#internetregulation

[whatshappeningintheworlds-blog]

If the Chinese company behind TikTok doesn't sell its share after the House of Representatives voted in favor of the bill, the social media app may be outlawed in the United States.

[boomerbroadcaster]

Is It Still Good For You?

I’m hooked and I admit it. Are you still enjoying the internet? Does it still excite you the way it once did or has it become a chore, an onerous and exhausting exercise you devote countless hours to simply because it’s there demanding attention? Do you mourn those wasted hours on Instagram and Facebook absorbing useless information and following vague threads to a questionable end? I signed on…

[ruwolf]

De FCC heeft zojuist gestemd over complete controle internet

[barbie-on-the-fire-alarm-blog]

Entry 4: Internet Regulation

I believe that the Canadian government should attempt to regulate the internet, and treat offensive and harmful messages online the same way they treat them in real life. The internet is massive, occupied by billions of people unaffected by distance and borders. When used responsibly it can do wonderful things, allowing communication between people in different cultures with different life experiences, and spreading important information rapidly and to large audiences. When used incorrectly, however, these advantages can be used to harm others, resulting in the mass spread of false and offensive information, the formation of dangerous alt right internet communities, and inappropriate content posted anonymously.

Numerous tragedies, such as mass school shootings and Toronto’s van attack, were made possible by the internet. Violent groups such as the incel community are well known for radicalizing young men, and encouraging them to commit atrocities. In many instances, those planning to engage in acts of violence will post about it beforehand. This means that monitoring dangerous groups directly saves lives, and if handled expertly may even be able to prevent the radicalization of these individuals in the first place. Every system set in place to protect citizens — police, security cameras — comes at the cost of allowing yourself to be a little more monitored, losing a little bit of your freedom. These systems are still in place because the pros outweigh the cons, and in my opinion the possibility to save numerous lives is well worth a bit of internet surveillance.

The thing is, the restrictions applied on the internet in Canada would be the same as those in our regular freedom of expression laws, restricting only extremes such as child pornography, hate speech, and defamation. Quite reasonable, and no different from what Canadians are used to in real life. Some of the anonymity the internet allows might be lost, but considering people often use it as a weapon to attack others is that really so much of a problem? Turning the internet into a safer space is undoubtedly worth it.

The real difficulty of monitoring the internet is the question of how. How can an individual government with its own laws possibly monitor its citizens on a massive community that ignores country borders and operates with a high degree of anonymity? The answer is that we can’t, it’s quite impossible. Ideally an unbiased party separate from the government would do this monitoring, to prevent the government from exploiting the power according to their needs and biases. They would not stand a chance of regulating everything potentially dangerous or illegal, but that doesn’t mean we as a country shouldn’t try, as even a small difference results in meaningful improvements.

[renovatio06]

The UK is attempting a radical redesign of the internet (via The Verge) The Online Harms white paper from the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport trades away a lot of speech in the name of security.

[trueemely]

Introduction

The internet in the recent decades has become a large part of essentially all of the world since its creation. Although it is a vast and open resource that was created with the intent of reaching everyone, it has been in question many times if big box companies can regulate the internet. The internet has all the same ideas of speech, which in America there is freedom of speech. This idea should be continued into internet regulations, as there  s no concrete reason to work consumers out of their hard earned money.

 “It is historically important that the Internet enhances freedom for all rather than profit for a few,” (Ed black, pres. Of computer and communications industry Assoc.) The numerous attempts by President Barack Obama Show that big companies like Verizon actively tried to regulate the internet in the providers favor. Being a big company that has enough resources  to shift the internet in a way that financially benefits them should be unconstitutional. If every person in America’s opinions are equal in the eyes of the constitution, that should be the same for the internet as well. (Leidtke, 2020)

Internet regulations are unconstitutional to citizens and create a hypocritical divide between the people and the government. 

[aabeve]

De Britse regering heeft een 102 pagina’s tellende beleidsnota vrijgegeven, waarin ze uiteenzet hoe internetregulering zou moeten werken. Enigszins onhandig wordt dit omschreven als “online schade verminderen”. Het is enorm veelomvattend en ambitieus en omvat elk bedrijf dat mensen toestaat “door gebruikers gegenereerde inhoud te delen of te ontdekken of online met elkaar te interacteren”. Het zou niet alleen grote sociale netwerken omvatten, maar ook community-forums, beoordelingssites, dating-apps en nog veel meer. Lees meer op https://www.aabeve.nl/actueel/

[karaequestrianblog]

Internet Regulation

The internet is a scary place, and it can influence many young minds. However, it can also be a great place to interact, share, and communicate with others… but the amount of explicit, violent, and other inappropriate content that is easily accessible is unsettling. I think the Canadian government should introduce new federal laws to help with internet regulation. Even with the addition of new federal laws, the internet will probably never be entirely regulated, but I believe that having these laws will greatly improve it. Yes, there will probably still be under-the-radar websites that will not be tracked by regulation, but these will hopefully be harder to access by the average person than they currently are.

Technology can have a positive relationship with freedom of speech and ethical conduct, given that the internet can be used for people to express themselves and their thoughts, and to find others who think the same way -- although, this can also be a negative relationship in that the internet is often abused with hate speech, and its open platform can be used for the wrong reasons.

It’s becoming more common for children at young ages to have access to devices and to the internet, which is why it’s very important to have new regulation laws introduced. Even though many parents attempt to regulate their child’s use of devices on their own terms, their efforts still may not stop the child from seeing inappropriate content, and permanently affecting their developing mind.

I think it is feasible to try to regulate the internet -- if large search-engine companies such as Google, Bing, and Yahoo work together to regulate what can be found when someone searches on their platform, this could help to reduce the accessibility of inappropriate websites. Browsers such as Safari, Firefox, and Google Chrome could also work together on a similar level. If more effort was put towards regulation, I think the internet could become a much safer environment.

[thevirtualvicar]

Should the Internet be Better Regulated?

[briefworldnews-blog]

How should the government regulate social media? . Facebook CEO disclosed that his own personal information has been compromised by malicious outsiders. But after two days of congressional testimony, what seemed clear was how little Congress seems to know about Facebook, much less what to do about it. Both Republicans and Democrats suggested that regulation might be needed, but there were few specifics about what that might look like — or even what the biggest problems are. . What do you think? Comment below👇🏻 . ❣️Like for more news❣️ 🔻#briefnews 🔻 . . Follow @briefworldnews . Follow @briefworldnews . Follow @briefworldnews . Follow @briefworldnews . . Check our 🆕 Stories 👤 @briefworldnews👈🏻 --------- . Hit that ❤️ and like the work we do #briefnews🔻 . Sharing the love, thanks to: @cure4liberals @0mpek @zachorama 🔺Star followers for today🔺 🔴Visit our website, link on our page @briefworldnews 🔴 . . #realnews #realnewsgang #trendingnews #breakingnews #newsheadlines #facebooksecurity #onlineprivacy #onlinesecurity #cybersecurity #cyberregulation #internetregulation #socialmediaregulation #socialmediasecurity #facebookhelp #facebookanalytics #cnnfakenews #todaysnews #abc7news #cnnnews #cbcnews #60secclub #foxnews #1dnews . . Photo: AFP 🌐BriefWorldNews.com @briefworldnews v (at Washington, District of Columbia)

[whatshappeningintheworlds-blog]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by What's Happening In The World (@what.s_happening_in_the_world)

[ruurdsnotes]

Vrijdag 17 april – Op 360Magazine staat een bericht van de Financial Times: China’s nieuwe IP (internet protocol). Het lijkt er op dat we de volgende fase in gaan met het internet. Verschillende mondiale scenario’s dienen zich aan. Ik doe een poging:

China wint: er komt één nieuw ‘totalitair internet’.

China en Silicon Valley vormen twee aparte/parallelle internetten: ‘totalitair’ en ‘capitalism on steroids’.

Naast bovenstaande ontstaat er een ‘derde internet’ volgens een Europees model: open en democratisch.

Het preferente scenario: het ‘Europese internet’ wint.

Hierna volgt een samenvatting van het artikel, met dank aan Tijs Wilbrink (actief lid van de Club van Wageningen, en veel meer).

Voorstel voor een nieuwe internet-infrastructuur die de macht weghaalt bij het individu en teruggeeft aan de staat.

Gepresenteerd op een bijeenkomst van de International Telecommunication Union ( ITU), een VN-organisatie die wereldwijde standaarden voor technologie vastlegt.

Top-downontwerp.

Overal ter wereld lijken overheden het erover eens dat de huidige vorm van internetregulering – in feite niet meer dan wetteloze zelfregulering door merendeels Amerikaanse bedrijven – niet functioneert.

‘De conflicten rond internetregulering zijn de nieuwe plaatsen waar politieke en economische macht zich in de eenentwintigste eeuw ontplooit,’ schreef Laura Denardis in 2014 in haar boek The Global War for Internet Governance.

Hoewel internet een invloedrijk medium is, kent het eigenlijk geen toezicht.

Maar het heeft ook geleid tot een uitvergroting van de breuklijnen in onze maatschappij, door manipulatie van het maatschappelijk debat, ondermijning van de democratie en de opkomst van massaspionage.

Volgens diverse aanwezigen op de ITU -bijeenkomsten viel het Chinese voorstel in goede aarde bij Saoedi-Arabië, Iran en Rusland.

