Originally, Usenet was a very useful place for shared communication because the only people using it were, by and large, committed to the maintenance of the system and were careful (mostly) to observe rules of good practice. As the size of the Internet grew however, Usenet has become increasingly 'uselessnet' with its news groups deluged by spam and inconsequential 'noise'.
What we can learn from this history is that public spaces often operate best when there is some form of regulation: who can speak, what sorts of things can be said etc. For example, binary files (mostly pictures) are very much larger than text files. Hence, some newsgroups ban binaries so as to ensure that people downloading the newsgroup's contents are not paying for very large data transmissions. These bans are only partly successful, but indicate that - in pursuit of a useable communication system in public, regulation is sometimes appropriate. Of course, the question then becomes: who decides and how. (Something for you to think about).
Advanced Internet users are alert to regulatory processes in public discussion and ensure that they do not break them without good cause
One could make similar comments about the vast number of websites: who is regulating all that content to see if it is acceptable, accurate, up-to-date etc. No one is, frankly. Aside from some regulation of ‘obscene’ or ‘illegal’ content in some countries, the Internet is a very unregulated publishing space. (Concepts Document n.d.)
Response
John Perry Barlow, an American poet and co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote the paper The Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, believing that no government has sovereignty or moral right to rule cyberspace. (Barlow, 1996) The notion that “Big Brother is watching you” (Orwell, 1977, p7) is intimidating but the Internet without regulation is fraught with dangers. The Internet is littered with online hate groups, fraudulent scams, Flames, Trolls, Spammers, Spoofs and Cybersmears. Most techno-geeks understand the traps, but the average user ‘Joe Citizen’ needs protection. (Allen & Long, 2004, p.233) Research has shown Australians want the Internet policed (Given, 2004, p.220) to protect children against inappropriate material, but this would appear impossible while nations like America oppose any restriction to their freedom of speech as claimed in the Bill of Rights, first amendments. (Gillispie & Gackenbach, 2007, p73) The right to free speech has created a septic tank of deception—regulation is aimed at encouraging confidence and certainty for consumers and users. It’s a simple matter to hide behind a computer screen and be abusive and defamatory with little risk and inconvenience to yourself. (Dare, 2005) A major stumbling block to upholding legislation in this truly globalised environment is enforcing laws outside governments' jurisdiction. (Given, 2004, p.218) However, without regulation the Internet makes it all too easy to evade the law. (Goggin, 2004, p.209). The answer may be self-regulation by the users, but the danger to this system would be to quell differences of opinion which results in sites with like minds, no fresh ideas and stifled communications if the mediators becomes vigilantes. (Dare, 2005) A stable and safe Internet environment needs to be balance innovation and free thought against regulation. (Rennie & Young, 2004, p253) ‘Free thought’ and sharing ideas and information is the foundation of the Internet. (Lessig, n.d.)
More work needs to be done in protecting children from inappropriate content. Games like Postal 2 advocate virtual reality scenarios where characters can make sexist and racist comments, urinate or pour petrol on women and children and then set fire to them. (Gillispie & Gackenbach, 2007, p47) Research has shown that young children cannot differentiate between advertising and programming content on television, similar results have suggested the link for virtual reality games. (Gillispie & Gackenbach, 2007, p122–123)
Once the Internet came into the average family room it needed to fit into our social systems of values and acceptable behaviours. So under the banner of morality the Australian Government has tried to regulate content in a vain effort to clean up the anarchist space. (Rennie & Young, 2004, p251) Laws have been created to try and control content from gambling and offensive material, give consumers protection, encourage open and free information exchange by strengthening copyright laws and protection against defamation, but general privacy laws have skirted around directly protecting individual’s rights. (Given, 2004, p.222–225) So was there any surprise when the CEO of Sun Microsystems Scott McNealy said, "You have zero privacy anyway". (Sprenger, 1999) Privacy becomes a bigger problem when the user doesn’t understand it’s intrinsic value. Research has shown that children are particularly vulnerable in supplying to much detail online; half of all blogs are by children of whom 70% give their name, age and contact information usually without parent’s knowledge. (Gillispie & Gackenbach, 2007, p54–55)
I think regulation unites our social beliefs and creates a safe environment online and off. Regulating will place some restriction on using the Internet but will ultimately bring “liberty in cyberspace” to people who use the web constructively. (Lessig, 2006) The question is how much before regulation inhibits the creative process. (540 words)
Annotation
Site 1:
Dare, J. (2005). Cyberharassment and Online Defamation: a Default Form of Regulations? Retrieved May 13 2009, from http://www.transformationsjournal.org/journal/issue_11/article_04.shtmlIn this journal Dare explores the justification given by advocate groups to the right for freedom of expression on the Internet and how this has developed through the history of the web into an aggressive, confrontational style of communication in which "libertarianism favours the most aggressive individuals". Dare suggest that this form of abusive malice is in itself a form of regulation that impacts on the very nature of democratic online society where only the strongest survive. Dare cites a number of well know authors, respected websites and case studies that give an unbiased view of the fight for freedom and its social cost.
Site 2:
http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html
John Barlow argues in verse that cyberspace has no boundaries or physical constraints, and is growing by an organic process of natural selection through the contributors’ collective actions. He advocates for a cyberspace free from regulation and government control and portrays “lovers of freedom and self-determination” as enslaved freedom fighters, fighting the virus of government authoritarian rule. Barlow claims freedom will lead to a Utopian cyberspace where everyone is welcome without fear of persecution and self-expression is of the utmost importance. He has based his ideas on ideology and uses emotive language to impose fear if the fight for freedom is lost.
Reference:
Allen, M., & Long, J. (2004). Domesticating the Internet. Content regulation, virtual nation-building and the family. Virtual Nation: The Internet in Australia. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
Barlow, J. (1996). A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. Retrieved May 11, 2009, from http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html
Concept Document: 22. Public space and regulation. (n.d.) Retrieved May 13, 2009, from http://lms.curtin.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=%2Fbin%2Fcommon%2Fcourse.pl%3Fcourse_id%3D_14736_1%26sc%3D%252fwebapps%252fdiscussionboard%252fdo%252fmessage%253faction%253dlist_messages%2526conf_id%253d_23724_1%2526forum_id%253d_47938_1%2526message_id%253d_558527_1%2526thread_id%253d552622%2526nav%253ddiscussion_board%2526course_id%253d_14736_1
Dare, J. (2005). Cyberharassment and Online Defamation: a Default Form of Regulations? Retreived May 13, 2009, from http://www.transformationsjournal.org/journal/issue_11/article_04.shtml
Given, J. (2004). Evolutionary Constitutionalism: Australian Law and the Internet. Virtual Nation: The Internet in Australia. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
Gillispie, J., & Gackenbach, J. (2007). cyber.rules. New York: .W. Norton & Company.
Lessig, L. (n.d.). Code. Retreived May 13, 2009, from http://codev2.cc/
Lessig, L. (2006). The Future of Ideas. Retrieved May 13, 2009, from http://www.the-future-of-ideas.com/
Orwell, G. (1977). Nineteen Eighty Four. New York: Signet Classic
Rennie, E., & Young, S. (2004). Park Life: The commons and communications policy. Virtual Nation: The Internet in Australia. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
Sprenger, P. (1999). Sun on Privacy: Get Over It. Retrieved May 13 2009, from http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/01/17538
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment