NationStates Jolt Archive

Internet Advertising Pop-ups

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Purple Haired vegans

Description: Come on you know what i mean. these things are the bane of our existence. If they were band, it would create world peace as everyone would walk around in a happy daze knowing that there internet surfing will be trouble free.

Votes For: 7863

Votes Against: 10781

Voting Ends: Sat Jan 10 2004

VOTING CLOSED - the resolution was rejected.

We oppose this resolution. It is extremely poorly written, to such an extent that we believe it to be inoperable. Furthermore, the risk of limiting speech on the internet in our opinion far outweighs the benefits of limiting pop-up advertisements.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region
Delegate, 5/19/2003 and 6/8/2003-11/28/2003

Do I even need to say anything? This proposal should be killed, and before the update tonight.

Steph? :?

Fyreheart supports this proposal.

Oh dear... that proposal actually made it? I am voting agaist it and will resign on the last day of voting if it looks like it is going to pass.

You'd resign over poor grammar and such?

The grammar and spelling are not the issue, I understand and accept that many have trouble with that kind of thing, and many others are too lazy to bother - as long as it isn't ambiguous, I'm ok with it. But if you're going to write a proposal like this, you need some kind of explanation of how you are going to do it. Who would enforce the ban? More importantly, perhaps, who would pay for the enforcement?

The proposal isn't even classified correctly - it's restricting human rights, because if you publish your own web page, you should be able to decide what goes on it (free speech), as long as the making of the page doesn't necessitate a crime in itself - e.g. child porn on websites should be, and is, illegal, but pop-ups are harmless. Annoying perhaps, but the right to freedom of expression takes precedence over the right not to be annoyed (that's why we don't have bans on types of entertainment that many find annoying).

This is a good example of a bad resolution. No details at all. What will be done to help stop the pop-ups? What will be done if the pop-ups are not stopped? Fines? Imprisonment? Need details. I am going to vote against this resolution. There are not enough details and it was not very well thought out. These kind of proposals stop good ones from being resolutions. Please vote against this resolution.

There is no point in banning pop-ups, if you find them annoying just use a pop-up blocker. Google toolbar is ideal, as is ad-rage.

It is pointless banning them as some sites only work if pop-ups are available.

Also the alternative is being re-directed. I'd rather close a pop-up and continue what I am doing, then have to re-load a page every time! :?

The UN Delegate, The Republic of Mikes Hope, has decided to immediately vote Against what We consider a frivolous and ill written resolution, prior to Regional debate.

We consider this Resolution a fundamental attack upon free speech. And though We recognize the aggravating nature of Pop Up advertisement, to curtail a fundamental right of democracy based solely upon our personal determination of comfort sets up a precedent that can only result in continued erosion of said fundamental rights.

And as such We, The Republic of Mikes Hope, feeling strongly enough regarding the protection of basic fundamental rights, cast the Region's vote of dissent, until such time the debate dicates the will of the Region warrants a change in the vote.

The Republic of Mikes Hope
UN Delegate

:?:
This resolution demonstrates to our nation, why we should continue to exclude ourselves from membership of The UN.

How did a resolution like this ever make it to the table for serious debate?

Our whole region is opposed to the UN and as such we have no UN members or delegations.

Until a credible alternative to this dis-credited organisation is formed or the current organisation is radically overhauled we will continue to remain outside of the UN as will our region (The League of Conservative States).

We very much sympathise for nations and states that are members of this organisation. You have no choice but to implement these ill-thought out proposals to your detriment!

Sincerely,

Prime Minister Thatcher

Such a poorly conceived and carelessly submitted proposal indicates the performance once the resolution is passed. The casual phrasing of such a serious issue undermines the intended effect and the incorrect spelling and grammar are seen as sufficient grounds themselves for rejection. The good peoples of Arturia Demigodia will not support even well intentioned efforts of such quality.

How this poorly written trash even made it to this stage I don't know. It isn't even worthy of debate.

This resolution is written so poorly that it should not even be considered valid! The internet advertising industy would suffer a lot from a ban on popups, so if everyone who is annoyed by popups use a simple popup blocker, everyone wins.

However, all that aside, the lack of thought, editing, and detail in this proposal is ridiculous and makes me ashamed to be a member of the U.N.

This resolution was either written by an 8 year old or while stoned, most likely the latter. Don't even get me started on the fact that this "issue" has little to do with the UN, has free speech implications, etc...

Perhaps you are overlooking the fact that as 'heads of governments' (albeit fictional) we have a responsibility to represent the wishes if the people. Regardless of whether we think that the motion is ridiculous, many people in RL are calling for its ban; to simply ignore the issue is ignoring their right to decide on the issue.

Whatever the decision, I'll support its banning, but will accept the outcome of the UN either way. Personally I hate pop-up ads, they are as bad as spam e-mail and I would like it if an international law made it illegal on the grounds of nuisance and unsolicited interference in the use of the Internet, whether in NationStates or in RL!

I'm still waiting to join the UN, but if I get my membership in time, I'll vote for the ban, and would ask others to do the same.

Pettifog will not endorse such a proposal. If the proposal was in more detail and were it to be correctly worded, and grammatically correct, we may consider such a proposal.

On behalf of the Rogue Nation of Clandestic Fortunes, we are forced to vote against the proposal to ban Internet Pop-up.

Although we agree that advertising of this sort is an annoyance, The Rogue Nation of Clandestic Fortunes believes that this is a driving factor in the free market. Let it push technology to further heights while stimulating the economy as we allow the open market to regulate itself.

The wording alone should immediately disqualify it, but I have other problems with the resolution as well.

Like most other resolutions recently, this topic is not within the UN's juristiction. Individual nations have the right to attempt to block popup ads, but the UN should not force everyone to do so. What would be next, removing all forms of advertising? Yes, the world might be better without any form of free entertainment that exists meerly on advertising revenue (TV, radio, web pages such as this one). Hmmm, maybe if this popup resolution passes I'll propose something along those lines myself...

The second problem I have with this resolution is its classification. I wouldn't consider this an issue of Human Rights. Even worse is its effect of "Strong". So we suddenly ban all popups and my nation jumps three levels in the Human Rights category? Doesn't seem appropriate. Not to mention, telling nations they aren't even allowed to persue the use of popup advertising is actually a violation of human rights, or should we take away the freedom of speech next?

And here's the last reason, for those of you not persuaded by the first two. The only feasible way to enforce this resolution would be to supress all popups. The UN can't possibly know which popups you want and which you don't. If they left it up to you to decide which ones you wanted, then there would be no change from today where everyone can use programs to allow some popups and supress all others (even browsers such as netscape have this function built-in). So the choice to allow popups will have to be prevented and no websites will be able to create new windows for added functionality.

I also agree that this resolution isn't even worth debate, but even a poorly written one deserves well thought-out oppostition. After all, some people still vote for it just because they think popups are annoying.

If you have to power to propose a resolution, it should at least be spelled right.

Anyone who is a UN delegate and cannot spell or use grammar, should relieved of their post.

One vote against this proposal

Monotonous Malarchy Minister of Education
Superintedant Chaumers

The Grand Dutchy of Thickwood will oppose the motion. We feel that this is a breach of Human Rights and of Free Speach. With Pop-up blocking software readily available on the market, users can choose whether to allow these pop-ups on their systems or not.

Eate Bits
Minister for Computing and the Internet
The Grand Dutchy of Thickwood

There are several reasons that this resolution should be killed, as I see it, and I'll deal with them in ascending order of importance. First of all, as there are several reasons that this resolution should be killed, as I see it, and I'll deal with them in ascending order of importance. First of all, as _Myopia_ pointed out, it is incorrectly categorized. It claims to be a human rights resolution when, in fact, it is falls more closely under the heading of moral decency. Of course, while it is a clear breach of etiquette, there are no actual hard and fast rules against misclassification of proposals and resolutions. In fact, I have noticed that there is a strong tradition of placing proposals, even ones that eventually pass, into the wrong category (the Freedom From SPAM Act could be considered misclassified, although it does protect against a legitimate invasion of privacy).

Second, the resolution is in clear violation of Resolution 245A Proper Grammar. All UN nations are supposed to be held to the rules of the UN, and if they start being flagrantly violated, the UN becomes rather useless. If one ignores one resolution the UN has passed, why not another, or, indeed, all of them? Rules need to be enforced for them to have any meaning, and it is particularly appropriate in NationStaes, wherein everything is blown way out of proportion. Realistically, of course, something as trivial as this could easily be ignored due to de minimis non curat lex, but if that is the case, what is the point of Resolution 245A Proper Grammar? If we have decided that we are not going to abide by it, we should repeal it. In the end, though, I don't think anyone really cares all that much about that.

Third, as was pointed out by Goobergunchia, _Myopia_, Super Happiness, and Glid of Glood, the resolution may well be useless. In addition to poor grammar, it is extremely poorly written, such that it may prove inoperable due to unenforceability, being overly broad, and simply not dealing with the practical matters inherent to such a resolution. The Freedom From SPAM Act may or may not be misclassified and is arguably somewhat trivial, but it is well written and provides real ways to deal with its subject. What's more, the resolution is largely unnecessary due to the availability of popup blockers, as Glid of Glood said. In addition, it would only affect popups originating from UN nations, leaving the entire rest of the Internet untouched. Besides, it's like Glid of Glood: the alternative to popups is even worse.

Finally, the resolution puts inexcusable restrictions on the people of all UN nations for very little reason. It is a breach of not only their economic freedoms, but their personal rights to free speech as well. People should be able to present the content of their pages in whatever manner they see fit (within reason, of course). The fact is that it is widely believed that popups are an effective form of advertisement (although there has been a good deal of debate on the matter) and they should be allowed to use them if they want to. It also impinges on the right of the viewer to see the popup (in the unlikely event that they would actually want to). Popups do not seem to me to be a major threat to anyone's privacy, being that one must willingly visit a page in order for them to work and they were easily dealt and ignored even before the advent of widely available blockers. Furthermore, this resolution could potentially destroy the Internet in all UN nations. If businesses cannot advertise the way they want in UN nations, they may take their money elsewhere. After all, the message will still get to consumers who visit the other sites, and the ones in UN nations might not be around much longer anyway due to lack of funding. If the resolution manifests as a universal popup blocker in all UN member browsers or some such, that, too, would create problems because, as Glid of Glood observed, it is sometimes necessary for one to view popups in order to view material one actually wants to see. A universal blocker would render some portions of the Internet inaccessible to UN nations.

This was a bad proposal and is an even worse resolution. I, for one, will never support it and will do whatever I can to see it stymied.

I as delegate for the deserted wastelands also vote against this poor excuse for a resolution, my reasons being much the same as those previously stated by other delegates.

