.

I've had it in mind to do a discussion post about Censorship since last Summer because of a heated dispute that arose here about it back then; but also because it is an oft-recurring subject of debate on the site to this day, with our Administrators sometimes being accused of being hypocritical in relation to I-Power's long-established support of Net Neutrality.  The confusion arises, I think, because many people assume {and wrongly so}  that supporting Net Neutrality also somehow constitutes a support for chaos and/or anarchy, which is not the case at all.  Net Neutrality and bills/laws like SOPA & PIPA involve the idea of governments restricting the individuals ability to connect with others on the internet... and although this could be considered a form of censorship, it is actually more about regulating the conduit of communication, and not the regulation of what somebody may individually wish to publish or express.  It's a matter of semantics, I suppose. 

.

In any case, Censorship is something that is commonplace everywhere on the planet.  It has always existed, everywhere, in some form or another; and it always will.  In a way, it is a foundational element of social interaction, and oftentimes facilitates rational and "civilized" discussion.  In the United States, for example, the "freedom of speech" and expression and the right to assembly are popularly considered to be inalienable human rights, {meaning that they are basic human rights that cannot be taken from you, or given away,} .. but they are not practically treated as such, and they never have been.  Various laws exist that regulate public assembly and personal expression in the United States, and these laws differ from State to State, and from city to city.  And if you commit a felony crime and go to prison you can bet your ass that your "freedom of speech," as well as many other of your "inalienable rights," will be stripped away from you.

.

Net Neutrality involves the idea that there should not be any excessive form of government regulation of the Internet.  Its proponents believe that individual web sites and domains should be able to operate in much the same way as independent cities and municipalities would.  Which is to say that they should have the freedom to regulate themselves as they see fit, and that they do not need to have a higher agency of some sort imposing regulatory mandates upon them.  In the international, online gaming community called Second Life, for example, enacting scenarios that would mimic sex with a minor child is forbidden by common consensus, and there are virtual police officers in the game who can "arrest" you if you are caught breaking this "law". 

See:  Second Life - Terms of Service - User Conduct

And:  Second Life - Community Standards

.

The majority of people in this world consider sex with minor children to be offensive behavior, and so they create laws where they live in order to prohibit such activity, as well as anything that might serve to promote it, such as child pornography; and these same people also tend to transfer their feelings about this matter onto the internet when they create and join online communities.  There is no need for any government to tell them to do it.  They create these kinds of prohibitions all by themselves w/o being told that they have to do so.  And just as small cities and towns will change the speed limit for automobile traffic as you drive through them, or sometimes make laws prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages in their area, or the operation of adult bookstores or nude dancing pubs, the creators of internet websites and the communities that form around them likewise also make up independent rules and guidelines that specify what kinds of behaviors are acceptable {or not} for their particular domains.

.

The I-Power community is like this.  Our service provider, Ning, has several guidelines for anybody who wishes to use their service and create a site on their network; and we also have our own set of guidelines for what is acceptible here on this particular site, and for what is not.  The most common area of dispute that I see here regarding these "rules" seems to revolve around the subject of "freedom of speech" and personal expression, with members occasionally being suspended from chat or the site itself for being excessively vulgar or for personally insulting other members.  And while some of our members feel that any type of personal expression should be tolerated here, others do not.  Overall, the rules that we have adopted for member conduct on I-Power are very standard ones; and the enforcement of them is actually quite loose compared to other sites on the net.  Our main goal is to provide a "family friendly" atmosphere which will promote fun and civilized discussions about important issues that affect our world; so language and behavior that runs counter to this goal is frowned upon, and sometimes penalized.  So, for example, while most of us would fully support your right to take nude photos of yourself and to upload them to the internet somewhere, we would also tell you that this particular website is not the place to do it and we would recommend that you search for another site that does permit that kind of thing.  Common sense and good judgement usually prevail here, and they should be suitable enough as a general guideline for how you should conduct yourself.  Of course, if you think that the rules here are too restrictive, you are free to close your account;  but breaking them in order to show your discontent will not likely get you very far, and may get your account closed for you.  :-)

.

In ending, please note that I did not post this as a discussion about whether or not the Community Guidelines for I-Power are right or wrong.  I posted this as a general discussion about the subject of Censorship, both on the internet, and in real life.  If you wish to dispute our particular Guidelines, please do not do so publicly in this thread.  Instead, privately contact the site's creator, Reese Leysen, or one of the other site Administrators to do that.  Also, please do not bring up any individual cases from the past where a member may have been disciplined for their conduct here.  Those type of incidents are also best handled privately with the Administrators;  and any attempts to argue about them here publically will be deleted and censored.  hehehe

.

Do, however, feel free to discuss here below what you think, and how you feel about the subject of Net Neutrality and Censorship in general; and list cases where you feel it is appropriate; and cases where you think it is excessive; etc.  That should make for a very good discussion in itself, w/o creating any unnecessary drama.

.

*wink*

.

Tags: Censorship, Internet, Net, Neutrality

Views: 144

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Net Neutrality, I think it's important, but it should be monitored for fraud, childporn, etc.

There is no noticeable censorship (no bleeps) on the Belgian television. But I don't watch it. I get too angry, if I do watch TV.

How people decide to communicate to each other is there choice. Every person and therefore every situation is different. When you apply censorship, what you can loose is the strength of the message, the emotional experience and the underlying problems. Censorship can also offend people for not being able to finish there point. I do think that striving for emotional-less discussions is the way to go. But not everything is a discussion. I prefer to say we're studying life.

