Our nation has had a history of attempting to muffle the masses and to cleanse our society in ways the Puritains would embrace.
I note that Dennis Kucinich was named as a 'no' vote. It would be interesting to find out why he voted no.
posted by politics_in_mudville at 05:06 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 29, 2006 #
Last winter, I asked my stepdaughter how she communicates with friends. Results with order not indicating importance:
- talking on the cell phone
- text messaging on the cell phone
- Internet instant messaging
- blogs and/or message boards (mainly MySpace)
- PhotoBucket.com for photo sharing
I asked, "What about e-mail?" She said her and friends rarely use e-mail. That was news to me.
Sad that face to face wasnt included. Where I work, folks communicate so much via email that they'll send one to someone sitting so close they can see them at their desk, yet they still just type a msg and hit 'enter'. MANY times misunderstandings have happened that are only solved by a face to face sit down, which if they'd have gotten up and walked over their in the first place, or at least picked up the phone, it wouldnt have happened to begin with.
Calling someone on the phone takes away the visual aspect of communication, email or some sort of text takes away the influctions and emphasis that you hear audibly... Eventually, it's like that kids game where one child whispers a msg to another, and by the end, the point of the original msg is completely gone.
posted by billy at 06:07 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 29, 2006 #
apparently, congress doesn't have anything better to do. it's amazing how they seem to blame the websites and not the actual sexual predator.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 06:20 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 29, 2006 #
Billy - personal communication skills have totally declined in the last decade or so. If you notice, when a teen/young adult is introduced to someone there are no social skills (i.e. - handshakes, nods, etc), there are no verbal skills (nice to meet you, hello, etc), and certainly a decrease in some basic etiquette (thank you, please, your welcome). It's sad - but we have done it to ourselves. And now, for some unknown reason the government feels as though it is the only savior on earth - again.
Note to government: PLEASE, please, please, let me learn to be cautious, aware, discriminating, and involved ON MY OWN. PLEASE trust that I am smart enough to see when danger is approaching. Thank you.
Wholesaler? I agree - 100%. Rather than enforce the laws in place to deal with predators/offenders/stalkers it is much easier to enact yet another piece of legislation that will be used by sharp attorneys when it comes to taking their predator clients out of the hot seat.
posted by DoknowDocare at 07:06 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 29, 2006 #
personal communication skills have totally declined in the last decade or so. If you notice, when a teen/young adult is introduced to someone there are no social skills (i.e. - handshakes, nods, etc), there are no verbal skills (nice to meet you, hello, etc), and certainly a decrease in some basic etiquette (thank you, please, your welcome). It's sad - but we have done it to ourselves. And now, for some unknown reason the government feels as though it is the only savior on earth - again.
Amen to that - to every syllable of it.
posted by billy at 07:26 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 29, 2006 #
Do me a favor and talk to some sysadmins/netadmins and the people who run computer labs.
Go ask them how much traffic heads off towards MySpace or how many people have some form of IM up or what people are actually looking at.
I do not agree with the government being involved, but man, if you'd ask the admins what's actually going on, you'd learn that entirely too many people are screwing off on MySpace or with some IM program or stupid Flash games rather than using the computers for something slightly more legitimate (news, research, completing assignments).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12459826/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/earlyshow/living/parenting/main1323212.shtml
http://www.team4news.com/Global/story.asp?S=4570615
http://news.com.com/2009-1025_3-6087188.html
Of course, since these kids are <18, we have to protect them from their own stupidity, because they're too f***ing stupid to know that today's ZERO-TOLERANCE policies mean you're expelled and sent to jail for saying something like "some days I could just kill someone" where a school administrator might hear about it, or to realize that posting detailed personal information isn't a good idea because there are sickos out there who will take advantage of that.
posted by anonymouscoward at 08:11 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 29, 2006 #
I've got to admit I really do not see why myspace needs to be accessed by students while they are at school.
I also don't understand why during school students need to have access to chat/im/text messaging except in supervised lessons, like sharing information between students in other states/countries.
I totally agree that parents should be paying attention to what their children are doing when they are on the computer. That's one reason our computer is in the living room.
The problem is, what do you do about libraries? Children can get online there without a parent being there to supervise.
Something needs to be done beyond waiting until after a child has been hurt to take action.
I do think there needs to be some blocking of these sites/programs but I also think there needs to be steps taken to allow access to legitiment programs/sites so that we don't end like with students unable to research breast cancer, for example, because breasts are blocked.
posted by OhioKat at 08:25 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 29, 2006 #
AC - I understand your references to sysadmins seeing more than they want to see. BUT - my concern is more with one more instance of government taking liberty with my internet use.
I agree that kids (minors) are subject to ill intentioned people on these sites. That's a given. I also understand that kids are subject to ill intentioned people at parks, malls, movie theaters, fast food restaurants, etc. How far are we going to go? Are we going to rely on the government to intervene and save us from all things evil? It's disconcerting, at best.
Parents are responsible for teaching their children about things that have the potential to harm them. And I fully understand that childhood stage where kids think they are 10 feet tall and bulletproof. That is an age-old dilemma and will never change - not with parental intervention, and certainly not with governmental intervention.
With the advent of wi-fi hotspots all over the place, any person (child or adult) can park in a Burger King, McDonalds, coffee shop, mall, etc and log on. More and more kids are carrying around laptops and Blackberries and that enables them to connect to any available signal. We cannot provide 100% protection 100% of the time. It's a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless.
MSN made their chat service a subscription service to avoid some of these pitfalls. Yahoo also revamped their chat programs and now doesn't allow the creation of rooms by the users.
Perhaps a more balanced answer to the dilemma would be to encourage parental participation in free seminars that teach the installation, use and monitoring of programs like NetNanny and then let them parent! If the resources are made available to the parents and they don't bother to access them, then their children are possibly at risk already.
This is a subject that has no single right or wrong solution. It's not new to society that there is a whole sub-culture of deviants, psychotics, sexual predators, molesters, etc. Perhaps a more viable expenditure of government time would be to re-evaluate the sentencing guidelines for these types of folks and make them stricter and more easily enforceable.
posted by DoknowDocare at 08:42 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 29, 2006 #
"Sad that face to face wasnt included."
I should have said in my comment that I asked my stepdaughter what technology she and her buds use to communicate with. The teens still have plenty of face to face communication. The fact is, the kids today are far more "connected" communication-wise with each other than in the past. I don't know how they can stand that much communication with each other.
And here's something else. It's much easier to maintain friendships with a greater number of people digitally, especially over long distances, than via face to face meetings.
"Where I work, folks communicate so much via email that they'll send one to someone sitting so close they can see them at their desk, yet they still just type a msg and hit 'enter'. MANY times misunderstandings have happened that are only solved by a face to face sit down, which if they'd have gotten up and walked over their in the first place, or at least picked up the phone, it wouldnt have happened to begin with."
That's a workflow problem, not an e-mail problem. Don't blame e-mail. The problem is users or companies are not willing to try other software, or the other software option is too complex, which makes e-mail the fallback option.
Until the workplace users can be convinced that something better is available, they will stick with what they know, with what works good enough, and what's simple to use. E-mail was a good choice 10 to 20 years ago, but better options have been around for a few years now, and the kids are all over it.
It's common today for workplaces to use e-mail as their collaboration or project management tool, which is a hideous software option to use. The reason why so many use e-mail in the workplace is because it's so damn easy. The network protocol that defines e-mail is called Simple Mail Transport Protocol.
How many steps does it take to send an e-mail? Compose -> To: -> Subject: (optional but preferred) -> Message -> Send. That's it. Attachments, folders, filters, etc. are extra features. And sending an e-mail is done on one screen or one form and not flipping through multiple screens with tons of fields to fill out.
I worked with a couple pieces of software that didn't get adopted well because of their complexity. One was a portal software and the other was a content management system. One took about a dozen steps to post a document, and the other took over 20 steps. Naturally, both were extremely expensive and way to confining for my open thinking. A simple, free open source wiki that could be customized would have been a far, far better option. Throw in some blogging tools, and a nice search engine, and the app would have had a much better chance of succeeding.
If it took 10 to 20 different screens to send an e-mail, it wouldn't be used as much.
Other software tools would do a better job at knowledge management, project management, and collaboration, but if these other tools are not as simple to use as e-mail, then the other tools will get rejected by the users. With e-mail, a user begins with a blank page that has few if any restrictions. Same with wiki or blog software.
Blogging is the easiest way to publish a document, and wikis may be the easiest way to organize information. How many steps does it take to create a blog post? Compose -> Title -> Message -> Submit. As easy as e-mail. Categories, tags, RSS feeds, trackbacks, etc. are extra features.
Creating a new wiki page basically consists of: Edit an existing article -> add a wiki link that points to an article that doesn't exist -> save the edited article -> click on the new wiki link -> enter text into the blank page -> save the new article. The software automatically updates the first edited article to point to the new article.
Adding a link for this new article to some other article consists of: edit -> add wiki link that points to the newly created article -> save.
WYSIWYG ability added to wiki/blog software is making these apps more accepted in the workplace by those who do not want to learn HTML or some other markup language. I've never understood the reluctance by most adults in the workplace to learn basic HTML markup. Yet, my stepdaughter and her buds are typing HTML commands to customize their MySpace pages, and many bloggers have learned to work with HTML and CSS.
But many adults in the workplace prefer to use MS Word to type up a simple document, and then send it as an e-mail attachment to a bunch of people. That is so yesterday. They could have easily formatted that same document in basic HTML text on a blog or a wiki, and then send the link or do nothing and wait for everyone's RSS readers to update to show the new document. Instead of copies of the document going all over the place via Word and e-mail, only one would exist in a database. And the editing and collaboration can be done on that one document with every change saved in case an older version needs re-instated. Or the discussion could take place in the comment or talk section for that document. And tags or categories and a search engine would make retrieving the document eaiser. One taxonomy for all the documents would exist, instead of everyone storing e-mails in their own folder structure.
And when a new person joins the team, you point them to the wiki/blog app, instead of sending them old e-mail threads or handing them printouts. And when a person leaves, that person's contributions are still in the database-backed blog/wiki app and not lost in that person's e-mail inbox when their PC or laptop is reformatted. You shouldn't have to search through old printouts in a file cabinet or through someone else's e-mail collection to find information about a project from a year ago.
Companies that have started using wiki-based software or something similar have had a dramatic decrease in the number of e-mails sent. It's not a replacement for e-mail, but a better solution to managing information.
Too much e-mail and too many face-to-face meetins are a drain in the workplace. When today's kids enter the workplace over the next five to ten years, I can't see them collaborating with Word doc attachments in e-mail. If that's what the company uses, the kids will work somewhere else, probably at a company that has adopted the social software tools the kids are used to, and these tools will have enabled the company to beat the company that is stuck using e-mail and face-to-face meetings. I believe, workers can become more productive by making use of some of the tools the kids are using for their own communication and collaboration.
"Do me a favor and talk to some sysadmins/netadmins and the people who run computer labs."
What kinds of computer labs are you talking about? This issue is about public grade schools and high schools and public libraries.
"I do not agree with the government being involved, but man, if you'd ask the admins what's actually going on, you'd learn that entirely too many people are screwing off on MySpace or with some IM program or stupid Flash games rather than using the computers for something slightly more legitimate (news, research, completing assignments)."
As I mentioned above, my stepdaughter uses MySpace, IM, or whatever to collaborate on-line when working on group assignments.
In the old days, they'd have to meet face-to-face. Why choose that inefficient method if the collaboration can be done on-line? From wherever they can get an Internet connection, many knowledge workers work for a company located hundreds or thousands of miles away because so many cheap, easy communication tools exist. And so it is with today's students, except the kids are not relying on e-mail.