Sterge
UN DELEGATE
The Deserted Wastelands

While we can certainly agree that both the wording and the clarity of the resolution leave much to be desired, the intent is plain enough. Clearly, those countries which have such things as Free Speech and Human Rights might be concerned about such a resolution, but here in Towsonia things regularly get banned simply because "they make Rick cranky." As Internet pop-ups fall neatly into this category, Towsonia supports the spirit (if not the actual wording) of this resolution.

Rick
King of Towsonia

In principle it is good, and a lot of people in my region have voted for it (and are urgin me to). I can see the point of it being poorly written though, could cause problems when it comes to putting it into operation...

I am so upset of this resolution that I can not think clearly in Anglais, right now. I said that I would rsign if I saw une résolution plus stupide come onto this table, and now, I am at the edge of my patience. If this passes, Quebec Nouveau will resign our NSUN status indifintely. I find it très triste that something of this calibre could pass légitimement. Consider this our warning if it passes.

Neocong can not with any form of a clear conscience support this proposal.

It provides future proposal-writers with a terrible example of how to write one.

It is completely vague on its actual aims, and seems to be aimed purely at populist sentiments.

It seeks to regulate what should not be regulated by the UN, and does not offer any sort of suggestion has to what is actually be done (Promoting anti-popup legislature? Sending UN troops to arrest those who create popups?)

Lastly, we crusty old Conservatives wish to have nothing to do with this nonsense provided by whacked-out hippies who have no understanding about the business of International Governance and the Continued Requirement by the Global Community for the Limitation of Government to Very Political affairs.

Sheesh, what a stupid resolution. I'm probably just going to abstain from voting on it entirely.

Also... Didn't we just have an issue almost exactly like this one? What's up with that???

Sheesh, what a stupid resolution. I'm probably just going to abstain from voting on it entirely.

If you feel it is stupid, vote against and help prevent it from being adopted.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region

My people are avid users of the internet. They do not enjoy the pop-ups that come along every time they wish to access the web. I have voted for the resolution.

Sincerely,
George W. Bush
President & CEO
Federation of Bushiania

" Mikes Hope[300]"

in fact this country will decide for us!

The Borderlands of Idon will not support this resolution.

Though the fact that it is written so informally and with lack of proper spelling and grammar is a bit of a problem, that is not the main issue. The main issue with this resolution is what it is, in its entirety.

This is not a boost to human rights, but a restriction placed on it. By banning pop-ups, we are taking away from the peoples rights and restricting their freedom of speech. We are also causing an impact on the economy, both good and bad. Pop-ups allow many sites to remain free to the general public. Annoying as they may be, without pop-ups, many sites would be forced to shut down or begin charging for their services, even if they are mainly sharing information. Though more money can be made through the need for subscriptions to visit any site on the internet, more would be lost by the amounts of people driven away by ridiculous fees.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just let the people handle pop-ups on their own? Pop-up blockers are fairly simple to come by nowadays.

Illiterate tweenies ought not to be proposing resolutions to the UN.

Nuff said...

Good Grief! If a proposal written so poorly has the opportunity to fashion international legislation, what sort of value does this body, the UN, even hold?
The idea is interesting, but so poorly expressed and planned, that I'm forced to vote against it vehemently.

are we sure that the man who wrote that resolution is from an english speaking country? if not then maybe we can forget about the grammar mistakes.If you like the idea and you're a UN delegate,rewrite it.

TBF (Puppet mater of this nation) think this resolution should be tabled. How long would it take to copy this proposal into a program such as Microsoft Word so the word "banned" could be spelt correctly. Further more, this resolution talks about walking around in a happy daze. To finish it off however it is titled a resolution to improve Human Rights when it is restricting them. This should be tabled.

OOC:Any Chance of the mods deleting it?

Strongly against this resolution only because it is not presented well enough to be permanently placed into our books.

Pop-up ads are not a matter of free speech. It is important to realize that these advertisements are not voluntary and cannot be ignored. For instance, it is not illegal to speak freely about your new soda pop... it is in fact illegal to somehow stop someone on the street and repeatedly hand them papers until they lock up and fall down from the weight of all the paper you are handing them. Pop-up ads are in fact physical abuse of peoples time without an option to walk away.

Sites that use pop-up ads in moderation do not pose a threat as long as the user can simply leave and choose not to return. If a similar resolution passed it would not cause websites to abandon their advertising schemes it would simply remove their ability to open new windows against the users consent. Currently advertisers are adopting the flash pop-ups that avoid this entirely (and are not blocked by most ad blockers). These are acceptable and apply only to the content of the site itself. To clarify, opening new windows without consent is a privacy issue:flash advertisements are content choice. Its important to note the difference.

My apologies, but I do not feel up to reading previous messages.

I am voting against this issue; it is so badly written that I can hardly even tell if voting against is meant to stop pop ups or allow them.
Also, the misspelling of "banned" and "their" is bothersome.

Other than poor grammar etc, the glorious nation of Bahgum will vote against this proposal because it is yet another boring uninspiring unimaginative proposal. Surely more inspired, hopefully humourous proposals can be thought of. Sure, some may be worthy issues, but I have TV news and the papers for that, this is a game, originally written in a fun way. Lets have less of these humdrum obvious issues and some more off the wall but debatable (in a fun way) proposals.

Bahgum hopes to be inspired soon, though is a little dissapointed at the weak support its previous Hops (for ale brewing) national parks proposal and the twice (anonymously) removed pigeon proposal. Never fear, we'll try again, so should you (but don't base it on the news like everyone else please). Now how about something with flat caps in it..or clogs........

Bahgum

The people in the Nibbleton foreign office cringed in disbelief when they saw this proposal.
Other than the terriblr wording, even the junior secretaries spotted two major flaws in the proposal:
1) It is not stated what constitutes "advertising" in a pop-up? if you have your friend put a pop-up on his site with a link to yours, you get arrested?
2) This only effects countries within the UN. If a company or individual has there site hosted on a server in a country outside the UN, nothing can be done.

It is the general consensus that Nibbleton is not even goign to dignify this proposal with a vote, as it will clearly be defeated.

Major Johnson
Nibbleton

It is the official policy of Political Dissent to vote against any resolution so poorly written as to cause difficulty reading it.

We would, however, fully support this resolution were it to be rewritten and submitted anew.

In addition, we would support any resolution setting international standards for spelling and grammar.

UN Delegate Frisbeeteria has voted against this Proposal, and has encouraged all member nations to do likewise.

The UN should not be home to micromanagement of inconsequential issues, no matter how appealing the general premise may be. This Proposal, like the anti-Spam proposal before it, has no place in a transnational body. We should be setting broad policies relevant to international cooperation and coordination. Let individual nations and their populations make basic decisions on their own.

Would someone with an imagination (and a dictionary) start submitting some decent proposals, please?

Modern technology has created pop-up blockers... It is one of those things I love about the websites and e-mails, if you do not like them for whatever reason, don't go to those sites or open those e-mails! That is the easiest way to get rid of your pop-up problem.

We have voted AGAINST this resolution.

It undermines freedom of expression as well as free trade in the area of advertising. We will resign on last day of voting if it looks like it is going to pass.

Confederacy of the Isles Region UN Delegate
Hung Tony

My citizens are too smart to install the scumware that causes excessive pop up's I refuse to vote for something that will cost me needless money in enforcement.

Might I suggest Spybot Search & Destroy for those nations that struggle with this problem. It does not simply block pop ups it gets rid of the crap that causes them

What is he trying to say? I suppose, if you use your head, voting for the resolution means you're for pop-ups, and voting against it means you're against them. That is something that needs to be clearly defined in all resolutions: what voting for or against it means. Besides, this is not a UN matter. It will cost too much to implement and hurt the economy because of the websites that are supported by such ads.

I am against this issue.

The Armed Republiuc of The Gaurdian Angels has decided to vote against the ban, seeing as it earns extra revenue for our Government since the government is in complete control over the internet, for the most part. Spammers pay a monthly fee to the government to keep up with thier spamming, which we then distribute to Random Government Agencies, then whatever we have left is put out to the public, we always have surplus in internet spam. Besides, if you take away spam you take away even more free speech, and our country is losing much as we go on in our infancy

I do not want to turn the "bane of of existence" into a band, especially*on called Internet Advertising Pop-ups. Is there a lack of bad bands with crummy names in this world:?: And if there was, what is preventing the Internet Advertising Pop-ups from forming a band on there own:?:

I do not want to turn the "bane of of existence" into a band, especially*on called Internet Advertising Pop-ups. Is there a lack of bad bands with crummy names in this world:?: And if there was, what is preventing the Internet Advertising Pop-ups from forming a band on there own:?:

I do not want to turn the "bane of of existence" into a band, especially*on called Internet Advertising Pop-ups. Is there a lack of bad bands with crummy names in this world:?: And if there was, what is preventing the Internet Advertising Pop-ups from forming a band on their own:?:

IE Improvements

XP SP2 provides an improved Microsoft Internet Explorer (IE) version that contains several new features. A new opt-in pop-up ad blocking feature announces itself the first time you access a page that tries to open a pop-up window. (IE won't block pop-ups you enable by clicking a hyperlink.) This feature is configurable, so you can create a list of trusted sites if needed. The new IE also removes the capability of Web sites to open child windows that have certain features removed. For example, it's no longer possible to open a pop-up window with the address bar, title bar, status bar, or toolbars removed. Microsoft added this feature so that users can close any pop-up windows that do open. Furthermore, scripts can't position windows so that the title bar or address bar are above the top of the display or so the window's status bar is below the bottom of the display. IE also includes a new locked-down Local Machine security zone to help prevent malicious scripts and other dangerous Web downloads from compromising the system.

Microsoft has also overhauled IE's add-on subsystem, a move that will require plug-in makers to revamp their products. The end result, however, is better safety for users. Inadvertently installing spyware or malicious ActiveX controls will now be more difficult, and the programs will also be easier to remove. The add-on manager also monitors IE crashes caused by add-ons, letting you disable unstable add-ons. Perhaps most important, the IE add-on manager is fully manageable: You can centrally configure IE's crash-management options and which add-ons are allowed or denied.

Governor of Carls_berg

Internet Explorer and Microsoft do not exist in the NS-World to my knowledge.

are we sure that the man who wrote that resolution is from an english speaking country? if not then maybe we can forget about the grammar mistakes.If you like the idea and you're a UN delegate,rewrite it.

I'll go check.

This has been an OOC post.

I voted against this but...

If you have to power to propose a resolution, it should at least be spelled right.

Don't you mean the

Anyone who is a UN delegate and cannot spell or use grammar, should relieved of their post.

