Who should have control of the internet?

[LennonCook]

Originally posted by mad=dog: I will not answer this poll since my choice "There should be no control over the internet" is not available.

I agree, except I voted 'completely independant'. If anyone is to have control, no government would do it right - noone except for maybe the State of Massachusets seems to have any idea of what the "information age" is.
Ofcourse, it all hinges on what is meant by 'control': is it making and enforcing laws in the way of a nation state, or is it more the level that 'Ziroc controls Ironworks' (ie, a hand that can do whatever the hell it wants without repurcussion)? If it's the latter, I stand by 'independant if any, but none is preferable'. If it's the former, I think that the internet itself shouldn't be regulated, but that the people should - in other words, that stuff like putting kiddy porn online should be regulated by the laws that person would ordanarily be following (it should be the responsibility of whoever has near-exclusive use of that server space (eg, I have control of my account on the Uni systems, therefore I'm responsible for what's on it) - rather than hinging on who owns the server (eg, Charles Sturt University) or where the server lives (no getting away with making kiddy porn in Australia and uploading it to a server in the middle east).

[shadowhound]

I will put myself forward as a "completely independant" to control the internet
I promise more pornography and less banners, more free games and less pop-ups. I promise to make IW the only legal forum.
Ladies and Gentlemen, if you like nudity, games and Ironworks - Vote Shadowhound!

[ 09-30-2005, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: shadowhound ]

[Calaethis Dragonsbane]

I voted "completely independant" - honestly, I think that because each country has its own laws (and ages of consent), that unless a universal set that governs each of the countries - much like the UN's ideals/treaties/convensions/whatever, I suppose - the country controlling the internet should not be able to hold "aliens" or "non-citizens" to account according to their laws - but to the laws of their own country. Which makes things icky - because breaking one law from one country may not be breaking a law from your own. Just my two cents.

[Thoran]

The problem right now is that countries seem to want the UN to have authority... which would be an unmitigated disaster. Since its inception the US has had control... but anytime some politician suggested actually exercising that control they've been spanked hard, so the net effect of 'US control' has been an unregulated internet.

I wholeheartedly agree with the current US policy of dragging its feet regarding UN control. I have my fingers crossed and hope that the ultimate result will be to compromise and end up with an Independant governing body (not UN affiliated), which I think is what the US is holding out for. This will be a sore blow to the UN tax hounds who see dollar signs big time in having control of the net, but it's damn good for the rest of us.

[Thoran]

3 votes for Al Gore!

WOOT!

[robertthebard]

I voted to maintain the status quo. The way I read the article, changing what's in place now would change domain names, making some existing sites unaccessible. I own a domain, and I'd not like to go through all the hassles that would be inherent in getting it all put back together after a change. The website might be easy to rebuild, but I'd have to get my domain re registered, etc, and I'm not willing or able to spend all that money again.

[johnny]

Originally posted by Thoran: 3 votes for Al Gore! WOOT!

That's more than he got when he was running for president.

[Bungleau]

The same issues that plague "community standards" in the US are far worse across the entire world. It's bad enough that we have states like Kansas and Pennsylvania debating whether to remove evolution from textbooks, or cities with wildly different levels of individual tolerance (Grand Rapids, here, is arch-conservative; San Francisco is on the other extreme).

Imagine the issues if China, Germany, and the US get together to decide what's acceptible on the internet? China wants to restrict news access to only those things sanitized by the government, and heavily punish those who violate it. Germany wants to eliminate any discussion which appears to support or encourage a certain movement that was common there 60-70 years ago; the US... well, the US has people pulling in all directions, from ultra-liberal to ultra-conservative. Who should win? Who's going to pick up their ball and go home, to use an American expression?

Those are internet policies that appear off the top of my head. Imagine if a Taliban-like regime decides that all these pictures of women (and men, possibly) are inappropriate, and should be eliminated? Or that vocal minority here in Grand Rapids that thinks that Harry Potter is the sign of the devil and should be banned?

Sorry... I'm feeling political today, and I prefer at least the illusion that it's not being driven by a government agency. Perhaps I ought to check into CE for a while...

[LennonCook]

Originally posted by shadowhound: I will put myself forward as a "completely independant" to control the internet I promise more pornography and less banners, more free games and less pop-ups. I promise to make IW the only legal forum. Ladies and Gentlemen, if you like nudity, games and Ironworks - Vote Shadowhound!

All of that applies to the web.. so what about the rest of the internet? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[shadowhound]

Theres more on the internet then pornography, games and IW? [img]redface.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]