Thursday, February 28, 2013
For Class on 3/6: Regulation and Internet Freedom
Internet freedom is a broad concept that affects all internet users and is modified by political forces and corporate forces alike. Much of the debate surrounding internet freedom comes down to a first amendment issue surrounding speech online; who can create it, who can read it, whether it should be limited, and if so when and how should this censorship take place? We are living in a remarkable time where the web and web based applications and devices are used by the vast majority of all Americans but the regulation of this activity is relatively nonexistant. This regulatory void is filled mainly by corporate rules regarding content primarily by content providers like google and apple. After reading the MacKinnon chapters please comment on the reality of internet freedom today and how it may be increasingly threatened in the future. What are the benefits of internet freedom and potential problems caused by it? Should policies be implement to guarantee internet freedom (such as net neutrality) or should we allow the market forces to work as they will on the marketplace of ideas and products that is the internet?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that the current regulatory void that exists currently in regard to Internet freedom definitely isn’t going to stay that way forever. The examples that MacKinnon gave with NARAL Pro-Choice America and the medical marijuana dispensary in California were pretty scary. At some point, U.S. law is going to catch up with such technologies and extend the same regulations to data and text messages (currently it only exists for phone calls). Censorship by companies may diminish after these kinds of laws are passed, but when corporate censorship deteriorates, in a way, censorship (or regulation) by the government increases. It isn’t clear yet which of these scenarios is better, and it’s also not clear whether or not they’re mutually exclusive.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the Internet is not really free is what I think complicates everything. When you sign up for an ISP, you’re agreeing to their terms of use and regulations, which in theory means that they can do whatever they want with your Internet service since there’s a lack of government regulation in this area (so far). The reality of Internet freedom that we experience in the United States now is on the surface pretty great, but it could very well change. The benefits of Internet freedom would obviously include increased flow of free information, thus allowing people to have greater access to a wider variety of knowledge. The example MacKinnon talks about on page 125-126 is really indicative of this.
I’d advocate for Internet freedom for the most part, and regulation only to the extent that it puts pressure on ISPs to make the Internet more accessible for everyone, not just those who can afford it. Net neutrality is something I would like to see implemented in the future.
I've always been an advocate of internet freedom. Unless a dire threat to national security, I don't believe in censorship. I think internet freedom allows for more transparency in government and the corporate world. I think internet activists keep these bureaucracies in check, leaking information like Bradley Manning. Obviously there are some problems when it comes to national security, but I don't like the idea of the government having a strong grasp on something that is world wide. There are extremists in our own government, who if given opportunity would do some very scary and dangerous things with technology. We always have to look into the future, of what the unintended outcomes could come with the legislation our leaders agree upon. Except for instances of cyber terrorism, and violation of rights, I think the government should stay out of it.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Jonathan. While regulation can be a useful and effective means for responsibility of print/broadcast authors it could be very dangerous on the internet. The internet allows for neutral entrance towards reaching audiences for all endeavors and their opinions. Whether it be one person writing at length about a subject or small comment made on a whim. Whatever the reason for use may be, it should not see regulation. The internet puts responsibility on the user in no way before. The internets speed and efficiency give even greater reason for that responsibility. If regulation of the internet occurs, there is no telling where it can stop.
DeleteAfter reading the MacKinnion chapters, I realized that the reality of internet freedom today is limited, especially “as of mid-2011 [when the government] was not required [by law to document publicly it wiretapping] Internet communications” (78-79). While the internet is not censored, we are still under surveillance online; therefore, we do not have ultimate freedom. This is a frightening thought because the US government has a history of abusing its power when it comes to surveillance, thus, the public should take back their internet civil liberties. In addition, the reality of the internet today is that one pays a standard amount for internet no matter how many megabytes are used. One’s use of the internet is unlimited once you buy it; however, this can be threatened in the future because we see other countries with different policies. For example, Chapter 3 in the MacKinnon reading indicates that the students have free broadband internet in their dorms at top Chinese universities such as Peking and Tsinghua; however, “the service is free only for domestic websites…[and] to access any other websites….students are charged according to how many megabites they upload or download” (48). This would make our internet community much smaller and it would affect more people in the United States because we are a diverse culture. I use foreign websites to receive news; therefore, my unlimited access to these websites will be increasingly threatened in the future. Paying for megabytes will put some students at a disadvantage over others because if you need to watch videos for class, then you have to pay more. I do not agree with this shift because the internet should be affordable. All these Blockbusters and movie stores were shut down and now the main source of movies is through Netflix online. I am aggravated that the realities of the internet will change because numerous companies instilled internet habits into the people and these habits will be difficult to break; therefore, internet providers will make profit from the people.