Should be relieved... I guess

Monotonous Malarchy Minister of Education
Superintedant Chaumers

oops... superintendent... Now that's an Education Minister!

We oppose this resolution as it is a serious infringement on free speech.

In addition to all of the previously stated objections, the Rogue State of Lillibit vehemently objects to this proposal, as it seems horribly difficult to enforce. How would enforcement of this resolution be funded? With the struggling Insurance Sales business in my country, enforcement of such a petty law could totally cripple the economy.

While I am opposed in principle to the use of pop-up advertisement, I cannot in good conscience vote in favour of this issue.

~Helen A. Handbasket
Senior Associate Vice Princess in Charge of Skimpy Lingerie
The Rogue State of Lillibt

In addition to all of the previously stated objections, the Rogue State of Lillibit vehemently objects to this proposal, as it seems horribly difficult to enforce. How would enforcement of this resolution be funded? With the struggling Insurance Sales business in my country, enforcement of such a petty law could totally cripple the economy.

While I am opposed in principle to the use of pop-up advertisement, I cannot in good conscience vote in favour of this issue.

~Helen A. Handbasket
Senior Associate Vice Princess in Charge of Skimpy Lingerie
The Rogue State of Lillibt

In addition to all of the previously stated objections, the Rogue State of Lillibit vehemently objects to this proposal, as it seems horribly difficult to enforce. How would enforcement of this resolution be funded? With the struggling Insurance Sales business in my country, enforcement of such a petty law could totally cripple the economy.

While I am opposed in principle to the use of pop-up advertisement, I cannot in good conscience vote in favour of this issue.

~Helen A. Handbasket
Senior Associate Vice Princess in Charge of Skimpy Lingerie
The Rogue State of Lillibt

The USSL is AGAINST this current resolution. Not only is it poorly written, but it is unfair and it could not be enforced. To make pop-up advertising illegal would be to limit the freedoms of millions. Also, without pop-up advertising, many sites would be forced to shut down. As ugly as it is, pop-up advertising is a necessary annoyance in order to allow the internet to flourish. Some websites get all of their income from such advertising, and the USSL will not watch those sites fall into oblivion because their funding has been stripped.

We urge all nations to vote AGAINST this ridiculous measure. It is irresponsible and dangerous. If it is passed, the UN will lose yet another member.

http://home.earthlink.net/~chipcomp/mfa.jpg

Slyon votes against this resolution. It is far too vague, offering no specifics about how to go about banning popup ads on the internet. Also, it far overreaches the authority that Slyon feels the UN should have.

- Emily Riddle
Slyon Ambassador to the UN

Currently this resolution is winning by 400 votes. What a scary world this is when people, too incompetent to install an ad blocker, manage to get the UN to police the Internet in order to compensate for their inadequacies. :evil:

This is the worst resolution since the Hippo Bill. No more needs to be said since all agree that it actually made it to the voting floor is insulting.

Christoph Valmir
Yshurak UN Ambassador

King Gemini of Zwillinge is disappointed with the Rogue Nation of Purple Haired vegans for the poor writing of this resolution. However, we are even more disappointed with the UN Delegates that voted this resolution to advance to the floor.

I am shocked by the fact that this proposal has 3k votes for it. This proposal is not only an insult for its composition but for its idea aswell. This proposal will criple the economy of each and every nation in the UN. The fact is there and billions of buisnesses out there that depend on these pop ups for comercial use. The government resieves taxes from these buisnesses as well and the price of the advertisements on the net. On another point for all of you that engoy free software and games that u get online. They are all supposrted by spyware which create those anoying pop ups when u serf the net. Without this spyware u would have to pay for all the free software that is available. SO common WTF this resolution cannot pass.

The Commonwealth of Bouncinia must reluctantly oppose this proposal.

Our Objections are threefold:

1) It is a violation of the right of free speech, a principle we hold very dear. Commercial speech should be permitted to exist as long as it is not violative of the Laws of the State. Since commercial advertising is permitted in Bouncinia we cannot make an exception unless the advertising or speech is in someway deemed harmful or overly intrusive on the rights of Privacy, or creates a public hazard or Breach of the Peace. Pop-Up ads do not meet that standard.

2) It is a violation of Bouncinia's National Sovereignty. To allow the UN or any foreign body to determine for ANY other state what is acceptable speech opens the way for the most restrictive societies to attempt to impose their limitations of speech on other nations. You could, for example, only be allowed to read, hear, see or speak that speech permitted by the most repressive of Regimes. This is so totally unacceptable to Bouncinia that we will resign our seat should this measure pass and defend with armed force any attempt to impose it it on Bouncinia.

3) As a practical matter the proposal is so poorly worded and unenforceable that it creates both confusion over the goal and chaos in any attempt to enforce. There isn't even a definition of "pop-up" in the proposal How can we make illegal that which we haven't even defined?

Regards,
-Bouncer-

We regret the double posty and Encourage the UN to buy something newer than a 386-Sx16 to run their BBS on. :p

-Bouncer-

All this would do is hurt civil rights and ALSO THE ECONOMY. Sales would drop and so would advertising revenue.

REJECT THIS NOW!

:evil: We of CrossGen Alliance also reject this resolution. Our Economy would be hurt in many ways. Because we also belive that sales would drop and so would advertising revenue. Please vote NO!

I may not be in the UN myself, but close to half the Alliance is in the UN and I'm the founder! We also depend on each other!

The Vicious Trollops oppose this for the following reasons:

1) As this is our first vote as a member of the United Nations, it was extremely disappointing to find a resolution so unclear in its enforcement, so poorly worded and so confusing. We weren't even sure that an oppose vote would mean that pop-ups would not be banned until reading the debate.

2) As others have said, it is a clear infringement on free speech. The civil liberties of the citizens cannot be decided on an international level, only on a national level. This opposes the civil liberties of our nation, and therefore we cannot agree with it.

The latest resolution is poorly written, extremely nebulous and completely unenforceable. Theirfore, it is the opinion of the Principality of Puffinstuff that we, those of us who oppose the latest UN resolution, the Internet Advertising Pop-Ups resolution, should banned together to prevent its passage.

This post was sponsored by the Right to Humor Advocates of the Principality of Puffinstuff.

The fact that the FOR vote for this resolution is currently ahead proves at least one thing to me:

It seems that those willing to debate the issue (oh, let's call them the "smart people") are mainly AGAINST this resolution. In fact, of the 4 pages of replies to this topic, I can only remember one nation saying they were in favor of the resolution (because their government type strives to limit personal rights). Thus, the UN seems to be ruled by nations incapable of debate (ie. the "stupid people") who read such a resolution and think "Oh great, no more popups, I really hate them, they completely ruin my porn browsing experience, etc." and just hit the "vote for" button without thinking any more about it. I'm afraid some of these people might actually think that if it passes it will actually remove popups from their own computer in real life.

Why am I venting thusly? I would like to say it's because I feel that doing so will somehow convince people to vote against this resolution. But the people who need to do so won't ever even read this. It's possible that some of the people who are against the resolution but won't "dignify" it with a response might see this and realize they need to "dignify" it if they don't want it to pass. But really, I have no hope that it won't pass, and I just wanted to vent a little steam. It's when resolutions like these pass that the intelligent nations start to think about quiting the UN or NS all together. And when that happens, the concentration of stupid nations becomes even stronger.

Whoever wrote this worthless pile of crap did everything incorrectly.

1. Fragmented sentences, misspellings, improper use of homophones, and other grammatical errors make this resolution a nightmare

2. The resolution makes no attempt to justify its position. Being ridiculously short, and wasting half the time on a useless tangent about happy dazes and such, it doesn’t even attempt to give reasons for adopting the suggestion.

3. As stated by Terra Matsu, it provides no method of actually removing internet pop-ups; it simply states they shouldn't exist.

4. Most online sites are supported by ads, which include pop-ups. If they were banned, many sites would be forced to require members to pay. I certainly don't think that would lead us any closer to ‘world peace’.

I sincerely hope whoever wrote this was trying to be funny. Otherwise, he or she might consider getting professional mental help.

I'm sure they were trying (and miserably failing) to be funny, Melgoria.

*Pulls out a traq gun and hands it to Melgoria*

Here's the "mental help" should it be needed.

*Walks off*

:twisted: We at MI care not for resolutions such as that as proposed as it is the duty of the UN to promote real issues. For all those out there who are challenged enough that they find pop-ups disruptive, we at MI are willing to provide certain technological solutions.......for an appropriate fee of course.

Vex Tugarole
Director, Technosphere
MI

Personaly, I hate pop-ups but they are, as long as the internet is a major source of trade, information, and revenue, powerful forms of advertisment. They cost almost nothing to produce, and out of the millions and millions of people the view the internet,somebody will listen to the pop-ups and buy the products they advertise :roll: <-- yes unlikely as it seems there is always those people. In fact, the only reason people havent stoped making pop-ups is because they are generating revanue. If they werent, then people would stop making them and start putting up somthing else just as annoying. In fact, if we ban pop-ups, another type of internet advertising will come out and continue to haunt our moniters. People make money off these pop-ups and if they are banned, income would drop everywhere. This would mean more welfare, less taxes for governments and nations that depend on the internet for thier primary source of income would be hurt badly. So please reject this resolution.

This resolution is very poorly-written, and as such Archaeus cannot accept it a priori of its content. I would be happy to repair the resolution and phrase it better, if the author so wishes, but even then I could not accept it, because popup advertising is a substantial source of revenue to many free web services. Furthermore, browsers can be used which block out popups - mozilla, or mozilla firebird, for example.

However, I would vote against many of the sneakier things that websites can do - such as circular popup loops, or changing homepages, or some of the odder uses of cookies. (OOC: I recently had my homepage changed by a website without its requesting it, or even warning me - it was, admittedly, a porn site, but I hadn't meant to be there in the first place, and it meant that whenever I tried to use the internet I was automatically directed to a porn site. This was particularly bad, because it was the homepage for my University network account, and students aren't allowed to access browser preferences...) Some of these things are downright sinister and disrupting, and therefore I would like to see them banned. I am sure many in the UN will agree with me here?

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

This proposal is yet another reason for every sane leader to revoke his nation's membership in the United Nations. There are far too many simple-minded buffoons in the UN and even the most poorly-written proposal is eventually passed.

Resign from the UN if you want any real control over your nation. Stay with the UN if you like reading and adopting the proposals of complete fools.

In addition to the poor spelling and grammar of the resolution and the fact that it lays out no plan for implementation, it overlooks the fact that many ISPs and websites already offer pop-up blockers. For example, the Google toolbar that can be added on to IE blocks pop-ups an can be modified to allow certain javascript boxes to pop up on user selected sites.