Just because kids today communicate differently than adults doesn't mean that what the kids are doing is wrong.
Adults and kids have been screwing off on the Internet long before MySpace began. How many adults at work are shopping on eBay? Today, it's MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube. Tomorrow it might be something else. And if the people weren't screwing off on the Internet, they'd be doing it somewhere else like playing video games on a console.
"I've got to admit I really do not see why myspace needs to be accessed by students while they are at school."
Most likely, MySpace is already blocked at the school. Look above at the comment by the teacher:
"Currently, schools have Acceptable Use policies which detail how they expect school computers to be used. This includes instructions that school computers are not to be used for pornography, commercial enterprise, etc. Every school that I am aware of blocks Instant Messaging, Myspace, Xanga, and Facebook."
The problem is not just with MySpace but with the wording of H.R. 5319 that could mean other worthwhile, educational websites could be blocked at the school. As the teacher believes:
"This COULD extend blocking to other commercial social networking websites and chat rooms including: Blogs - I collaborate on a supportblogging wiki is that is a great resource for educational blogs. All commercial blogs such as blogger (which I use) and wordpress will probably be blocked. Many of the great educational blogs listed on supportblogging will also be blocked."
And the problem with blocking MySpace at public libraries is what about those kids who live in homes without computers? How can they "hang" with their friends on-line and use these communication tools to collaborate on assignments? So let's put these kids back on the street where they can hang out and have all kinds of face-to-face meetings.
"MSN made their chat service a subscription service to avoid some of these pitfalls. Yahoo also revamped their chat programs and now doesn't allow the creation of rooms by the users."
That's right. Get government out of the way. From the news story that started this thread:
"In a statement earlier this month, a representative of MySpace stressed that the company has taken steps this year to assuage concerns among parents and politicians. It has assigned some 100 employees, about one-third of its work force, to deal with security and customer care, and hired Hemanshu (Hemu) Nigam, a former Justice Department prosecutor, as its chief security officer."
The technology providers will do a better job at addressing the issue than government. Government needs to explain why some repeat sex offenders walk around freely and later end up committing a more serious crime.
The problem here is a bunch of "old" (35 and over) adults in government have no idea what they are dealing with. They should pay attention to how their kids or grandkids or someone else's kids are using technology. It's fascinating to watch how teenagers communicate today. And the kids in Asia are probably even more advanced.
What's amazing is that MySpace has over 70 million users, and yet, the site only began a couple of years or so ago. I bet most adults assume MySpace has been around for many years. And despite a clunky, and maybe even an ugly user interface, MySpace continues to show growth.
MySpace's incredible growth will naturally have some built-in problems that the company is working on. Government doesn't need to be involved. Parents need to be involved with or without MySpace.
posted by jr at 01:05 P.M. EST on Sat Jul 29, 2006 #
All of those of you who are upset at the government banning MySpace access, tell me, where the HELL were you when they passed the Communications Decency Act, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?
posted by anonymouscoward at 01:54 P.M. EST on Sat Jul 29, 2006 #
What in the hell is the point of your comment, AC?
H.R. 5319 could hurt those kids who don't have Internet access at home. AC, I don't see how those other acts you mentioned prevent kids from collaborating on homework assignments and communicating with friends. H.R. 5319 doesn't affect my stepdaughter when she's on the Internet at home.
H.R. 5319 is targeting specific tools that allow users to produce the content themselves. Social software is about empowering the users. Social software like chat rooms, message boards, blogs, wikis, and photo sharing sites are communication tools.
The government isn't banning access to MySpace. H.R. 5319 says:
"To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require recipients of universal service support for schools and libraries to protect minors from commercial social networking websites and chat rooms."
The bill never says "MySpace." It's assumed that the government is targeting MySpace, but the wording of the bill is such that it could mean any commercial social networking website.
"Even though politicians apparently meant to restrict access to MySpace, the definition of off-limits Web sites is so broad the bill would probably sweep in thousands of commercial Web sites that allow people to post profiles, include personal information and allow "communication among users." Details will be left up to the Federal Communications Commission."
