Comments on: Net Neutrality vs. The Tamed Internet

By: Jen

Jen — Mon, 04 May 2009 22:08:58 +0000

I enjoyed reading this post and the comments. I can’t make a solid prediction. Regulating from this point forward seems a daunting task. Sheer volume alone. And, when I stumble on things I wish I hadn’t, I think about the kids who find this stuff and I’m quick to say, “why doesn’t someone monitor this? Look at TV and radio – it’s not freewheeling…” but that’s not necessarily a good argument since I’m often offended by things heard or seen on such media. Indeed, I’d rather have families shape children’s behavior on accessing what’s available out there (in here) than the government. In a perfect world (?) there wouldn’t be nasty things for our children to encounter, in our communities or on-line, but it is what it is. I’ve been blown away by the wonders on the web since I was first introduced to a simple black screen with only green text to read. It would be sad to lose the spirit of the world-wide-web. OK, rambling, signing off!

By: Luke

Luke — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:35:01 +0000

Doan,
This is an excellent post on an issue I confess I know very little about. I too am typically on the side of less government, since I love studying history and it’s pretty clear from history that big government=power=corruption and tyranny. However, I see your points on the other side of the argument as well. One item that I may be able to contribute is that for people like me who are not too good with computers, the current filters work really well. I would assume that that holds true for most kids too (as long as they aren’t child geniuses like you Therefore the ability to regulate the internet lies mostly with parents and not the government, which is a good thing.
Also, my anti-liberal media side says that the internet is currently one of the only forms of media that gives an opposing view point to the mainstream newspaper/TV forms that seem to be more interested in pushing an agenda than reporting the news. For example, I wonder how many people would know the truth about the global warming hoax without people finding opposing viewpoints on the internet. If the government controlled the internet, a single political party might be able to pass a “fairness doctrine” type legislation and destroy open discussion of viewpoints while further pushing their own agenda. I know that sounds extreme, but internet censorship is alive and well in China. Anyway, thanks for the insightful post.

By: Geoffrey Is the MAN

Geoffrey Is the MAN — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 21:37:34 +0000

Certainly one of your best-written posts. And this is a dilemma that really has no great answer. FCC control over the internet would be a disaster, but letting things run amok and freewheeling is also dangerous.

Another one of the biggest problems with filters is that it kills bandwidth and drastically increases page loading time. I want to pull my hair out when I try to access a web page on a computer with a filter. However, I think it is a parent’s job to figure out how they want to regulate their own home network, not the government’s. There are some decent filters and monitors that, rather than block sites, link to a master user account and send a notification email when a site of dubious quality is accessed.

I often question which sort of political group will be more prone to regulating the internet. Moral conservatives, of course, want to keep stuff away from kids, but Democrats are the ones more interested in taxing the internet and having more oversight.

While I am generally against censorship, I do recognise that it has its merits. My jaw drops at the amoral society of Europe, and how just about anything is available on network television. When I lived in Spain, porn mags were openly on display along with the day’s newspaper. So yes, surely some form of censorship is good.

Perhaps it is typical of my liberal-libertarian bent, but I think it needs to be left alone. I’m glad that in the West the internet is largely unregulated. Regimes don’t block sites or filter content. Yes, there is a degree of danger in allowing anyone to access anything, but that is the essence of freedom. It shouldn’t be up to the government to regulate content. When dealing with the public sphere, yes, regulation is fine, but what people want to control in their own home is their business.

By: Meghan

Meghan — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:08:14 +0000

Wow. You explained that very well. That’s a really interesting dilemma. I am kinda siding with the don’t regulate end of things, simply because I’m not sure how they even would regulate it. The only thing I can think of would be some sort of standardized rating system like they have for movies and video games and music. But that seems like what those filters you can buy are doing, the only difference is this government regulation would have to rate every site which means they’d have to look at and approve every site and then people could choose for themselves still what they ‘watched.’ I hope that all makes sense. Point is, you got me thinking. This is interesting to think about . . . .

By: Jenny

Jenny — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:26:06 +0000

I enjoyed your thoughts, There is the thought that if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns. Growing up in the 60′s & 70′s I am for freedom. One point is that a lay person such as I would not feel comfortable contributing to a governed site for fear of “looking” stupid. For lack of a better term. I am comfortable contributing in my forum as it is a take it or leave it forum. The other problem I see is greed. Greed takes over even the good guys and they would put a price tag on everything and it would just get higher and higher. On the thought of protecting children…of course you want to but for everything in their lives it is better to teach correct principles and let a person govern them selves. I do think we are living on borrowed time with the freedom of the internet and it won’t be long until it is harnessed in some form, but I don’t think I am looking forward to that day.