Obviously the person who wrote the resolution didn't do any research other than "God damni, another ad for Viagra."

Businesses depend on pop-ups for revenue from advertising fees and for selling their product or attracting people to their webpage. Other businesses depend on pop-ups to fuel and anti-pop-up economy of blockers that do exactly what this resolution proposes. While it's nice to know that yes, 99.9999% of the world hates pop-ups, if you don't like them, you can get rid of them without hurting my eyes with a poorly written, ineffective resolution.

#1 The resolution should have been deleted by the mods, this sort of thing should be decided by every nation individually not by the UN.

#2 Spelling Banned "Band" is pathetic, and should be torn down just for that

#3 You can block pop ups with a pop up blocker, it comes free with Google Toolbar

:?: Has anybody put in a new proposal, repealing this resolution yet? I would be in full support of that proposal and I will try to get the CrossGen Alliance to support it as well.

- BigGator5 (http://www.cgfanfiction.net/images/khyradon.jpg) God-Emperor of Kontiltan and member of the CrossGen Alliance.
BG5

The grammar and spelling are not the issue, I understand and accept that many have trouble with that kind of thing, and many others are too lazy to bother - as long as it isn't ambiguous, I'm ok with it. But if you're going to write a proposal like this, you need some kind of explanation of how you are going to do it. Who would enforce the ban? More importantly, perhaps, who would pay for the enforcement?

The proposal isn't even classified correctly - it's restricting human rights, because if you publish your own web page, you should be able to decide what goes on it (free speech), as long as the making of the page doesn't necessitate a crime in itself - e.g. child porn on websites should be, and is, illegal, but pop-ups are harmless. Annoying perhaps, but the right to freedom of expression takes precedence over the right not to be annoyed (that's why we don't have bans on types of entertainment that many find annoying). :D

I am in total agreement with Myopia. Such a reolution is a mockery to the free capitlaistically driven society which the corporations can and must thrive upon for our daily existence. No...wait....we are a free socialist democracy...what am I saying?! DOWN WITH CAPITALISM!!! THE INFIDEL PIGS MUST BURN IN HELL!!!!!

I think this resolution is absolutely ridiculous. A lot of the websites that offer free services use pop-up ads so that they can stay in business. I think the benefits of pop-ups (ie. free services) far out-weigh any minor annoyances they might cause. I also agree that limiting free speech, because this can be construed as limiting free speech, is very dangerous because it paves the way for other limits of speech being imposed.

I think this resolution is absolutely ridiculous. A lot of the websites that offer free services use pop-up ads so that they can stay in business. I think the benefits of pop-ups (ie. free services) far out-weigh any minor annoyances they might cause. I also agree that limiting free speech, because this can be construed as limiting free speech, is very dangerous because it paves the way for other limits of speech being imposed.

'Minor annoyances?' Have you ever been on the internet?

:wink:

- Jordan

:evil: LKJLK ASDXC NVIOL, VIVJGN, VIFVN....EXCUSE US....WHAT THE FREE PEOPLE MEANT BY THAT WAS THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS GIBBERISH. ALL CAPITALIST SCUM HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH EVEN IN THE FORM OF POP UP ADVERTISING.

The fact that the FOR vote for this resolution is currently ahead proves at least one thing to me:

It seems that those willing to debate the issue (oh, let's call them the "smart people") are mainly AGAINST this resolution. In fact, of the 4 pages of replies to this topic, I can only remember one nation saying they were in favor of the resolution (because their government type strives to limit personal rights). Thus, the UN seems to be ruled by nations incapable of debate (ie. the "stupid people") who read such a resolution and think "Oh great, no more popups, I really hate them, they completely ruin my porn browsing experience, etc." and just hit the "vote for" button without thinking any more about it. I'm afraid some of these people might actually think that if it passes it will actually remove popups from their own computer in real life.

Why am I venting thusly? I would like to say it's because I feel that doing so will somehow convince people to vote against this resolution. But the people who need to do so won't ever even read this. It's possible that some of the people who are against the resolution but won't "dignify" it with a response might see this and realize they need to "dignify" it if they don't want it to pass. But really, I have no hope that it won't pass, and I just wanted to vent a little steam. It's when resolutions like these pass that the intelligent nations start to think about quiting the UN or NS all together. And when that happens, the concentration of stupid nations becomes even stronger.

Agreed. If people thought about it more before they voted, they'd be less likely to vote for it. What we need is advertising, to get people to think about the problems this might cause. Talk to your friends, delegates, and regioners. The more people who do this, the better. Even adding a line or two to your signature in posts on unrelated topics would help.

Remember, voting is until January 10. We have time to stop this!

Please help support free speech, free nations, and free homepages. Vote against the pop-up proposal.

ATTENTION: A new UN proposal has been filed by myself which fixes several of the flaws mentioned for the Internet Advertising Popups resolution.

Please take a minute to read over the "Internet Popup-Ad Reduction" proposal. It fixes grammatical errors, explains the purpose and background for the resolution, defines more specific actions required on the part of member UN nations, and does NOT ban popup-ads; it simply requires companies to allow the blocking of such advertisements in order to boost efficiency of the user and to reduce inappropriate content.

And please, vote NO to the current resolution, as the integrity of the UN resolution proposal process is at stake.

'Minor annoyances?' Have you ever been on the internet?

:wink:

- Jordan
I find (using Windows) that it helps to close the ads by pressing Alt+F4 or by right-clicking it on the Start bar and selecting "Close" (which is safer, because you're less likely to close your program), rather than trying to hit the little "X." With practice, it's easy to close large numbers of pop-up ads relatively quickly. Also, getting rid of them for good is as simple as disabling Javascript (although some websites need you to have it turned on to work) or setting your browser to prompt you before running a script (makes pop-up windows itself, but these are easily and safely closed with either a "Y" or an "N"). Some browsers have ways to disable pop-ups while leaving other Javascript functionalities intact.

The point is that whether or not you want to see pop-up ads is up to you, and always has been. And they aren't that annoying once you learn how to deal with them.

I have written an alternative proposal that still deals with the pop-up problems, while preserving citizens' civil rights and dealing with some additional scourges:

"The Unnamed Pop-Up Ad and Miscellaneous Bad Computer Behavior Act of 2004" (also called "The Logarchy's Foray Into Blatant Endorsement Whoring Act of 2004")

WHEREAS: Unsolicited pop-up ads are a bane and a scourge upon the Internet community;

WHEREAS: "Pop-up crowding" can make it impossible to use the Internet;

WHEREAS: Many sites rely on advertising from pop-up revenue to survive;

WHEREAS: The right to see pop-up ads on one's own computer is a civil right that should be protected;

WHEREAS: Some users wish to see pop-up ads on a site-by-site basis;

WHEREAS: Some websites engage in unethical practices, changing settings on the user's computer or installing software without the user's permission; and

WHEREAS: The Internet is a global phenomenon, and unethical business practices affect all users of the Internet;

BE IT RESOLVED IN OPEN U.N. ASSEMBLY:

That all browser software (being defined as software that can access the open Internet and is capable of displaying Javascript) shall come equipped with a pop-up blocker that prevents all unsolicited pop-up ads.

That this pop-up blocker software be turned on by default.

That the pop-up blocker software be capable of blocking advertising pop-ups on a site-by-site and pop-up-by-pop-up basis, similar to the pop-up blocker created by the Mozilla Organization.

That the user be able to temporarily or permanently disable the pop-up blocker, and that indications for doing so be prominently displayed within the browser's help file.

That the right of individual nations to ban all advertising pop-ups regardless of origin shall not be infringed by this body, though by approving this resolution they understand that doing so would harm both the economy and their nation's civil rights.

That no website shall change any setting on a user's computer without the user's express permission and intervention.

That no commercial website shall install software of any kind on the user's computer without the user's express consent and intervention.

That the funds for implementing this measure shall be provided by the U.N. general fund.

So let it be resolved.

I have not yet submitted this in any form to the U.N. general assembly. Thoughts? Opinions? Solutions? I'll be submitting this in a few days, in concordance with my agreements with several regional delegates I've convinced to switch their votes.

I support the Logarchy, as the proposed proposal appears to be well worded and well thought out.

The Bumpivanian Senate has been debating this proposal and has decided that we all hate popups.( exept senator bumpicuss who was under the impression that you wanted to outlaw poptarts.) None of us is realy certain what your intent is due to the unclear wording of the proposal but we believe that voting against the current proposal is in our best interests. :roll: :roll: If the newest proposal makes it to debate we would be happy to support it :wink:

The people of Wild Protest are oppossed to any proposal that would limit a legitimate business. Yes pop-ups are a nuisance, but they also provide a service to some.
We belive limiting or eliminating pop-ups could very well damage the economy of this great region.

Our wise nation agrees with the proposal, our economy can do without time wasting freak messages and these should be outlawed with a severe penalty for those who continue to plague our communications networks.

I hope the majority of the UN members will see the wiseness in this upcoming resolution and vote 'yes', otherwise my police force is afraid there will be mass rioting in all major cities of Lexxington, due to outburst of angry internet-using people. causing further economic damage.

I hope the majority of the UN members will see the wiseness in this upcoming resolution and vote 'yes', otherwise my police force is afraid there will be mass rioting in all major cities of Lexxington, due to outburst of angry internet-using people. causing further economic damage.

Due to the small size of Lexxingtonia, we are frankly not very concerned about rioting there. If you wish to give an actual reason for your support, we would appreciate it.

Our wise nation agrees with the proposal, our economy can do without time wasting freak messages and these should be outlawed with a severe penalty for those who continue to plague our communications networks.

Your economy is doing pretty well already. Furthermore, there is nothing stopping you from outlawing pop-ups in your own nation, with a law that is actually enforceable.

Nations that are blessed with wise leadership and citizenry will vote against this resolution.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region

Okay, look. I'm normally a very nice guy, but I have to say, in plain English, is this bullshit really the kind of stuff that the UN has to monitor? For the love of Christ! IS this the kind of issue that we were set up to deal with, in addition to Hippo Awareness Days, and controlling people's sexual orientations, DVD region removal, Freedom of Humour, Freedom of SPAM acts etc? If this si the kind of slipshod, half-ass, mindless drivel spewing operation that we're supposed to run, then consider this my very angry letter of resignation. Shouldn't these things be the kind of issue that individual nations are responsible for? Whatever happend to decentralisation in the face of Tyranical Oligarchism that seems to be rampant here? Sure, there have been a lot of good resolutions, but as of late, they have been far outweighed by the veritable repulsively moronic. The recent resolutions passed, in my opinion, speak volumes about the kinds of people present. No offence to those of you who have shot down the more ludicrous ones with me. To you, I call you comrades in arms, united by a common intellect. But, to those of you who support such innane resolutions, and further propagate the problem, I can only shake my head sadly. Thus will be the eventual downfall of this organisation. Please, enjoy yourselves. I bid you all a very fond, Adieu!