And if MySpace is the target, it's only for public schools and public libraries, although that's still too much government. Private schools and homes can do whatever they want, just like a restaurant or a coffee shop that provides its customers with Internet access. Those private entities won't be forced to block social networking sites, although H.R. 5319 could be incrementalism.
posted by jr at 06:00 P.M. EST on Sat Jul 29, 2006 #
Let's see, overly broad legislation that restricts Internet content or access to such.
Deja caca. I have seen this shit before. I think I mentioned it above... oh, the CDA, COPPA, and DMCA.
What was this about "H.R. 5319 could be incrementalism"?
Hello, jr, where the hell were you when they were passing THOSE laws? You have the balls to start talking about incrementalism and to act all outraged by this bill?
Parents need to be involved with or without MySpace.
And that's what I was saying when they passed the CDA, and when they passed COPPA. Alas, the parents obviously aren't, or think it's the government's responsibility to raise and protect their kiddies.
H.R. 5319 could hurt those kids who don't have Internet access at home.
Aww. Maybe they should, I dunno, go to a friend's place? That's what we used to do when collaborating on assignments. Actually, no, what usually happened was that I, the nerd, did the damn assignment while everyone else screwed off, but I digress.
"To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require recipients of universal service support for schools and libraries to protect minors from commercial social networking websites and chat rooms."
Now, if you knew anything about the CDA, they tried to "protect minors from indecent speech" or something like that, which was struck down.
So, what's going to happen is that the ACLU *****SUMMON CONSERVATIVES WHO HATE THE ACLU TO THREAD***** or something similar (American Library Association?) will sue, claiming that such a law is a restriction of free speech. And some OMFG WHINY LIBERAL will find an OMFG PRO BONO LIBERAL ATTORNEY to sue because she has a kid and pays taxes and the kid can't hop on MySpace at the library that gets tax money and it's a free speech issue, the kid ought to have the right to talk to his classmates etc., and the whole works will get into court and the law will (hopefully) be thrown the hell out.
posted by anonymouscoward at 09:50 P.M. EST on Sat Jul 29, 2006 #
from ac...
All of those of you who are upset at the government banning MySpace access, tell me, where the HELL were you when they passed the Communications Decency Act, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?
well, ac, i don't believe i was on this site at that time.....or i just didn't pay attention to you.
anyhow, this is simply another example of politicans making a legal product the scapegoat (see guns, cigarettes, etc, etc).
posted by wholesaler1972 at 09:27 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 30, 2006 #
well, ac, i don't believe i was on this site at that time
No, you probably weren't on the Internet at all at that time.
CDA was enacted 1 Feb 1996
CDA was struck down by SCOTUS 26 June 1997
COPPA was enacted 21 Oct 1998
DMCA was enacted 28 Oct 1998
As I've said, "I have seen this shit before."
So there's a pile of n00bs all bitchy about the government trying to regulate what can be seen on the Internet, not knowing that it's been tried before.
This is also why I enjoyed Mags and the rest of the Republican anti-NetNeutrality brigade's comments about how evil government regulation of the Internet would be. Let's see now, which party had majority control of Congress during that time period... gee I can't remember the name of the party... it begins with an R....
Yeah, that's right, it was the REPUBLICAN party that passed the happy little laws. The CDA, to tell you what you can't see on the Internet, COPPA to tell content providers how to run their websites in the name of protecting the childrunnnnnnnnn, and the DMCA to tell you what you can't do with your computer and the Internet and criminalize it.
:: waves
Hi, Mags! If government regulation of the Internet is so evil, let's hear you renounce these things. If it's not, then what's the problem with the Feds telling the ISPs and content providers to play nice and fair with each other and the customers and not censor or throttle if we decide to use a competing application or service over our connections?