ReplyDeleteThe benefit of internet freedom is that the possibilities are endless because we can watch movies and download music without worrying about our bill. Another benefit of internet freedom is that our First Amendment rights can be utilized to the fullest extent. At the same time, this can be problematic because this creates a safe haven for white supremacists and racist individuals to continue their cyber racism online without regulation. As Jessie Daniels emphasized in her presentation, racism happens online and something needs to be done. In my opinion, amending the First Amendment rights will not prevent these racist people from posting horrific things online.
There need to be laws regarding net neutrality. The marketplace should not determine how information is distributed. Corporations should not be able to control the flow of information. Perhaps the FCC should take on this larger role to help prevent corporations from taking advantage of the public. ISPs are going to try to increase prices in the near future limiting access to information. It is like price gauging by gas companies they have increase the prices because they can and they are forcing people to pay it. Most utilities are considered public to prevent things like this to happen. Instead in terms of ISPs these companies decide to increase prices and the rest of them do the same instead, of how normally try to compete for business by perhaps undercutting the competition to try and get additional business. This is going to be the problem in the future the ISPs trying to control the distribution of information unless there is some sort of law to prevent these ISPs from continuing to institute price hikes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Matt, the internet is a means to promote free speech on a much broader scale than through traditional means, and as such allowing providers to restrict what their users can access would violate free speech rights. By implementing price tiers this also compromises the amount of information that these people can access. By allowing the internet providers to dictate what their customers can reasonably access this then influences what information is available and this can prevent people from getting a holistic picture of whatever it is that they are inquiring about online. By maintaining Net Neutrality free speech is insured, and access to the internet is unfiltered by the companies' interests, for the benefit of the interests of the people.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe internet is a somewhat untapped market when it comes to profitability. Our usage of the internet alone is enough for a company to determine our shopping habits, hobbies, needs, whether or not we have children etc. As far as regulation goes, I feel that it is necessary, but to an extent. On one hand the regulation is beneficial for national security interets, but at what cost? Once power is given it is not often taken away, and this lesson will apply to the internet in the coming years. With algorithms already spying on our harmless chats with friends on the internet, I can only imagine what this discussion will involve in 10 years.
ReplyDeleteUltimately the intennet is not free, well, at least it sure feels like it's becoming less free- almost as if the past decade was a free trial. The more widely the internet is used, the more widely it will be regulated. As corporations become more and more subject to internet regulation they will in turn demand more $ from their viewership. With that being said, I personally have taken advantage of the lack of internet regulation, and the amount of information, programs, music, movies, tv shows etc. that can be accessed for free is still shocking to me.
I believe that the internet should be a free realm, that all can use to distribute their thoughts, business', etc. The beauty of the internet is that it is not regulated, and that information is just seconds away from your every search. The benefit of internet freedom is that it gives everyone a voice. While freedom of speech over the web is something that is very valuable, it can also come with a price. As we had discussed earlier in class on Monday, Jesse Daniels cam and demonstrated how white supremacist groups are able to make alterations to history, and just how easy children can be exposed to their pervasive views. Where I believe the true authority of who sees what over the web should come from is in the home and at schools. We should educate our children how to properly use thew internet as a tool, and what to avoid better, especially because of how prominent of a tool it has become. So while there are people out there abusing their power to post whatever they want, we shouldn't allow the fewer negatives to overpower all of the positives that internet freedom has to offer.
ReplyDeleteI hope access to the internet becomes easier and easier and companies figure out a way to make profit without restricting access but I don't see that happening unless the US takes action. As Prof mentioned and having recently read an article about FCC rules the way we access the internet is almost certainly going to be changed. By 2015 the majority of people will access the internet on mobile devices and cable providers like Comcast are not going to stand idly by while other companies are making huge profits off the internet. So its only a matter of time before the rules are changed. Let's hope enough people reach out their representatives supporting open access.
ReplyDeleteThere will always be and have always been issues regarding freedom of speech. There are always people who take advantage of the system and cause harm but the vast majority of people are respectful and arguably thankful enough for the their freedoms that they choose not to use it to harm people. I think benefits of internet freedom far outweigh the risks. The spread of democratic ideas, knowledge, and even hope are priceless.
Internet freedom today is probably the most free it will ever be. In the present time, Internet providers don't charge you for the amount of Internet that we use. We are able to download as much content as we want without having to worry about our internet bills increasing based on the amount of our internet usage. In the future if internet providers start charging based upon the amount of usage, sort of like how phone providers do, then I think that will be a sign that peoples internet usage is trying to be limited.
ReplyDeleteOn the issue of free speech, I think it's of the up most importance that people's freedom of speech on the internet is protected by the 1st amendment. Whether it's good or bad, you should be able to freely express your opinion without having to worry that the government will try to censor you. It should also be mentioned that the U.S. government does pay attention to what is being said on the internet. Everyday the amount of data that the government stores and reviews grows. If someone were to post a comment on a website like YouTube that related to terrorism, then that person can go to jail without a trial of being suspected to be part of a terrorist organization. Things like this show that the Internet really is not a free place where you can say whatever you want.
I do not usually advocate for intervention in the private sector but the internet is a special case because of what it stands for and how it has developed over time. When the internet was first used as a transfer medium for academic information between universities no one could have imagined that less than 50 years later the world would depend so greatly on the internet and its endless tools. The internet began to influence businesses and households starting during the mid-1990s and has been evolving the way that we communicate, interact, and shop online ever since. Had perfect competition been allowed in the ISP marketplace and many different internet providers had been able to compete for customers I believe that internet regulation or net neutrality would not even be talked about, but because technical monopolies have been created be those that control the gateways to the internet in many markets, net neutrality is a serious issue that needs to be considered.
ReplyDeleteJust as other utility markets such as electricity, natural gas, and water are highly regulated by the government to ensure ethical pricing and delivery of the service, so should internet service. When monopolies are created in a utility market the government must step in to ensure that the business is not taking advantage of their customers. ISPs should be nothing but a gateway to the larger internet, but when ISPs begin to acquire companies that allow them to also act as content providers, a conflict of interest can arise. If ISP providers begin to slow down connection speeds to applications or websites that compete with their alternatives or block them all together and you are unhappy with the service but are in a market with very few providers your freedom to choose the most reliable company has been taken away. This is why I believe that net neutrality laws should be enacted so that all people, regardless of what they are searching for on the internet, are able to do so without hindrance. People often forget that the internet is a somewhat lawless area where anonymity rules and borders do not exist. This is what allows the internet to be so free and open for anyone regardless of age, sex, religion, or political affiliation and will continue to empower the spread of information and commerce for many years to come so long as it remains open and free to all people.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe idea of net neutrality sounds like a good one, that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the web equally. But there has to be some type of regulation even if it’s fairly minor at first, because I don’t like the ideal of corporations like Apple or Google filling the void. I like those companies and use their products and services everyday, but they are large cooperation’s only after making more money from their users and don’t always have their best intentions in mind. I agree with both Matt & Mkozlol2 that there need to be laws regarding net neutrality and that the FCC should take a larger role to help prevent corporations from taking advantage of the public. We have to stop ISPs from trying to control the distribution of information with laws in place to prevent these ISPs from dictating the control of the web, by constantly change prices and packages on there users/customers.
Internet freedom benefits society by allowing people to access and share information and ideas free of cost. The benefits to this greatly outweigh the cost. Jessie Daniels recently gave a talk about how white supremacist groups use the internet to spread there ideas and while she has a point she really did not offer a solution. Blaming the internet for racism is like blaming cars for car accidents or spoons for making people fat. People that view the internet the way Daniels does would like to see more regulation but I would think they is a very small minority. The overall impact of the internet (like most technology) is that it makes society more efficient. I am sure that in the coming years access to the internet will become easier which will give companies more incentive to profit from it. I hope that internet access is not restricted just for companies to make a profit. It is far to valuable of a tool. Hopefully, there will be a way both sides to win, it does make sense to charge people for certain types of information but general internet access should remain very affordable because of its benefit to society. It will be interesting how the internet is handled in the future, I am sure it will change a lot in the next five to ten years.