Cordially,

Jacques Lucien-Bouchard

Please don't resign until after the voting is complete!

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region

We are heartened to see that the North Pacific delegate, The twoslit experiment, has cast his 688 votes against the resolution, as has the Pacific delegate, Poskrebyshev (183 votes).

Votes against are currently leading those for. We hope this trend continues.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region

The Commonwealth of the Logarchy would like to say that it considers The twoslit experiment and Poskrebyshev heroes for standing up to a poorly worded, incorrectly categorized, shameful resolution, and Goobergunchia for bringing this whole sordid affair to our attention. The Therapon Protarchon of the Logarchy would request that these parties review the counterproposal of the Logarchy and suggest any needed changes (as well as a proper title).

We will be submiting a proposal that will suggest a restructuring of UN resolutions and how they are presented to NSUN members.

Our nation (like many others) is far too busy to deal with frivolous and ill-conceived proposals like this. The selection and presentation of proposals seems to be too disorganised and without planning. As a member nation we would prefer that UN resolutions be debated openly BEFORE they are tabled for voting, and not as part of the voting process. ALL nations can/will/should take an active part in this and if they do not then that is their choice. Surely this is not so complex a thing to establish?

We intend to table a proposal to amend the NSUN Charter to allow debate in a forum of forthcoming proposals and whether time should be spent on each of the proposals. We just need some support for this.

It is clear that the endorsement method for proposal inclusion is not working effectively. As a result of several recent 'incidents' of spurious proposals being placed for vote, it is clear that certain nations are not acting in a clear and fit manner for inclusion within the UN and using underhand methods to get resolutions tabled.

Our proposal is that the UN sets up a committee to evaluate resolutions and to ensure that the appropriate gravitas is given to actions which have far reaching consequences. To ensure a totally balanced approach to membership of this commmittee and to avoid one or more nations attaining a level of control outside of the principles of the UN charter it is proposed that the committee be established thus:

1. Membership be for a restricted period of no more than ONE MONTH.
2. Selection of nation members be done randomly with invitation by email.
3. No nation may be a member of the committee for more than one contiguous month.
4. Re-election to the committee can not occur until THREE MONTHS has passed.
5. Individual nations may apply for membership but the time limits will apply.
6. All nations, irrespective of stature and wealth/power, will be considered.
7. Each proposed resolution will be debated openly. Lobbying of members by interested parties will be permitted.
8...... We will put this proposal forward for additional article inclusion like "What shall we call this committee?", "What are the 'Limits of Authority?' and so on.

Comments anyone? Support for this proposal?

SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT TO THE UN CHARTER!

BTW Has anyone got a spare copy of the UN Charter?

ATTENTION: A new UN proposal has been filed by myself which fixes several of the flaws mentioned for the Internet Advertising Popups resolution.

Please take a minute to read over the "Internet Popup-Ad Reduction" proposal. It fixes grammatical errors, explains the purpose and background for the resolution, defines more specific actions required on the part of member UN nations, and does NOT ban popup-ads; it simply requires companies to allow the blocking of such advertisements in order to boost efficiency of the user and to reduce inappropriate content.

And please, vote NO to the current resolution, as the integrity of the UN resolution proposal process is at stake.

I posted this matter on this topic earlier, but I wanted to include the wording of the resolution itself:

WHEREAS, the Internet (or World Wide Web) is an extremely productive medium of commerce and information exchange, which has revolutionized many aspects of business and personal living.

WHEREAS, there exists such freedom on the Internet as to create such a productive system, yet these freedoms currently circumvent most governing authorities and promote harassment and deception in both the place of business and the home.

WE, the governing authority of the Dominion of Brandonion, submit a revised and more complete version of a previous proposal which aims to reduce or completely stop the spread of "popup advertisements" which, in many cases, contain inappropriate material for younger audiences, decrease productivity of the user by decreasing available computer system resources, and increase the number of browser windows a user must close in order return to a productive state.

HEREIN, this resolution, once passed, will require UN member states to submit requirements to all Internet browser companies to allow the blocking of "popup advertisements" in their next version of browser software. This may include, but is not limited to, popup-blocking software by third-party vendors, and may not force the user to accept separate licensing terms to use this software (unless created by a third-party vendor).

Thank you for your consideration.
Brandonion

I am in total agreement with Myopia. Such a reolution is a mockery to the free capitlaistically driven society which the corporations can and must thrive upon for our daily existence. No...wait....we are a free socialist democracy...what am I saying?! DOWN WITH CAPITALISM!!! THE INFIDEL PIGS MUST BURN IN HELL!!!!!

I assume you're joking and aren't going to restrict your citizens rights to freedom of expression just to hurt corporations?

OOC: Ok, if this resolution fails, I'll put together a nicely rewritten version. Restricts only advertising popups. This says nothing about banner ads, etc. Just popups, so advertising is ok. And to anyone says they're harmless: They can crash browsers, and on weaker systems, entire computers.

-Karrde-

It contiues to blow my mind how many people just don't get it. If you don't like pop-ups, install an ad blocker or use a browser that does it for you. These already exist. Many are free.

Why in the world would you want an international agency like the UN to regulate this non-problem. Or is this just an evil plot to keep the UN busy for doing any actual work? :wink:

You know, I first saw the proposal and thought what a good idea, even if it had grammar equivalent to that of an eight year old. However, I decided to read other peoples comments because at the time the resolution was failing.

So I went into the forum and, clicked on the thread, and started browsing through what people had to say.

It occured to me almost immediately that this resolution was a violation of freedom of Speech, something which the Dominion of Xha'Dam holds very dear. Even if it is annoying speech, it is still speech and thus protected by our constitution. While squelching all speech I find annoying does have a certain appeal to it, I do think it is fundamentally wrong.

Then it occured to me, how could it be enforced? All one has to do is set up the website with pop-ups off of a server in a non-UN nation and it will be beyond the reach of this resolution.

Then I realized as has been pointed out many times, people already have the tools to block pop-ups if they are that bothered by them.

I quickly came to realize that this was a very poor resolution and one that never should have been brough up for consideration. If you people are so bothered by them, get a pop-up blocker and outlaw them in your own country but don't drag everyone else into it.

The Watenhi government feels that this resolution is both unenforcable and a violation of the right to free speech. More importantly, we feel that the UN has better things to do with its time than discuss pop-up ads, when the majority of the population of the world has never seen a computer up close.

Felix Niels, President of Watenho

(ooc: Sorry about this, folks, he's from a very poor background; he gets annoyed about some of these things...)

The proposal itself is not unforgivable, though many of us have been highly critical of its quality, both in presentation and in content. It is a highly emotive subject.

This resolution would only find itself beyond redemption if it were to be passed.

If this happens, it would be more an inditement of the whole UN, rather than of the members who brought the proposal to the table.

Our vote will be against the proposal.

---------------
Frank Johnson
The Minister Responsible
The Boarderlands of the Boards of Canada

Pursunuly I dunt think de speelin is dat bahd. Duh ideuhs uh gud wun if not expressed in the most florid of styles. However, since when do we discriminate based upon the level of education in a given country? Perhaps if there were no pop-ups the road to literacy would unfold before our poor bereft bretheren.

And to anyone says they're harmless: They can crash browsers, and on weaker systems, entire computers.

...which is absolutely irrelevant.

The first amendment guarentees the freedom of speech and press. The Internet is a media by which information is transferred. There's no legitimate reason for the government to regulate and certainly not to censor it.

The current law hinders internet freedom. However, if the law were written so that only prevented any "intentional (by sender) and unsolicited or unauthorized entry by means of person or other means into a domicile," I would support it.
This law would prevent the sending of baseballs, bricks, electrons (popups), or anything into one's home. A pop-up is merely electrons flowing through the wires that you did not solicit.

Conatus
of the region of Kangaroovia

The first amendment guarentees the freedom of speech and press.

... and is solely American.

The first amendment guarentees the freedom of speech and press.

... and is solely American.

...and represents ideals and values such as liberty that transcend America.

The first amendment guarentees the freedom of speech and press.

... and is solely American.

TGM was referring to Articles II and III of the Goobergunchian Charter of Rights.

[ooc: Basically Articles I-VI are based on the U.S. Bill of Rights.]

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region

The first amendment guarentees the freedom of speech and press.

... and is solely American.

Amen. The bottom line here is, if someone doesn't like pop-ups, either close them as they come, or use software that blocks them.

The FREE market will always find a way to regulate itself.

Now losing by nearly a thousand votes. It is looking good, but we cannot stop fighting yet.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region

The first amendment guarentees the freedom of speech and press.

... and is solely American.

...and represents ideals and values such as liberty that transcend America.

Oh please. Now, I'm not generally into country bashing, but America is hardly doing that wonderfully in the whole human rights thing at the moment, now is it?

On-topic please...America does not exist in the NationStates universe.

This has been an OOC post.

I find it a disturbing and yet another example of how one class oppresses another the way this resolution has been treated. This person worded a resolution in a way that some would consider grammatically incorrect, however, it is truly the content that matters, not the way it is said. Perhaps this person was not as educated as the rest of us would like to think we are, and it shames us to put down this resolution solely based on this's person education, which is beyond someone's control. Their opinion is just as valuable as ours, and the eloquence should not detract from its right to be heard and rationally considered.

And you will note that many of us, myself included, looked past that and still decided that the resolution was not something that we would be willing to support.. There are a number of problems with the content.

First, this is hardly a problem worthy of the UN. This is something best left to individual countries, if addressed at all.

Secondly, many countries here have this thing called "freedom of speech" which is a basic principle of their society. This resolution violates that.

Thirdly, there is no way to enforce it in any effective manner.

Fourthly, this doesn't even propose anything. It essentially says, "We think pop-ups are bad." That's great, but what are we going to do about it? This proposal doesn't say.

And finally, there are a great many tools available to combat pop-ups that are widely available and require no government intervention.

In my view there are no less than five valid complaints with this resolution that have nothing to with how it is worded. On that issue however, I do believe resolutions should have some level of professionalism put into their development. When you butcher grammar and spelling that badly, it looks unprofessional and it reflects poorly on us.

Okay, lets assume that this is somebody with a lower educational level or not a native English speaker. There are ways to solve this. For instance, they could work with another nation run by somebody with more education or simply better language skills to draft a resolution that is correctly worded and professional in appearance. They could post a message on the board requesting assistance in drafting a resolution or post a rough draft for others to correct on their behalf. If they have one of several programs they could run it through a grammar check.