Om de ITU zover te krijgen dat het voorstel binnen een jaar wordt goedgekeurd, zodat het een officiële standaard wordt, moet er consensus zijn binnen de studiegroep, ofwel instemming van een meerderheid van de afgevaardigden. Als dat niet lukt, vindt er een besloten stemming plaats onder de lidstaten, en staan het bedrijfsleven en maatschappelijke organisaties dus buitenspel.

Niels ten Oever, een voormalig lid van de Nederlandse ITU -delegatie: ‘We zijn bang voor Chinese onderdrukking. We maken een welhaast racistische, imperialistische karikatuur van de Chinezen. Maar de regulering van internet zoals die nu is, werkt niet. Er is best ruimte voor een alternatief.’

‘We hebben nu twee soorten internet: een door de markt gedomineerde kapitalistische versie waarin alles draait om het volgen van gebruikers voor commercieel gewin; en een autoritaire versie waarin alles net zo goed draait om het volgen van gebruikers,’ zegt Zuboff. ‘De vraag is: slaan Europa en Noord-Amerika de handen ineen om de juridische en technologische kaders te ontwerpen voor een democratisch alternatief?’

Op dit moment is er maar één alomvattend en volledig uitgewerkt alternatief, en dat is het model van China,’ schreef Griffiths in The Great Firewall of China. ‘Als wij geen derde model bedenken – een model dat enerzijds gebruikers meer macht geeft en democratie en online-transparantie bevordert, en anderzijds de macht van grote bedrijven en veiligheidsdiensten beteugelt – bestaat het risico dat steeds meer landen zullen neigen naar het Chinese model, liever dan te blijven lijden onder het gebrekkige model van Silicon Valley.’

[medialawreview]

Is it really a good idea to release a new app without the necessary privacy settings that are required of a messaging app such as this? It’s literally asking for trouble. It’s Facebook’s apparent apathy to these matters that are turning people to apps such as MeWe: an app that boasts about its commitment to privacy.

8 April 2020

[hacknews]

Internet Regulation Norms Arriving In India By January 2020 #governmentofindia #india #internetinindia #internetregulation #internetregulationinindia #socialmedia #supremecourt #hacking #hacker #cybersecurity #hack #ethicalhacking #hacknews

[paulcarterfanpage]

ENTRY 4: Internet Regulation

Although internet regulations by the Canadian government seem like a great new idea to protect its citizens on paper, the concept is unlikely to be effective. Regulations on media are not a new thing and have been around since even before the first printing of the Gutenberg Bible. The Canadian government will never be able to fully regulate internet content on its own without international co operation, and even in doing so has to ensure that its not overly broad to avoid it being weaponized by repressive governments, and in any case the cost may be prohibitive.

Canada can not regulate the internet on its own. The vast majority of content that Canadians enjoy is international, with most entertainment coming from the US or Europe. Because of how multicultural Canadian citizens are, the country’s people are continuously accessing content from every corner of the world. The Canadian government has no authority to control what foreign companies and/or citizens are posting over the internet. With most illegal websites, containing child pornography, illegal products such as military grade weapons and hard drugs and many other banned items, originating in other countries, Canada is unable to control the content that its citizens are viewing and enforce any regulations it may create. The only way Canada would be able to effectively restrict content would be to enter into international treaties.

If any treaties that are agreed to are overly broad, it provides a way for repressive governments to weaponize content restrictions. In many tyrannical countries, such as North Korea, China and Russia, governments already have strict controls over speech for the purpose of political and social oppression. Having the ability to be anonymous on the internet in authoritarian countries provides users with the important way of fighting for human rights and political freedom. If countries had the ability to surveil what everyone of its citizens was doing, that would be a catastrophic blow against free speech.

If the Canadian government does decide to regulate the internet, it will be cost prohibitive. The Canadian Government can not expect a censor to be looking over the shoulder of anyone putting content on the internet at all times. Even so, who would be supplying the funds towards such a costly initiative? Private companies will always pass the cost back onto the consumer, and taxpayers will not be happy to pay the government to monitor what they post and explore on the internet, especially when it comes to R rated content. Algorithms have some ability to control content, but have only been partially effective in stopping wide spreads of harmful subject matter.

The idea of restricting dangerous content on the internet seems attractive at first, but in reality Canada is unable to do anything on its own without international co operation. Canada also needs to make sure that any international treaties dealing with internet control don’t give any governments involved a greater ability to oppress their citizens. The cost of monitoring all content being posted is almost certainly more than what consumers and private companies are willing to pay for. Most likely Canadian citizens will not be willing to give up their privacy to the Canadian government when the negative aspects are literally and figuratively too high of a cost.

[bougieblackbrother]

REPO new #podcast on #netneutrality #cable #ISP #utilities #FCC #rethinkpolitics #bougieblackbrother #att #verizon #google #comcast #directv #wifi #broadband @theericcarr @cjstaychillin #localgovernment #internetregulations #freemarket (at Gwinnett County, Georgia)