Applying laws, without offering help is not really fixing the problem (like child molestation).

Interesting post, Shiz. i'm bumping this thread

I think while net neutrality is essentially an ideal, in practice it cannot possibly be allowed. Think of it like an entirely free market, in a free market private companies would own everything.. hospitals, prisons etc. Now when this occurs, exploitation of consumers etc becomes rife. This is why government involvement in economies is essential, to make things fair for a consumer.

Now, take the same principles and apply it to the internet. If the internet were entirely free, there would be no protection, no safeguards for the average internet user. Governments would have no involvement so there would be no official body protecting a persons information. Private firms may seize opportunities without a government in place, but that is a different, hypothetical and fairly unexplored matter. 

On the other hand, if a government becomes too involved in the internet, well im sure everyone is aware of what happens, no more freedom of speech, etc. etc. etc. 

Therefore, it is my view that a balance has to be struck between the involvement of official bodies and the freedom of the internet. One note i will make, is that the motives of an official body becoming involved should be more purely based on that of protecting the information of individuals, the prevention of fraud and for methods of preventing crime. I do not think governments should use their power to support multinational corporations, large companies, firms etc. 

Laws are a necessary part of the world as a way of establishing the boundaries of what is socially, morally, ethically acceptable, and there has to be some standard that applies to the internet, as there is in real life. We have no entirely free speech in real life (which in my opinion is not at all a bad thing as it helps prevent things like racism, sexism, ageism.. all that discriminatory stuff that is clearly not acceptable), and as such we do not have it on the internet.

To conclude, and possibly repeat myself, the internet in my opinion should be free to the extent that the government should only be able to regulate when a person's information is stolen, persons are being discriminated against and criminal activities are being prevented. 

RSS

Forum

Capitalism and profit 32 Replies

Started by Tim Young in Off-Topic. Last reply by Timo Kerremans 10 hours ago.

dealing with trolls 5 Replies

Started by Bart Skraeling in Off-Topic. Last reply by Tim Young 12 hours ago.

Latest Activity

Bardasu Florin replied to SparTom007 - Tom's discussion Why I argue so "aggressively" | Distorted views can kill | Teenager kills herself after researching 2012 doomsday theories
" From the beginning of the human kind, fear was necessary to keep us alive and avoid certain dangers lions, bigger monkeys, ecc. so is well preserved in our brains because we can't compair 500 years of so called evolution with two…"
7 hours ago
Timo Kerremans replied to Tim Young's discussion Capitalism and profit
"Yes I agree with that, a global change in the state of mind.I think if every single person in the world has an enormous feeling for solidarity, it is possible to create a working system where money would be obsolete. This unfortunatly is an utopian…"
10 hours ago
Tim Young replied to Tim Young's discussion Capitalism and profit
"I believe an entirely new paradigm is required.  A global mindset shift away from the notion of "profit" and towards co-existence within a cooperative framework."
12 hours ago
Timo Kerremans replied to Tim Young's discussion Capitalism and profit
"What might be a solution for this profit-based society?They say money can solve a lot of problems, but these problems are mostly created by the bad use of money. I think you can't solve problems with the same thing that caused them. "
12 hours ago
Tim Young replied to Bart Skraeling's discussion dealing with trolls
"Yes that's similar to the usual advice one might see.  And most of it is good advice. The only problem I have is with the "ignoring". Good in theory but in practice not always that easy - especially with the more persistent…"
12 hours ago
Bart Skraeling replied to Bart Skraeling's discussion dealing with trolls
"i liked this blog http://networkbloggingtips.com/dealing-with-trolls-and-negativity/ especially the part about about fighting off the troll with dwarfs"
12 hours ago
Tim Young replied to Bart Skraeling's discussion dealing with trolls
"Yes well, you could speculate forever as to the why.  But how will you ever know the real truth - unless you get some actual trolls to fess up. I am guessing honesty is not their strongest suit. I would also suggest that most of them probably…"
13 hours ago
Bart Skraeling replied to Bart Skraeling's discussion dealing with trolls
"when i looked down on the page i saw someone was trying to discuss their view on immigrants in a calm and intellectual way, that didn`t work out. so then he responded with rage afterwards. i found an article about how to deal with…"
13 hours ago
Tim Young replied to Bart Skraeling's discussion dealing with trolls
"The moment you let a troll get under your skin and you react with anger or similar - then they are getting exactly what they want. So anything BUT getting angry or pissed off with them works a lot better.  Sarcasm can work well. Like commenting…"
13 hours ago
Bart Skraeling liked Tim Young's blog post What I Am Liking About This Site
13 hours ago
Bart Skraeling posted a discussion

dealing with trolls

yesterday it was the eurovision song contest.I went into a newspapers internett site (dagbladet if anyone is interested) and saw they had a forum for discussing the results (the results where coming in at the time). much of the forum was covered with the comments of two people, both trolls, one in norwegian and one in english. they where claiming that norway lost because we sent an immigrant to the finals (the guy was born in Iran but came to norway when he was just over 1 yrs old), and other…See More
13 hours ago
Bart Skraeling commented on SparTom007 - Tom's video
Thumbnail

Rape VS Regret | SparTom on... Episode 2

"me and my girlfriend have been raping each other simultaniously"
14 hours ago

© 2012   Created by Reese Leysen.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service