I may not be a master at spelling and grammar but if I propose a resolution I would make absolutely sure it had proper grammar and spelling before posting it.

Cross posting a comment in my region.

It's stupid. Most sites have popup ads because they choose not to promote a group on the website itself. (Those not web savvy, many websites pay 3rd parties to promote their business/whatever on the 3rd parties' webpages)

Then there's the case of the free websites, that are popup ridden. Kill those ads, and boom, no more free providers. They embed those popups so that they'll make money to counteract the fact their giving away free space.

Would do more harm economically than good. :P

That's just one issue that The Republic of Kaisha personally has with it.

I can't even comprehend what this dolt is saying in his resolution. It should be destroyed, and the author should be castrated.

Perhaps the third or more new thread against this, my original:

"I applaud any and all of you who oppose this resolution. As is made clear in the wording of the resolution itself, funds must be directed towards worldwide literacy and education before the UN adopts such a proposal.

-The Citizens of Razu"

Incredibly poor written. We thought there was some quality control prior to the introduction of resolutions. Frankly, it was impossible to understand what it was all about.

Incredibly poor written. We thought there was some quality control prior to the introduction of resolutions. Frankly, it was impossible to understand what it was all about.

In case this has not made the table yet...

(sorry... six pages defy the time constraints of this member)

IT'S A DEMOCRACY!

RE: Proposal

The wording is ugly, the spelling is... wanting... but the point is:

It hits home.

Porn-surfers are constantly annoyed by incessant pop-ups, as are everyday surfers (who probably are as concerned by the issue as those previously mentioned).

If the UN bans this, it bans advertising as a whole... so undefined! TV commercials could fall under sister legislation (not internet, but pop-up... between shows?)... anything the consumer is arguably not expecting as advertisment.


INSTEAD:

Perhaps eventually a ban, or internationally agreed-upon restraints, on internet advertising, but hopefully along the lines of restrictions bearing upon television or radio. If possible.


Last word:

It's the internet. Ony UN nations would adhere. Other nations would be free to allow such advertising upon their sites.

Only a universal ban would be in any way relevant.

-Razu

The funny thing is it doesn't even restrict pop-ups, let alone ban them.

Description: Come on you know what i mean. these things are the bane of our existence. If they were band, it would create world peace as everyone would walk around in a happy daze knowing that there internet surfing will be trouble free.

What it says, in plain English:

You know what I mean by pop-ups. Pop-ups aare very bad. People would be happy if pop-ups were gone because they won't have any more trouble surfing.

Nowhere in there does it actually do anything to get rid of them. It just makes a general statement about people not liking them.

I agree with the resolution. I don't think world war one would have even happened if it weren't for those damn internet pop-ups.

I think we better let go of the fact that resolutions are either stupid, unrealistic, spelled wrong and what I don't know more that would make them never happen like this in real life.

Everybody complains, and it changes nothing. There is no culture for serious playing so better addapt to the culture that IS there.

It might be in the intrest of everybody if there are limitations placed on this freedom of the web designer. To maximise the ability of the world population to efficiently share information. For example just because some options are possible (like cookies) doesn't mean they should be abused.

There are two ways to stop these overdone amount of adds (this proposal has no proper alternative, grin, which means we have the freedom to come up with an alternative). Either let the government put a ban too it, or unite the websurfers to make them coordinate so they start to ignore sites which are just a hell to go to, by having a good system that warns you in advance what you are heading to. The last is what should happen in capitalism, but our technology and the diffusion and uncoordination of the milions of webservers make it not happen very fast. Therefore a bit of assistance of the government which as our elected (or dictatorial protectors) government that is suppost to serve to protect our intrests is welcome.

And normally I would deal with this within my own country. But the internet is so global that it turns into a UN issue.

It would be intresting to know if there are good other alternatives to making money to maintain the websites. (which might be outcompeted by the abusive system that is now that turns our global pool of shared information into a labyrinth where you drown in.)

It is impossible to support this proposal in its current form. It's an embarrassment that it should even come up for a vote in such shoddy condition. I'm generally not concerned by a degree of informality with proposals that are presented, but this is completely over the line. If there are no minimum standards in place, perhaps there should be.

why should they be band? does that mean music will play when they pop-up? Maybe they should be banned.

Sadly as much as our nation dislikes internet pop-up ads-we dislike bad spelling even more-thus we have felt the need to vote against this prop.

The queendom of darlin

Perhaps the third or more new thread against this, my original:

"I applaud any and all of you who oppose this resolution. As is made clear in the wording of the resolution itself, funds must be directed towards worldwide literacy and education before the UN adopts such a proposal.

-The Citizens of Razu"

My thread is in fact the first one on this topic.

This has been an OOC post.

A useless proposal from purple haired vegans poorly written and executed. We have more important matter to deal with than Pop-ups.

A simple solution would be to download Mozilla, Opera, or Firebird.

Now back to important matters affecting the world in which we reside.

A useless proposal from purple haired vegans poorly written and executed. We have more important matter to deal with than Pop-ups.

A simple solution would be to download Mozilla, Opera, or Firebird.

Now back to important matters affecting the world in which we reside.

Sadly, the vote doesn't end until Saturday. However, the proposal is going down in flames at this time.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region

Unworthy of debate. Shame on you UN get real

Unworthy of debate. Shame on you UN get real

The United Star Empire of Valinon, as regional delegate of Proxima Centauri, has voted against this resolution. We are encouraging all other United Nations members in our region to do the same. Besides being a piece of garbage in terms of writing and efficency, this resolution also blatantly oversteps the boundaries of the United Nations and violates member states national sovereignity.
We are glad that this resolution is failing, and hopes that the fact it passed through the delegates at all will hopefully lead to some sort of quality control if it fails. Also, with its failure, maybe the United Nations will realize that it cannot violate the sacred principle of national sovereignity. For those that have voted for it, you should be ashamed and should bring into question if you have any love for your nations at all. Let this be the first step in the process to reapply national sovereignity to the resolutions of the United Nations. Let the endlessly reams of worthless, trivial resolutions stop and let the United Nations cease to be the laughing stock of the NS world because of the stupidty of legislation that is allowed to pass because its members are to decadent to read the proposals before voting on them!

It appears extremely likely at this point that the resolution will fail.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region

The United Socialist States of Benoini have decided to vote against the resolution condemning the existance of internet pop-up ads. The citizens of Benoini value highly the concepts of freedom, and freedom of media is vital to the information and communication of any successful nation. In addition to being borderline illegible, the resolution is fantastical and anti-human rights.

After careful polling among the people of Novantus, our government has opted to vote against the resolution even though a spamless internet would prove convenient - it is just a poorly written proposal (which also is written against the guideline set forth by another proposal).

As set forth by our Ministry for Techonology, spamming is punishable by law Novantus already - with a maximum punishment of 1000Novaks. On certain subjects such as this, with regards to a soveriegn nations own authority, Novantus chooses to leave it to individual nations to deal with this issue. By enforcing anti-spamming practices within our coutnry, we feel that we are already playing a sufficient part in combating spam - forcing other nations to adopt those principles would be against what Novantus is all about.

you have to admit, popups do suck. it just took some little kid to point out that the emperor was nekkid, yknow? just because his grammar is bad.. well it's still pretty stupid, but i don't see you writing a better version. peasanty. ;D

Did it occur to you that some of us have problem with more than just the spelling and grammar?

From an earlier post of mine:

And you will note that many of us, myself included, looked past that and still decided that the resolution was not something that we would be willing to support.. There are a number of problems with the content.

First, this is hardly a problem worthy of the UN. This is something best left to individual countries, if addressed at all.

Secondly, many countries here have this thing called "freedom of speech" which is a basic principle of their society. This resolution violates that.

Thirdly, there is no way to enforce it in any effective manner.

Fourthly, this doesn't even propose anything. It essentially says, "We think pop-ups are bad." That's great, but what are we going to do about it? This proposal doesn't say.

And finally, there are a great many tools available to combat pop-ups that are widely available and require no government intervention.

In my view there are no less than five valid complaints with this resolution that have nothing to with how it is worded.

Joccia has read the discussion on this resolution and finds herself in complete agreement with those august emmisaries and ambassadors who are in disagreement. My King has authorised me to vote against the resolution

(Even though I will argue for the ban, members should be aware that the industries which manufacture browser software are slowly realizing how destructive the pop-up mechanism is. In the future, regardless of legislation, there will be no pop-up functionality.)

Pop-ups are *not* free speech. They are used, exclusively, for commercial advertising. Their eradication would not affect freedom of speech whatsoever.

Pop-ups in fact *limit* free speech. They make a medium of communication, the web, less useful or even useless.

This issue should be addressed by the UN because the Internet and web are world wide. The UN is essential for determining the future of the Internet.

Pop-ups are a mechanical feature of current web browsers. There is nothing inherent in the "pop-up" that makes them a neccessary part of the web. Banning them is extremely easy. Enforcement is as simple as not allowing browser manufacturers to implement them as default in their next versions.

Pop-up's eradication would not affect advertisers. They are only used by advertisers because one must "keep up with the Joneses" when it comes to spectacle in advertising. Their eradication would not have commercial impact since there are other, just as effective means of advertising on the web.

Pop-ups are currently the most insidious, unregulated, and inhibitive form of spam on the Internet. To be against spam and not against pop-ups is ridiculously inconsistent. Also, the mechanism of the "pop-up" is used *only* for spam. There are no messy filtering issues when it comes to pop-ups as compared to email: pop-ups *are* spam. There is no legitimate, non-commercial use for the pop-up.

Spam, as are pop-ups, are problematic because too much destroys the use of the web. Unlike other media, the Internet is subject to issues of bandwidth. Too many pop-ups make the web unuseable--just as too much spam makes email unuseable.

I think we should go further. The surfer should be able to control what happens on his (or her) computer. Pop-ups and especially spyware take away the user's control over the computer and puts it into the hands of businesses trying to sell product. Perhaps the inevitable rewrite of the anti-pop-up bill should be an "Internet User's Bill of Rights". Or, "The Computer User's Bill of Rights".

The computer user should always know what programs or processes are running on his or her computer. Software should not hide its execution.

All software running on a user's computer should explain its purpose.

A user should be able to easily, and completely erase any software running on their computer.

No software should damage, disrupt, or inhibit the execution of any other software.

No software should erase information unless clearly insturcted to do so by a user.

Entities which violate these rules should be banned from selling commercial software. Individuals who violate these rules should be punished.

A Bill of Rights like this would also protect users from viruses. Pop-ups are a specific mechanism. While I think they should be banned, I'm not sure a Bill of Rights should address them. The pop-up is a useless, irritating invention and banning them specifically would only be good.

Is there any precedent for banning a useless, irritating invention?

They are indeed a form of speech because advertising, which they are, is a form of speech. Hence they are protected by any constitution, or the UN resolution that passed a while back.

The Indigo Islands is voting against this proposal.

Furthermore if the proposal is by some egregious misfortune passed The Noble Assemblage shall issue a clarifying rider in order to implement the resolution. The rider shall state that all internet advertising popups shall be band using the most common definition of the word specifically “a strip or stripe that contrasts with something else in color, texture, or material.”

( http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=band )

In simpler terms the only change will be a distinctive edge around the advertisement.

As The Indigo Islands has a very vibrant information technology industry, We will be more than happy to sell the required implementation to any country having trouble enforcing this resolution.

Indigo
Master of the Indigo Islands

They are indeed a form of speech because advertising, which they are, is a form of speech. Hence they are protected by any constitution, or the UN resolution that passed a while back.

It is indeed a good question whether or not advertising is "speech" or should be treated as other forms of speech in the law.

In the case of pop-ups, advertisers can use them to drown out other speech. Is that a legitimate use of speech? Using speech to physically mask other speech?

Also, there are two kinds of pop-ups: those generated from a web page, and those generated from a spyware program. Are they exactly alike? Should they be treated alike by the law? I'm not sure. But then I think the issue should be made moot by a Computer User's Bill of Rights and an anti-pop-up law.

I propose that commercial speech, or advertising as it is more commonly known, is not speech. Or, should not be protected in the same way as other forms of speech. Such a law, consensus, or ruling would help combat the problems of spam.

But this then raises the issue of differentiating speech. I feel comfortable letting a judge and/or jury decide the distinction on a case by case basis.

you can block them for free, or legislate against them very expensively, it's your choice

While our Divine Emperor has a certain fondness for this proposal, he has ordered me to vote against it on principle. His reasons being as follows.

1. The right to free speach in every way should be guaranteed. Except of course for tthose of His subjects who dares to disagree with Him.

2. In our country we tax pop-ups, and it is a major source of revenue. This allows us to keep down the tax rate for the ordinary subject, thus preventing a source of discontent.

3. The proposal is poorly written. Bad grammar aside, it is not qualified in any way.


James
Third Duke of Gumby
Foreign Minister To the Holy Emperor of the Divine Sausage

Press Release From Unchallenged Minds
-------------------------------------------------
from The Offices Of The Council Of Readers In Part 1A Computer Science

The Commonwealth of Unchallenged Minds would like to make public the following.

The Commonwealth supports the spirit of the resolution currently at vote. However, there are issues arrising from the resolution. Firstly, the spelling and grammar is, frankly, sub-par as has been pointed out regularly.

We would urge that whilst this poorly structured resolution - which has no chance of being turned into effective legislation - be thrown out of the UN. However, we believe that the resolution entitled "Banning Spam and Pop-ups" would enable more effective legislation to be passed in member states.

Despite this, our legal experts forsee problems with any such legislation. For it is conceivable that any anti-spam or anti-pop-up legislation conflicts with Article 2 of the Universal Bill Of Rights ("All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.")
The question arises, as discussed by other states, as to the validity of the claim that pop-ups, and advertising in general, are speech and should thus be afforded the same sacred right to protection.

Furthermore, there is existing legislation passed by the UN ("Freedom From SPAM Act") that aims to remove SPAM at the source.
We are vehemntly opposed to the sending of SPAM due to the fact that, as alluded to in the afore-mentioned Act, it places strain upon the bandwidth of the infrastructure of the Internet. We believe that the sending SPAM, and the postal equivalent "Junk Mail", should be deemed by the UN to constitute a gross invasion of privacy.

As a small nation in a small region, we are not a dlegate of the UN and can not therefore submit proposals. We have however drafted a bill that we believe will solve the problems of SPAM, Pop-ups, and Junk Mail in one fell-swoop.

Freedom From Unwanted Advertising Act, 2003
=================================

It is a truth universally acknowledged that freedom of speech is among the most sacred rights a human being holds.

We, the people of the UN, believe that unwanted advertising - including, but not limited to, Junk E-Mail (SPAM), Junk Mail, and Internet Pop-Ups - are a gross invasion of privacy.

As such, the perpetrators of such material should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
And the law shall insist upon the removal and destruction of systems used in the generation of said material, and the fining or imprisonment (subject to local law) of the person or persons involved in the generation process.

There shall be facilities for individuals to report cases of material contravening this Act to a central agency that will co-ordinte the enforcement of this law. This body should be open to public scrutiny and sufficiently well funded by the government. It must be able to carry out its duties without inteference from the governement or from other gonvernmental agencies.

The law shall apply globally: that is to say, it should possible to inform the governement of a nation of activities that contravene this Act occuring within their nation.

However, it is acknowledged that material prohibited by this Act may be generated in countries not holding membership of the UN.
It is therefore resolved that all non-open-source web browsers should be forced to include code for the blocking of pop-ups which can be turned on by the user.
It is the belief of the writers of this Act that open source browsers are likely to include such facilities already as they see it to the benefit of their users.
The Act also requires that any company, individual, or organisation ("party") providing an email service - whether freely or for a charge - must implent effective filtering systems. The definition of effective is that within 1 year of this Act coming into force, the system must block at least 90% of all SPAM.
It is recognised that effective filtering may not be possible, but the parties concerned must employ the most effective system available.

The Body responsible for the adminstration and implementation of this Act shall hold a register of all succesful SPAM blockers, and this list shall be available to anyone. The Body has the right to sequester as necessary the services of any suitably qualified academic (for appropriate renumeration to the individual and his/her university or academic institution) to test and quantify the effectiveness of filters.

Full implementation of this Act must be within 6 months of being passed by majority vote of the UN.

Like the White Rabbit I haven't got any spare time to speak of so I can't trawl through every page on this issue: there4 will some kind person send a telegram & advise my nation of what the question actually IS??

Are we being asked to vote for or against the pop-ups themselves, or are we being asked to vote for or against banning the little blighters?

This UN membership looks like it's going to complicate our Serene Council Meetings ... <sigh>

Moderater of the National Council (Always Subject To The Whims Of Her Most Serene Highness Woodsmoke) of the Most Serene Republic of Rivermist.

The Free Land of Old Tower are really worried about the problem pointed by this resolution. Internet advertising is running wildly out of hands and should be regulated somehow.

We think, hovewere, that a resolution like this, proposing something on a so important problem, *really* should be written better. As some already pointed out, there is nor a real proposal inside the text of the resolution.

We will surely endorse a future proposal on the same problem that will be formulated in a better way. This time, we pass on.

Okay, first off i despise pop ups as much as the next person. But i don't advise anyone to listen to someone who can't spell the word "banned" correctly. i don't have a position, just wanted to make fun of this dude's spelling problems.
Empire of Pain and Punishment

The resolution is now losing handily with less than 24 hours left in the voting.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region

This would improve civil liberties? No, it would relieve some people from an annoyance. That. An annoyance. Frankly, in my opinion people have more civil rights if they're allowed to purchase pop up ads all over the place than if they are banned. This would probably also hurt the economy....how did it become so close!?

I will admit that I have not read this thread in its entirety, so I will probably say much that has already been said.

First of all, a web page is a document on a server. It is unjust to prohibit people from placing code for popup ads on their own servers. If you don't want popup ads, don't retrieve documents that have popup ads.

Also, the very way in which the web is structured makes this resolution impractical. HTML and Javascript (used to create popup ads) are both interpreted on the user end. That means that websites doesn't just send popup ads. Instead, the user receives a webpage that is parsed by the browser which then requests the ad which it opens in a popup window upon receiving it. The simple fact that a request for the popup is required on the user end makes a ban of popup ads unjust. Furthermore, this would make the resolution very difficult to enforce. Those guilty of running popup ads could argue that their code is not actually intended to bring popups to the user but that the user is using a browser that completely misinterprets the code.

I voted no, if you haven't figured out yet.

By the way, I haven't seen a popup ad in a long time. I use the Opera Browser (http://www.opera.com), which has a built-in popup blocker.

Mozilla Firebird!!! I like IE a lot, but I use Mozilla Firebird for NS. Especially on the forums - it opens in tabs with just a middle-click (have to change in preferences)

Mozilla (http://mozilla.org)

I like Opera, but its mouse actions are too confusing. Way too often I accidentally do a mouse action and end up with something I didn't intend....

Anyways, good points...this is a dumb resolution :)

without POP UP advertising and the money they generate the internet would curl up and die like a skinny dog in a snow storm!

So true, pop ups are a way of generating revenue, and the internet is already hurting, why give it the death blow.

Also, if you're so annoyed by pop ups, download Google Toolbar, it blocks pop ups for you. Mine has blocked 781 so far, good deal, and it's free.

Although grammer does matter, this is a very important resolution. Marketing is not speech so the free speecher people out there don't have leg to stand on. The issue is protecting the internet users rights of privacy.

Those that want to take this right away and allow popup armed internet terrorists to run uncheck are not only destroying the friendly userability of the internet, but leaving a gapping hole open for viruses, trojan horses, keyloggers, spyware or any other privacy stealing application to be placed on every computer that is exposed to a popup ad.

Although grammer does matter, this is a very important resolution. Marketing is not speech so the free speecher people out there don't have leg to stand on. The issue is protecting the internet users rights of privacy.

Those that want to take this right away and allow popup armed internet terrorists to run uncheck are not only destroying the friendly userability of the internet, but leaving a gapping hole open for viruses, trojan horses, keyloggers, spyware or any other privacy stealing application to be placed on every computer that is exposed to a popup ad.


Marketing IS speech. Grammar DOES matter. The market should be THE determining factor. Government (at any level) should NOT be the individual users' "Net Nanny". If you don't like popup ads, either get a blocker for your own computer, or stay off the Web.

This proposal, and those who defend it, are a reflection of the government schools' failure to teach critical thinking or the most simple principles of economics. Whenever you give government the power to do something for you that you are capable of doing for yourself, you never get that power back. Overzealous regulation is not the way to go.

Content providers, in this case webmasters, should be allowed to decide what goes in their webpages, including pop-ups. They are after all paying to host the content, and that is their right. It seems a little contradictory that the category under which the resolution is listed is 'human rights'. It's a little different from spam, since spam is sent to you while pop-ups appear because you visit the website. So how bout a resolution against spam?

