation," so it didn't strike you as being blatantly illegal. Kazaa is used to make money, after a fashion -- people don't want to buy information, so they steal it instead.
1. Yes system administrators are against ot because they are not making any money of it . This is the exactly what i'm talking about, the internet ought to be a tool for communication among people not adapted to serve profit making of certain individuals.
2.I am against copyright and so are a lot of people including a lot of musicians which the big 5 record companies want to have you believe that File sharing is hurting music. (see 4)
3.Linux is the biggest example by far, open source software was and is still the most reliable, promising and profit free product at the cutting edge of technological innovation. see: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html
4. You say copyright, i say copyleft see: http://www.copyleftmedia.org.uk/
and in case you're too lazy here's part of it:
"Copyleft traces the evolution of copyright law and its coincidence with the beginnings of mass-production of music and the rise during the last century of corporate music giants such as Sony, Bertelsmann and AOL/Time/Warner whose influence now controls the music industry and an artists means of generating income. The book asserts that copyrighting material is not so much a concern with originality or the intellectual property of the artist, but about financial control over what has become a valuable and marketable commodity"

Since when do popup adds hurt the standard of living? Or spam emails? Get popup killers and spam filters.
I shouldn't have to be on the defense, advertising has to stop, unless i choose to view it which is a completely different story. In light of this we could amend the proposal to allow advertising on advertising only sites on the net, and besides, there's still the search engines that allow you to find products that you want to buy.

I hope this has explained to you more accurately my point of view.

Best Regards,
Y.G.
Community of ecodigitalias

I would just like to point out that advertising itself is non-voluntary. Billboards, radios, TV, magazines... do you really watch tv to watch advertising? It often annoys people. Yet nobody complains... whY? cuz advertising brings people their TV. It is the same thing with internet advertising. People don't actively complain because

a) You can get spam filters and pop up protection.
b) advertising brings you your free internet sites.

If you really want to go for it, I would say restrict it to pop ups and spam, and then I would probably vote for it.

This proposal is an attack on the freedom of speech. While no one in the 510 Techcropolis likes spam or pop-up ads, we are staunch supporters of free speech, even by those who do it in annoying ways or about things that we dislike.

Seriously, a lot of proposals move the UN controlled world towards distopia. "1984" and "Brave New World" can be found in all of Techcropolis's public high schools, and in libraries around the world.

-Speaker for the Federation

Then, we should crash the internet