ReplyDeleteI think it is incredibly important that our first amendment right to free speech is protected when it comes to the internet. Unfortunately, i think that this right will very slowly be taken away from us when it comes to what we say and put up on the internet. Whether its good or bad or society excepts the opinion or not people should be allowed to say and express what they want. Violating this right goes against everything the internet was about, a free and open web for people to share and learn from anyone who wants to contribute. With the government or corporations going in and monitoring what people are able to see, read, and how much, is definitely violating this right. I agree with others that the internet is a tool, and not all content should be available to everyone such as young children, but if this tool is used properly then it can be incredibly beneficial in every thing it has to offer.
ReplyDeleteA more free internet would benefit all. I understand the benefits of censorship, but sometimes the content being censored can be used as a learning tool. It gives us a different perspective and it enables us to identify what is wrong and controversial about it. We find out why that censored content is wrong, and appreciate more the truth and moral ethics of that topic. Internet freedom also lets us hear different opinions and point of views, ones that we may not necessarily agree with, but ones that we at least know exist and are thought about by others.
ReplyDeleteNet neutrality should definitely be something to consider and push. ISPs should not be allowed to price data because the access to information may be cut for many individuals. Corporations are going to try to push for higher prices for internet usage to those who use more data, but thats gonna prevent the spread of ideas, information, and opinions. People who have little means to access data will be further hindered because now they are going to have to pay a higher price for more internet in pursue of accessing a bit more of it. As a college student, I need to access articles and documents to gather information for a paper or exam. The price of my education will rise if net neutrality in not pushed more.
I am completely for internet freedom. I think it is unfair for the government to get involved in a "safe place" for freedom of expression and speech. However, I believe there are exceptions to that rule. If there are terrorist organizations or other threats to society that are posting threats online, obviously that changes things. But in all other cases, I believe people have the right to freedom of speech online unless libel is involved, but again, that is in the hands of each individual, not the government. I liked MacKinnon's references to 1984 and Brave New World. I feel that those are valid comparisons when speaking of government involvement with the public's ability to use the Internet.
ReplyDeleteI believe that internet falls under the first amendment under printed speech, therefore, it should have the same rules and regulations. I believe that freedom of speech is extremely important yet I realize as well that the right to have that freedom commonly gets abused especially online. There is one thing to share your opinions publicly and another to instigate response by sharing your opinions. The issue that I see is that yes while on the internet you can easily get off of a page you dislike or disagree with, but at the same time how do you determine what is credible information and where that information comes from? It is so much harder to hold accountability on the internet because determining who put what were is a lot harder. For example, hardcore bullying occurs online via social media which has lead to extreme negative outcomes such as suicide and deaths of others. That type of speech should be regulated just like in printed speech, libel is not allowed. As for pricing of the internet, the internet was created for the people for FREE and charging per usage seems like the core values of why it was created would be taken. I strongly think that controlling the internet by pricing usage is a step in the wrong direction!
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion I agree, the internet is a tool and just like with every tool imaginable it can be misused which is why I think that regulating certain speech online should be acceptable.
Although the idea of Net Neutrality is ideal, I wanted to focus more on the problems the freedom of the internet does cause. As Jessie Daniels pointed out, as as other class mates mentioned, the fact that the US became a safe haven for hate groups is ridiculous.
ReplyDelete(See next comment)
There are problems and hate crimes occurring online that do directly affect actions that physically take place. although the idea of the internet does have people participate politically more and more this also works against us when it is in the form of racism. the fact that people can get around the 1st amendment as their excuse just makes me believe the American population needs us to re word laws to be more specific. I do feel that the words the internet spreads do hurt people but since it is not physical harm it may not be punishable, and although the internet has overall been a positive influence the negative aspects are still there and I do feel as though policies need to be enforce to not necessarily give internet freedom but rather to target the actions of hate groups almost "enforce" rules to clarify what the freedom entails. Do I think we should allow the market forces to work as they will on the marketplace of ideas and products that is the internet? Well I think they will anyway but as Matt said the FCC needs to take a larger role to keep this from happening.
