Slashdot Mirror
No Space for MySpace?
conq writes "BusinessWeek looks at the flaws in the bill proposed by the House of Representatives that would block access to social networks and Internet chat rooms in most federally funded schools and libraries. One big problem with their bill is it is much too vague, it 'could rule out content from any number of Internet companies, including Yahoo! and Google.' What's more, DOPA would prohibit sites that enable users to create their own content and share it. That covers a wide swath of the online world, known colloquially as Web 2.0, where users actively create everything from blogs to videos to news-page collections." This is analysis of a bill we covered yesterday.
The argument is that it's "federally-funded" areas that are being targetted for enforcement, but wouldn't that amount to the government selectively banning content from the public? In which case wouldn't it be easy-pickings for a lawsuit over first amendment rights?
"DOPA would prohibit sites that enable users to create their own content and share it."
Wouldn't this cover any web-hosting service?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Oh crap, my constituents are upset again about something. Let's knee-jerk a bill together that is ill-defined and problematic. God knows it won't ever pass, but it looks like we did something!
So Congress gets to bask in the glow of the "protect the children" big lie, AND deal a significant blow to that pesky "blogger" problem. This bill is like a politicians' wet dream.
how about insted of going after the law abiding we go after those who are breaking the law?
oh rihgt, cause those that follow the rules are much easier to controll, and if they cant vote, all the better
Wouldn't your contact list be your own private social network as well?
The vast majority of high schools and elementary schools in the US (i.e. those with funding to hire someone who knows how to use the internet) already do extensive blocking of this sort of material. The problem is that with proxy sites and other work-arounds this legislation will be no more effective than the policies which are already in place. The flip side is that those teachers who have found innovative ways to use blogging, wiki-ing, and other interactive web media in their teaching won't just be able to go to local officials to clear ideas.
Does anyone think that there exists sufficient language to regulate ANY activity on the internet? Governments use platforms like child porn and copyright infringement to attemnt to push legislation into the mostly lawless arena of the internet. If any sweeping legislation does get through, who's going to enforce it? Internet police? The logical conclusion is what government does with all other regulation: licence and tax. To optain an IP address, you would need a government supplied license, one which requires signing off on a legally binding agreement, paying a fee for the beurocracy, and a tax for the usage.
I don't see how else you can even think about drafting laws in a lawless arena. The first step for everything is that which China has already made: all ISPs are now 0wned by the government.
-dave
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
Unfortunately it is becoming all to common for politicians to pass legislation on subjects they know nothing about with disastrous consequences. Remember the DMCA, and the Communications Decency Act of 1995?
You'd think with the amount of computer literacy children are growing up with these days, they'd have an inkling of paranoia about meeting people from MySpace and other sources. I imagine AOL deals with stuff like this on a daily basis.
I guess Devo was right, society really is devolving and people are getting dumber overall rather than smarter. Just because a monkey can use a stick to fish ants out of an anthill we think the monkey is smart. But this is the same monkey you can trap by putting food in a glass jar. Therefore, children may appear smarter because they're typing LOL on their computers, but they're still morons at the end of the day.
I'm suprised that nobody has mentioned Wikipedia yet. This site is nothing BUT user created content, AND the best possible resource for students at ANY education level.
Please, mod most of the Insightful posts above as "overrated." The posters simply don't know what they are talking about, though I can't blame them because TFA never mentions this part of it.
If you read the bill, the requirement IS NOT that all schools and libraries block access to the websites, but only those that receive funding under the Universal Service Discount program. If a school or library does not receive that money, and IIRC the majority do not, then they are not required to block access to any sites, nor filter any content that is deemed "harmful to minors."
This isn't a case of rampant government censorship, but of Congress placing conditions on the money that it doles out. If you run an affected institution and don't like the consequences, then don't accept the money.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
week. I have a crazy idea. why dont they ban pedophiles from MySpace and leave everyone else the hell alone.
It would be *gasp* legal even.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
Child pornography is a kind of lame excuse to invoke censorship. Most interest in such stuff is generated by illegality of it: quite a lot of the people like using/having illegal stuff just for the thrill of doing something illegal.
But actually, child porn is very boring in comparison to the contemporary adult porn. If legalized, it will quickly disappear, or become fringe activity, but will be no more stupid excuse.
You have to think about children? No, you don't have. You have to think about your freedom of thought. Children are in no way more important than adult people, and taking our rights because it could be harmful to them seems both silly and evil.
Probably about as many as there were Democrats complaining about the same thing in the 2004 election when people were finding out all about Kerry.
And what I found... wasn't as bad as the news reports made it out to be. Granted, it's still silly and won't stop kids from accessing sites they want to see. But it wouldn't, as now written, ban library access to all of Web 2.0.
The bill would require federally-funded libraries to ban access to Web 2.0 sites through which students:
So if your Web 2.0 sites don't allow readers to "easily access" the bad stuff, you are clear.
*Of course* the devil be in dem der details. Which still makes this bill a lousy idea. But it wouldn't force librarians to shut down access to every discussion board and group blog on the Web.
Why is it called COMMON sense when so few people have it?
Finding out about Kerry? Finding out what, exactly? Lies about his past, or the fact that he's more wooden than Keanu Reaves (for which we certainly didn't need blogs.)
Why do you conservatives DO this? Anyone says anything bad about yer boy, ya gotta pipe up with, "Yeah, well so and so did it too!" Were you brought up by wolves, man? 'Cause my parents never put up with that shit.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
This same sort of abuse happens in all sorts of ways. Look at how federally-funded scientists don't get to work on certain problems in biotech, or how states containing federally-funded roads (i.e. all of them) have to have a certain drinking age -- whether the people who live and vote there want it or not.
If we make the feds stop taxing us, so we can afford to send the money to our state governments to fund our schools instead, then this kind of abuse will not be possible. So the next time some politician running for a federal office says, "I want to be the 'education president'" ask him if he's willing to prove it by cutting education funding.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.