First of all, a web page is a document on a server. It is unjust to prohibit people from placing code for popup ads on their own servers. If you don't want popup ads, don't retrieve documents that have popup ads.
Why do I sense that the words "I have a Cunning Plan" were storming towards the forefront of the author's mind with an ill-deserved confidence when he made this post?
How - prey, do tell - is one supposed to discover if a documnet will generate a pop-up without retrieving (if only to an engine that doesn't _display_ the document) the said document?
Oh, and it is possible by such spurious logic as the learned member of Recycled Carboard used to suggest that it is okay to store child pornography on your own server - it is yours afterall! Clearly this is not acceptable by and sane person.

Also, the very way in which the web is structured makes this resolution impractical. HTML and Javascript (used to create popup ads) are both interpreted on the user end. That means that websites doesn't just send popup ads. Instead, the user receives a webpage that is parsed by the browser which then requests the ad which it opens in a popup window upon receiving it. The simple fact that a request for the popup is required on the user end makes a ban of popup ads unjust.
This is not strictly speaking fair. In fact, this is not fair in any sense of the word.
A user should have the right to browse the web free from the nuisance of pop-ups. In fact, once could quite easily interpret the placing of code to retrieve adverts without the strict permission of the user as malicous.

To refer to the real world (sorry), the British "Computer Misuse Act, 1990" states (section 3)
1) A person is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer; and
(b) at the time when he does the act he has the requisite intent and the requisite knowledge.
To be pedantic, one could chose that the enforced downloading of the code of an advert violates this law by deliberately and without permission modifing the memory or hard disk space of the user's computer.

And now back to NationStates, although with necessary reference to real-world organisations.

Those guilty of running popup ads could argue that their code is not actually intended to bring popups to the user but that the user is using a browser that completely misinterprets the code.

It is a simple matter for the user to counterpoint this by stating that their browser (or user agent as it is oft known) is fully compliant with the necessary standards - eg <http://www.w3c.org/> for HTML.
As such, it is therefore the fault of the server owner (who ultimately has control of the content) for the code to generate pop-up ads.

I support the motion because they are a basic infringement of ones personal space. They appear out of no-where hampering progress when trying to surf the internet. Why would I want to see something that I did not request or want to view. In fact, they should be tracked to it's source and the people responsible for creating them shold be prosecuted

The Most Serene Republic of Precociana, touting quite a few home-based computer musicians, has viewed the current UN resolution to... "band" Internet Pop-up Advertising. In our most recent national survey:

51% would rather swallow their own tongue;
22% would rather play in their own fecal matter;
13% would rather hug a giant flatworm;
10% would rather sleep with the fishes;
6% would rather lose their singing voices,

than to continue receiving pop-up advertisement. The situation is dire indeed. One Precociana resident reports,

"I was playing around in Fruity Loops when one pop-up asked me if I wanted to bookmark some weird-looking search engine. When I clicked cancel, it immediately opened a long rant in Notepad threatening my life if I didn't! That's how aggressive these people are getting! It's my computer, and my life, and if I wanted this kind of hogwash, I'd support the RIAA! It needs to be stopped!"

While Precociana does not support the improper use of our common language (or neglecting to utilize a spell-checker), we are forced to support this resolution to preserve national peace of mind.

Melodic tidings,
Director Julienne F. Chord,
Chorale and Morale Administration
of the Most Serene Republic of Precociana

The government of the Confederacy of Kelleysland refuses to support an initiative such as this...due to the inability of the originator to use the English language properly.

"The government of the Confederacy of Kelleysland refuses to support an initiative such as this...due to the inability of the originator to use the English language properly."

As the current UN delegate of the Great White North, I am forced to agree with the Kelleysland government in refusing to support such a poor use of the English language.

Though I am not the UN Delegate for the region of GEMEGF, I wish to speak for my region and let our opinions be known.

I, for one, do not think we should vote down a resolution just because of the bad grammar and spelling of it's composition. The fact of the matter is, the resolution is a good one, it just needs to be better explained and rewritten.

Here are some of the points my fellow nations have made on this subject, in chronological order:

The Free Community of Thomas Beck (our UN Delegate) said:
The expectations are too great, but the idea of banning pop-up ads certainly would have a positive effect on society.

The Republic of Charlesaxon said:
I agree with the basis of the resolution, but I think that the wording of it is ridiculously awful. My non-existent three year-old brother could have written a more comprehensible resolution in his sleep. Therefore, I vote AGAINST the resolution.

The Laissez-Faire Oligarchy of Calliopia said:
As much as they are annoying, these pop-ups pay for some of the websites we love to visit. The companies pay to have an advertisement pop up when you visit a site. If it weren't for these, we'd have to pay more for internet access to different sites. I don't know about you, but I'd rather deal with the pop ups than have to pay more for the sites I like. Therefore, I vote against the resolution.

The Empire of Sansui Kobuko said:
Just because you would ban pop-ups does not mean the website would lose money. That would just mean that the website would put those ads on the site it's self.

The Beautiful Free Range of Pegacorns said:
Sansui Kobuko is right. Most paid-for-by-advertising websites have no pop-ups. The ads are on the site, which isn't as annoying as having to close 20 windows. The ones that actually get the most are the sites like MSNBC that are paid for by big corporations. This means that pop-ups have nothing to do with the website's funding. So banning pop-ups would not actually do anything to the website access. Not only that, but certain browsers already block pop-ups and the price of internet sites hasn't suffered at all.

I hope this may change some minds. The resolution is still a good one, despite the fact that it has the worst grammar and spelling I've seen in my entire life. :lol:

I support the motion because they are a basic infringement of ones personal space. They appear out of no-where hampering progress when trying to surf the internet. Why would I want to see something that I did not request or want to view. In fact, they should be tracked to it's source and the people responsible for creating them shold be prosecuted

If you don't want popups, there are free popup blockers to download online, or you can buy one as well. :roll:

As the delegate of New Mexico, The Dêmoshêälädêsestäblesment of Terrä Mätsu, we firmly are AGAINST this proposal. It is ill-written, to say the least. The only mention of pop-up advertising is in the title, and the resolution is only a mere bitching about pop-ups. It outlines NO way to get rid of them, how long it should take, and why.

Also, if it were passed, a lot of free websites would become forced-payment websites (not like Playboy, as you must be a suscriber to the magazine, which makes its profits). Also, there would probably be a huge addition of banner ads and flash ads to replace these.

I'm sorry that I am not completely thinking. If I were, I'd go on for a few more paragraphs. I have also lost an endersement over this. I am concerned, as well. Bah, bring more UN nations into our region and-whoa, oomph.

7863 votes have been cast for the resolution and 10781 votes have been cast against it. Therefore, the resolution is rejected.

As a quick update, the Commonwealth of the Logarchy has submitted a proper proposal that addresses the issues with the original proposal; it also bans the cross-national use of "browser hijack" software and "autodownloading" spyware.

First of all, a web page is a document on a server. It is unjust to prohibit people from placing code for popup ads on their own servers. If you don't want popup ads, don't retrieve documents that have popup ads.
Why do I sense that the words "I have a Cunning Plan" were storming towards the forefront of the author's mind with an ill-deserved confidence when he made this post?

Actually, I don't like popups more than anybody else. I would never use them to support or promote any of my websites. I just don't think that it's the UN's place to ban them.

How - prey, do tell - is one supposed to discover if a documnet will generate a pop-up without retrieving (if only to an engine that doesn't _display_ the document) the said document?

The point I was making is that you don't have to surf the web at all. If you are going to surf the web, you may have to put up with some minor annoyances from those that are providing you with the content that you do want to see.

Oh, and it is possible by such spurious logic as the learned member of Recycled Carboard used to suggest that it is okay to store child pornography on your own server - it is yours afterall! Clearly this is not acceptable by and sane person.

Your logic falls apart when you consider that child pornography is not acceptable anywhere--on a webserver or off of it. Certainly you would not mind if somebody saved webpages with popup ads on their own computer solely for their own viewing pleasure. So the problem with child pornography on a server is not that it's on a server, but that it's child pornography. The problem you have with popups is only when they're on a server.

That said, I would amend my statement to say that harmful documents (i.e. viruses) should not be allowed unless they give the user a chance to opt out of harm to their computer. Popup ads do no permanent harm.


Also, the very way in which the web is structured makes this resolution impractical. HTML and Javascript (used to create popup ads) are both interpreted on the user end. That means that websites doesn't just send popup ads. Instead, the user receives a webpage that is parsed by the browser which then requests the ad which it opens in a popup window upon receiving it. The simple fact that a request for the popup is required on the user end makes a ban of popup ads unjust.
This is not strictly speaking fair. In fact, this is not fair in any sense of the word.
A user should have the right to browse the web free from the nuisance of pop-ups.

Oh really? I could argue that webmasters should have the right to support their sites using popup ads in exchange for the content they provide on their sites.

And how is it not fair? You visit a site, realizing that you may be subjected to popups (which may be annoying) in exchange for the content that you receive.

In fact, once could quite easily interpret the placing of code to retrieve adverts without the strict permission of the user as malicous.

To refer to the real world (sorry), the British "Computer Misuse Act, 1990" states (section 3)
1) A person is guilty of an offence if?
(a) he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer; and
(b) at the time when he does the act he has the requisite intent and the requisite knowledge.
To be pedantic, one could chose that the enforced downloading of the code of an advert violates this law by deliberately and without permission modifing the memory or hard disk space of the user's computer.

Since when is the downloading of the code of an ad enforced? When you download a page with a popup, there is code in that page to download and launch the popup. You can set your browser not to do anything with that code.

It also seems to me that the websurfer is really the one doing the act causing the modification of the contents of the computer.

Not to mention that the same logic could be used to say that images should not be allowed on webpages.


And now back to NationStates, although with necessary reference to real-world organisations.

Those guilty of running popup ads could argue that their code is not actually intended to bring popups to the user but that the user is using a browser that completely misinterprets the code.

It is a simple matter for the user to counterpoint this by stating that their browser (or user agent as it is oft known) is fully compliant with the necessary standards - eg <http://www.w3c.org/> for HTML.
As such, it is therefore the fault of the server owner (who ultimately has control of the content) for the code to generate pop-up ads.
Several problems here. First, there are no standards for Javascript, which is what most popups rely on. There's ECMAScript, which is a standardized scripting language almost identical to Javascript, but this is officially supported by very few browsers (only Opera that I know of). Next is the fact that 90%+ of internet users are on some form of Internet Explorer, which has poor support for W3C standards (not bad in HTML, but dreadful CSS 2 support). No browser is fully compliant with standards. Finally, almost no pages are written to the standard. Even if browsers were fully compliant to the standard, the guilty party could quite easily argue that the page was not intended to conform to standards.