The Internet's new content cops - meet 'The Deciders'

[40hz]

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.

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.

[app103]

Because in the US, censorship only violates your Constitutional right to free speech, if the government is doing it. 

[40hz]

^Exactly right. Most people don't know that. Give the lady a star!

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

[app103]

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.  

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]

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!

[40hz]

^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.

-----------

[attach]

[Stoic Joker]

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]

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!

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

[Tinman57]

  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]

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.

[attach]

[app103]

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.

[Tinman57]

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!!!   

[Tinman57]

Read the whole article here.

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