NationStates Jolt Archive

Rather than impose controls centrally, said Mr Cerf, it was far better to put them at the edges of the network where users go online.

For instance, said Mr Cerf, searching for results via Google can be constrained by filters that can be set to be strict or lax.

Here is the full article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6968322.stm

What do you think?
Should the net be regulated by someone at least indirectly?
Should Google, Yahoo and/or others have this power?
Should the State have this power?
Should People have this power (digg and delicious come to mind)?

I like my tubes unobstructed. :)

Nations can't have this power - they'd never agree and could only regulate locally, something which they already do to a certain extent.

It's up to Google, Yahoo and other search engines what they will do with their own products. If they limit it too much, another cool search engine will come into existence and we're all happy.

How exactly are people going to block access to sites?

Regulation of the net is unrealistic.

I'll elaborate on the "Power to the People" option.

What i was thinking is something along the lines of Google censorship.
Google doesn't block acces to politica sites in China, it just doesn't list them in your search.
Something similar could happen in a user drived environment. If enough people mark a site as unacceptable it gets blacklisted and it's not shown on a search query any more. Such thing could be easyly engineered in any browser...

Pfft, I wouldn't use such a system. How do I know that I'll agree with the other users as to what is acceptable or not.

If I typed certain words into a search engine then I was probably looking for a site like that and I want to see it listed.

Not to mention the potential for abuse. It'd be like google bombs, but in reverse.

If Google and others started doing this, people would stop using them. Nations do not have the necessary control to enforce anything too much. Enforced censorship is quite unnecessary (in more places than the internet, but that's not relevant to this), people are quite capable of censoring themselves, and parents for their children, away from content they don't want to see.

And on a very slightly related note.

http://www.rte.ie/aertel/115-01.html

It seems that Thailand had filters put somewhere to ban Youtube.

The internet is already controled it seems.

It's impossible to regulate the Internet. Just use an encrypted connection via a proxy server, then your ISP can't see what you are doing or where. If they block encryption just change the format, if they block all new unknown formats that'll stop technological development and you could still embed the data in known formats, for example as comments or watermarks in image files. The only ones who can regulate are the websites but if one website removes content people want people will just go to another website that still offers it.

Well, China does regulate the Internet and many of the workarounds are too complicated for average users. But the Chinese firewall will start to leak as more and more people become IT experts. And Darknets automates the process, when they reach a mature and user friendly level anyone can use them to bypass the regulation.

But still, many crimes could theoretically be done online. Build a bomb from instructions found online, hire a hitman on an underground ebay clone, hack the bank instead of robbing it, credit card fraud and other frauds, blackmail someone by email, and so on. So even though it is impossible to prevent online crimes with technical regulations laws must still apply after a crime has been committed online.

ummm, yeah good luck with regulating this ether... anyways I just had to say I LOL at these quotes...
Kyrozerkia - "There is nothing intellectual about NSG. It's a cesspool of pompous arm-chair activist wannabe pseudo-intellectuals."

Troglobites - "I like how Darwinism is being treated like a separate religion. Every Tuesday, they get together and bow in front of his statue while a head speaker wears a clothe embroidered with the map of the Galapagos Islands and it all ends with the sacrifice of the weakest member of the convent."

The decentralized and interconnected nature of the net prevents effective regulation. So why bother trying?

The only effective control is parental watchfulness.

What do you think?
Should the net be regulated by someone at least indirectly?
Should Google, Yahoo and/or others have this power?
Should the State have this power?
Should People have this power (digg and delicious come to mind)?No
No
No
... people? wazaUmean?

Fuck the government. It is like throwing away money. It will be cracked or made irrelevant just like the Australian and China government filters and all the billions it will cost will be pointless.

Pfft, I wouldn't use such a system. How do I know that I'll agree with the other users as to what is acceptable or not.

If I typed certain words into a search engine then I was probably looking for a site like that and I want to see it listed.

Not to mention the potential for abuse. It'd be like google bombs, but in reverse.

Well the problem here is that this kind of censorship is very difficult to fight or even recognize.
The Google in China example is about that. We know about it just because of the media campaign in USA and EU. If you were a Chinese citizen and approached the web for the first time you would not recognize the chensorship as such.
Search engines have a tremendous power here, expecially in broad categories where checking if a particular web site is listed or not and why can be a real pain.

Mind that I'm not advocating any control. It just boggles me that the issue comes out so often all around the world (the article in the OP is from BBC).
Heck there's an issue about this topic in NS!!
What I'm curious about are, actually, the opinions of those FOR any kind of control...
But, then, I might be in the wrong place... :D

the internet i the last unrestricted space, so no. no way.

