Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • December 09, 2016, 01:26:48 PM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Author Topic: The Internet's new content cops - meet 'The Deciders'  (Read 2666 times)

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
The Internet's new content cops - meet 'The Deciders'
« on: April 30, 2013, 07:18:07 AM »
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

There's a very interesting (and vaguely alarming) article by Jeffrey Rosen over at New Republic that reports on a recent meeting hosted at Stanford Law School where a very small number of people working for some of the largest Internet businesses got together to formulate policies that will have a far reaching effect on what "content" actually makes it onto the web.

Read it here.

Quote
A year ago this month, Stanford Law School hosted a little-noticed meeting that may help decide the future of free speech online. It took place in the faculty lounge, where participants were sustained in their deliberations by bagels and fruit platters. Among the roughly two-dozen attendees, the most important were a group of fresh-faced tech executives, some of them in t-shirts and unusual footwear, who are in charge of their companies’ content policies. Their positions give these young people more power over who gets heard around the globe than any politician or bureaucrat—more power, in fact, than any president or judge.

 :tellme:

app103

  • That scary taskbar girl
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2006
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,666
    • View Profile
    • App's Apps
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: The Internet's new content cops - meet 'The Deciders'
« Reply #1 on: April 30, 2013, 10:46:19 AM »
Because in the US, censorship only violates your Constitutional right to free speech, if the government is doing it.  ;)

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: The Internet's new content cops - meet 'The Deciders'
« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2013, 10:52:07 AM »
^Exactly right. Most people don't know that. Give the lady a star! :Thmbsup:

But it gets even worse. What about intimidation and expectations of private speech when it comes to your employers? Lookee here. Scary!
 :tellme:

app103

  • That scary taskbar girl
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2006
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,666
    • View Profile
    • App's Apps
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: The Internet's new content cops - meet 'The Deciders'
« Reply #3 on: April 30, 2013, 11:06:40 AM »
But it gets even worse. What about intimidation and expectations of private speech when it comes to your employers? Lookee here. Scary!

I still would approach that, if ever asked by an employer, to point out that my providing them with that would not only be me violating the TOS that applies to my account, but also prove that I am untrustworthy, a security risk to his company, and would be evidence of my inability to follow rules.  :D

And I would probably also add a bit of advice, that any current employee that actually complies with his request be promptly fired for it, and any prospective employee not be hired.

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: The Internet's new content cops - meet 'The Deciders'
« Reply #4 on: April 30, 2013, 01:14:54 PM »
Well, going on the "Violate TOS" lines, compromising your account has been stretched a few times to be a violation of that law (what's-its-name), something like "computer use act".

So that's neat, break the law or get fired! There's a nice choice!
 :tellme:

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: The Internet's new content cops - meet 'The Deciders'
« Reply #5 on: April 30, 2013, 02:52:06 PM »
^Nice one Tao! That opens up a whole new can of legal worms for these legislators!

Do you comply with the law that allows your employer to demand access. (I never joined a social site because I was expecting this btw.*) Or do you comply with laws governing contracts for the TOS  you agreed to when you opened your social site account.

Hmmm...bullshit new law of doubtful constitutionality and legality vs long established contract and tort laws plus numerous cases involving online TOS which now have legal precedent following judicial resolution...

Dunno. It could still go either way. ;D ;)

-----------

rebecca_eyes.jpg

*Of course it may be a challenge getting an employer to accept being told you don't tweet or have a FB or Google account. I did a sales presentation not too long ago, and a twenty-something contract administrator for the company we were pitching oh-so-casually asked for my FB or G+ account so her department could "communicate informally" with me. When I told her I had neither and preferred to use secure e-mail for all my business electronic communications, she wasn't happy - stopped just short of calling me a liar - and informed me that everybody under the age of 80 has a Facebook or Google+ account. Especially if they're people in "computer and IT related" fields. (Note: this is the second time I've run into this btw.)

I told her: "I've got news for you..."

We learned first thing next day that we wouldn't be getting the contract. She sent us a fax. :-\
« Last Edit: April 30, 2013, 03:18:53 PM by 40hz »

Stoic Joker

  • Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,296
    • View Profile
    • www.StoicJoker.com
    • Donate to Member
Re: The Internet's new content cops - meet 'The Deciders'
« Reply #6 on: April 30, 2013, 05:15:30 PM »
We learned first thing next day that we wouldn't be getting the contract. She sent us a fax.

ROFLMFAO   ...But you have to admit, she is half right. Everybody in IT related fields has a FB account ... Because it is only the people that truly are in IT that know better..  ;)

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: The Internet's new content cops - meet 'The Deciders'
« Reply #7 on: April 30, 2013, 06:12:10 PM »
ROFLMFAO   ...But you have to admit, she is half right. Everybody in IT related fields has a FB account ... Because it is only the people that truly are in IT that know better..  ;)

Ah Stoic! There are times when you cut through the chaff and put your finger directly on it. Bravo! ;D ;D ;D

(Wish I thought of that comeback when I was talking to her. Oh well. It's cataloged for next time!) :Thmbsup:


Tinman57

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,702
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: The Internet's new content cops - meet 'The Deciders'
« Reply #8 on: April 30, 2013, 08:02:02 PM »
  All this crap is the result of "political correctness", because all of the touchy-feely people don't want to get their feelings hurt.  Political correctness, in itself, is a violation of freedom of speech that's sugar coated.  Personally I think all of these people are a bunch of tards, and if it were up to them this very post would be deleted.
  The whole idea of the internet was an exchange of idea's and thoughts, and when you start censoring what gets through, you basically cripple the whole concept.  What one person may think of as incorrect, another may find useful and learn from it.