ReplyDeleteJust going with the general tone of the conversation, I would have to agree that Internet freedom is something we have grown accustomed to or perhaps that it is something we have been raised to believe. During our last class, Shaza and I sort of agreed that regulating the internet is definitely on our government's agenda -laws simply haven't been implemented yet because any type of tampering with our 1st amendment rights would create an uproar. So overall, I think the internet can be regulated, I think our government knows how to regulate it, and I think that they are simply in the process of fluffing such restrictions to better sell them to the American public.
DeleteThat being said, I think the best response on our part -by our part I mean those who are anti-restriction- would be to educate not only ourselves but following generations whose views will become so narrowed by all forms of mainstream news media. There is a gap in understanding that our government and big corporations are widening, and I think in the future this expansion will come in the form of internet restriction.
I understand where Cynthia is coming from, but what defines a "hate group"? What if during the 1960's the groups organizing the sit-ins were using the internet to do so, but their online actions were deemed "inflammatory" or "hateful"? In my opinion, it's a very slippery slope once you begin to censor online content that may be, in some policy makers opinion, a threat or hurtful to certain people. America is based on certain rights and these must be guarded. There can however, be laws that hold users accountable for what they post, if a direct connection to what they posted and the real-world crime can be proved beyond a doubt.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I believe the US should not step in to censor online content, I do believe they should regulate what ISPs can and cannot do. I fully agree with Matt here and I also remember something he said earlier this year: “Limiting access to information is a form of censorship.” At first I wasn’t sure if I agreed but after thinking about it, it truly is. It censors the underprivileged and poorer in the community; keeping knowledge away from them and not allowing their voices to be heard as well as others. And, as we’ve seen before, often it is these voices that are most needed to be heard.
Overall, I believe implementing Net Neutrality is the best option for the future of the internet.
In my opinion, I think the internet right now is pretty liberal. I agree that much of what is said online is protected by the First Amendment, but I also believe that anything breaking the First Amendment is hard to squash. There's methods to protect one's identity online, creating an anonymous internet alias which allows others to post pretty much anything they want. The only censorship I really encounter would be on YouTube, as copyright claims can be made against videos if music is used without permission. All in all, I think the current status of the internet is magnificent. Despite small instances of abuse, I believe that this freedom we find on the internet allows us to accomplish much more than we could ordinarily accomplish in any other medium.
ReplyDeleteThis relatively liberal internet scares me, however, because I do not think it will remain this way for long. I know many major companies are eventually going to try and meddle with the freedom that we currently have in order to ensure efficient operations. I am totally fine with giving up a few concessions to these companies due to the increased liberality of the internet, but I do believe we have become too comfortable with the freedom we have on the internet. We have no guarantee that our freedoms will always remain the same, as seen with the attempt to pass SOPA. I truly believe that if we want the internet to remain the way it is, we need to work out some sort of Internet-based legislation to guarantee our rights on the web.
I feel that the internet is a great tool, which allows many citizens to express their feeling and emotions worldwide. If you want to make a a valid point clear, why not post it on the Internet? There is so much news and opinions expressed every second of everyday via the internet. I feel that the internet should eliminate racial slurs towards any group or religion as well. . I agree with both Matt & Mkozlol2 that there need to be laws regarding net neutrality and that the FCC should take a larger role to help prevent corporations from taking advantage of the public. In the near future, I do feel that our freedom of speech via the internet will be limited, and there will be much more monitoring than there is today.
ReplyDeletePosted for Nick (on time): I hope access to the internet becomes easier and easier and companies figure out a way to make profit without restricting access but I don't see that happening unless the US takes action. As Prof mentioned and having recently read an article about FCC rules the way we access the internet is almost certainly going to be changed. By 2015 the majority of people will access the internet on mobile devices and cable providers like Comcast are not going to stand idly by while other companies are making huge profits off the internet. So its only a matter of time before the rules are changed. Let's hope enough people reach out their representatives supporting open access.
ReplyDeleteThere will always be and have always been issues regarding freedom of speech. There are always people who take advantage of the system and cause harm but the vast majority of people are respectful and arguably thankful enough for the their freedoms that they choose not to use it to harm people. I think benefits of internet freedom far outweigh the risks. The spread of democratic ideas, knowledge, and even hope are priceless.