No.

The net should be regulated on one's own computer. If you find certain content offensive then set up filters on your computer to keep that content from coming through. Just as you have the power to decide you don't want your child to see certain TV channels by locking them out, you can do the same with your computer.

You cannot censor the real world but you can control your home.

What you may consider moral may not be moral for another and vice versa.

\begin[obscure]{quote}The internet is the only place that's still free. If you disagree just wait and see.\end{quote}

I am against 'net regulation, tyvm!

Google, Yahoo, and others should be free to regulate their own content. If they are not free to do so, then the state is regulating their content. ISPs and individuals should also be free to censor their content. Once again, if they are not free to do so, then the state is regulating their content.

The state should have absolutely no power in the matter.

Short answer: No.

Of course not. Companies can, but I can damn well tell you a company that tries to censor internet access will be out of business pretty quickly. I know I'd stop using my ISP or search engine in a second if I found it was filtering content.

Of course not. Companies can, but I can damn well tell you a company that tries to censor internet access will be out of business pretty quickly. I know I'd stop using my ISP or search engine in a second if I found it was filtering content.

I've noticed that over the last several months a number of sites I visit have mysteriously disappeared off of most search engines. Mind you, they are forums and sites concerning drugs and drug use (:D) so I would imagine that might have something to do with the US government. If you think they don't speak to Google and co. on a regular basis you are very sadly mistaken.

Well, the internet shouldn;t be censored, but then, since when do governments care as long as they have power...and control of the net is power

I don't know if this is true or not, but apparentally even sites like myspace are censored, not for profanity, but for certain keywords, ie someone i know said they couldn;t send a message using the words fascist, al-qaeda, nazi etc, but strangely they could send the message once those words had gone. I don;t know if that was strange coincedence or not...

The Internet should not be regulated. There should be not even be "Net Neutrality" laws. Instead, we should respect property rights on the Internet and off of it.

The search engines should have the right to provide whatever search results they want. ISPs should be allowed to provide whatever service they want. If an ISP happens to sabotage their customer's Internet connections (which is the main reason why people argue for "Net Neutrality") or if a Search Engine provides biased or poor results, the proper way to deal with it is to take your business elsewhere, forcing them to either shape up or go broke (which is what happens under laissez-faire Capitalism when a company fails to satisfy the desires of the sovereign consumers).

hooray for the free internet!

Should People have this power?
Democracy is antithetical to individual freedom.

Should the net be regulated by someone at least indirectly?
Should Google, Yahoo and/or others have this power?
Should the State have this power?
Should People have this power (digg and delicious come to mind)?

NO!
HELL NO!!
GOD ABSOLUTELY NO!!!
They already do.For example if you violate Yotube's terms and conditions they might remove your video.(Yes I know Google owns Youtube but it is still run by the idependant people who founded it)

If you don't like something online don't watch it,read it,listen to it,etc.As George Carlin said you radio has two nobs well your computer has much more.Stop taking away other's freedom because you don't like something.

Next your opions in NSG will be filtered.Places on the internet like NSG were ment for uncensored stuff. If we can't spread what we deem fit then why have the internet.

Governments have been attempting to filter out or shut down web sites which aren't "friendly" to them via various means but each time you get rid of one site, it will pop up being hosted in another country especially in other nations that hate them.

No I don't it regulated, I want my tubes unmonitored when we start planning the revolution.

If enough people mark a site as unacceptable it gets blacklisted and it's not shown on a search query any more. Such thing could be easyly engineered in any browser...

Excellent. Competing companies could just hire vast swathes of people to do nothing more than blacklist their competitors all day, resulting in NOBODY appearing on the Google search! Which leaves plenty of room for me to establish my banana selling organisation...

No.

The Internet should not be regulated. There should be not even be "Net Neutrality" laws. Instead, we should respect property rights on the Internet and off of it.

The search engines should have the right to provide whatever search results they want. ISPs should be allowed to provide whatever service they want. If an ISP happens to sabotage their customer's Internet connections (which is the main reason why people argue for "Net Neutrality") or if a Search Engine provides biased or poor results, the proper way to deal with it is to take your business elsewhere, forcing them to either shape up or go broke (which is what happens under laissez-faire Capitalism when a company fails to satisfy the desires of the sovereign consumers).

QFT

Here is the full article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6968322.stm

What do you think?
Should the net be regulated by someone at least indirectly?
Should Google, Yahoo and/or others have this power?
Should the State have this power?
Should People have this power (digg and delicious come to mind)?

You should have the power, and search engines should have a filter package for schools and libraries, places like that.