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: The Internet's new content cops - meet 'The Deciders'
« Reply #9 on: April 30, 2013, 09:03:07 PM »
The whole idea of the internet was an exchange of idea's and thoughts, and when you start censoring what gets through, you basically cripple the whole concept.

talktopaw.jpg

Amen.

Ken White over at Popehat had a nice piece on that which illustrates how even people who truly believe themselves to be advocates of free speech are somehow blind when it comes to their own demands for censorship. In this case journalist Nicholas Jackson's rant against sports commentator Chris Broussard's recent rant about homosexuality and gay marriage.

It seems Mr. Jackson wants to suppress Broussard's rambling bible invoking comments by branding them a form of "hate speech."  He then goes on to completely misinterpret US laws regarding freedom of speech, and present a totally erroneous argument that US courts have historically moved to restrict freedom of speech (and have supposedly done so) when, in fact, US courts have done the exact opposite.

And why does journalist and self proclaimed free speech supporter Nicholas Jackson want comments like Broussrd's retricted or outlawed? Look no further than Mr. Jackson's article written for the Pacific Standard, where he tells us:

Quote
...Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has tightened the definition of free speech over and over again. <NOTE from 40hz:This is not true according to attorney Ken White.>
 -
As a 15-year-old, that made me livid. Now, as a 25-year-old, I appreciate those restrictions, because, frankly, I don’t want to listen to your bullshit. In fact, I don’t think the existing restrictions go far enough.

Ah yes. Yet another 20-something that doesn't want to listen to any bullshit - other than his own - as Ken's Popehat article points out.


Here's an excerpt:

Quote
Chris Broussard is a dinosaur snarling at the oncoming asteroid. Even opposition to gay marriage is doomed in the long term, let alone dwindling opposition to gays and lesbians living openly. If they are angered by people like Jason Collins, Broussard and his ilk are destined for lives of increasingly marginalized bitterness and resentment.

But that's not enough for some who think Chris Broussard's views should be suppressed by force of law. For instance, over at Pacific Standard, Nicholas Jackson uses Chris Broussard as an opportunity to call for censorship and be thoroughly wrong about free speech and the First Amendment. It's typical for people to react to obnoxious speech by waving their arms and proclaiming vaguely there oughta be a law; that's banal. Jackson distinguishes himself by asserting authority and then promoting disinformation about the law, all in the service of an argument that the law should prohibit Broussard's speech.

Read the whole article here.
 8)

app103

  • That scary taskbar girl
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2006
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,666
    • View Profile
    • App's Apps
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: The Internet's new content cops - meet 'The Deciders'
« Reply #10 on: April 30, 2013, 10:42:41 PM »
But the law already allows private companies and individuals to restrict free speech in whatever they have ownership and control over...so if someone posts a comment on your blog that you don't like, you are within your rights to delete it, and it doesn't violate anybody's Constitutional rights. Radio & TV networks, newspapers, and magazines also don't have to air it or publish it if it doesn't conform to their content policies, either. No change in the laws are needed.

If you don't like what someone or some company is airing or publishing, don't read it, don't buy it, don't watch it, don't listen to it, don't support it.

Nobody forces me to watch FOX news or listen to Rush Limbaugh, so I don't. It's as simple as that. (ain't freedom great?) No need to make laws to change the content of shows I have no intention of supporting. There are plenty of others for me to choose from...they are not the only programs on TV or radio. If enough people feel the same as I do about those programs and do as I do (not support them by reading, watching, listening), it stops being profitable to air those views, and if those people want to keep expressing them, they will have to do so at their own expense. Still, no need to change the laws to censor them.

And if the laws are changed to restrict free speech, and you think it's ok, as long as views you don't agree with are the ones being censored, there will come a day when you are the one with the unpopular views that end up censored, and then you'll understand what's so wrong about it. Or if you don't want to wait that long to understand, go take a vacation to China and visit all your favorite websites or better yet, go express your political views in the middle of Tiananmen Square.

tia_2232234b.jpg

It's really not a good thing when your government can kill you for having an opinion, neither is it a good thing when they can stop you from expressing it.

Tinman57

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,702
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: The Internet's new content cops - meet 'The Deciders'
« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2013, 06:24:46 PM »
But the law already allows private companies and individuals to restrict free speech in whatever they have ownership and control over...so if someone posts a comment on your blog that you don't like, you are within your rights to delete it, and it doesn't violate anybody's Constitutional rights. Radio & TV networks, newspapers, and magazines also don't have to air it or publish it if it doesn't conform to their content policies, either. No change in the laws are needed.

If you don't like what someone or some company is airing or publishing, don't read it, don't buy it, don't watch it, don't listen to it, don't support it.

Nobody forces me to watch FOX news or listen to Rush Limbaugh, so I don't. It's as simple as that. (ain't freedom great?) No need to make laws to change the content of shows I have no intention of supporting. There are plenty of others for me to choose from...they are not the only programs on TV or radio. If enough people feel the same as I do about those programs and do as I do (not support them by reading, watching, listening), it stops being profitable to air those views, and if those people want to keep expressing them, they will have to do so at their own expense. Still, no need to change the laws to censor them.

And if the laws are changed to restrict free speech, and you think it's ok, as long as views you don't agree with are the ones being censored, there will come a day when you are the one with the unpopular views that end up censored, and then you'll understand what's so wrong about it. Or if you don't want to wait that long to understand, go take a vacation to China and visit all your favorite websites or better yet, go express your political views in the middle of Tiananmen Square.

It's really not a good thing when your government can kill you for having an opinion, neither is it a good thing when they can stop you from expressing it.


YES!  EXACTLY EVERYTHING YOU SAID!!!   :up:

Tinman57

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,702
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: The Internet's new content cops - meet 'The Deciders'
« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2013, 06:43:57 PM »
Read the whole article here.

  He sure got his butt ripped over this article in the comments section.  lol