And speaking of government regulation of the Internet, defend or renounce H.R. 5319 for us. Tell me, what do those "hands off the Internet" people have to say about H.R. 5319?
posted by anonymouscoward at 11:56 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 30, 2006 #
A/C--Question for ya. Are you really mad or do I incorrectly apply this crazy Howard Dean-like tone to your words when I read them?
posted by fequalsma73 at 12:03 A.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
Couldn't join up in real life so you joined the 101st Fighting Keyboardists, huh, fecal?
posted by anonymouscoward at 12:59 A.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
A/C--Question for ya. Are you really mad or do I incorrectly apply this crazy Howard Dean-like tone to your words when I read them?
posted by fequalsma73 at 01:08 A.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
Couldn't join up in real life so you joined the 101st Fighting Keyboardists, huh, fecal?
You're one to talk. lol
posted by fequalsma73 at 01:10 A.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
"Hello, jr, where the hell were you when they were passing THOSE laws?"
AC, what's the matter with you? It's none of your damn business where I was, you shithead. Why are you calling out Maggie Thurber when Democrat Marcy Kaptur is the one who voted YES on H.R. 5319? Did you notice the vote count for H.R. 5319? Democrats Yes=183
A couple Mark Twain quotes about Congress that apply here:
"Suppose You Were An Idiot And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself."
"Fleas can be taught nearly anything that a Congressman can."
Someone said something like H.R. 5319 is beyond legislating morality. It's legislating against interactivity.
A few excerpts from the latest posting at the Cool Cat Teacher blog:
"Congressmen and Senators are extremely aware of the "New" Internet and honestly I don't think they like it. Anything that takes the common person, like me, and gives them a voice, unnerves those who are in power and do not want to change and adapt. It also unnerves those who have chosen obsolescence as a mindset."
"Today's kid doesn't go to the mall or "drive around" as much as they congregate online. That is where they converse."
"As an educator, I want to harness social networking to create online islands where teens share educational interests. History buffs, science prodigies, math talents, literature lovers! Students often rise to the level of those that surround them. If we want students to rise to new heights, we will create conduits for educational exchange."
"I fear that DOPA will derail these efforts for at least several years if not longer, depending on how the law is enacted. And that is just it. No one can count the number of sites on the Internet, how is a commission going to sort through every one of them?"
posted by jr at 01:23 A.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
Couldn't join up in real life so you joined the 101st Fighting Keyboardists, huh, fecal?
Why are you so hung up on my inability to serve in the military? Basically, you are making fun of someone who has a medical condition. It could be cancer, MS, mental disability, anything. But you, of the compassionate party insist on making fun of someone for that. I enjoy when you keep saying stuff that show how you and people that align with you philosophically really feel. It only hurts yourself. Keep it up, and throw more f-bombs in there for us, k?
posted by fequalsma73 at 01:24 A.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
Why are you calling out Maggie Thurber when Democrat Marcy Kaptur is the one who voted YES on H.R. 5319? Did you notice the vote count for H.R. 5319? Democrats Yes=183
Because it popped into my head that this is regulation of the Internet, or at least who can see what on the Internet, which is going to affect the bottom line of MySpace, LJ, Blogger, etc, and it's not that far off from COPPA. And the NetNeutrality legislation, according to the Hands Off the Internet people, is going to cost squillions of dollars and limit consumer choice and do all these evil things, which is what this bill is going to do (albeit in a different manner). So I'd really like to know why this bill is okey dokey but NetNeutrality legislation is evil Internet regulation. Does that make sense to you?
As for the Dems and this bill, at least SOME Dems had the balls to say NO. Generally, anyway, the GOP is the party of legislating morality, and the Dems are the party of protecting people from their own ignorance and stupidity... think gun lock legislation and a lot of other safety "it's for the childrennnnnnn" laws. Since this is crafted to protect idiot kids from themselves and do the job that idiot parents ought to be doing, the Dems are all for it, and since it legislates morality, the GOP's all for it. And the real clincher is protecting the kids from seeing CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, one of those wonderful emotional isues that lends itself to political attacks so nicely. Anyone voting NO will automatically be accused of supporting kiddie porn and of exposing kiddies to kiddie porn.
Frankly, I can't attack the Dems for voting YES because I just know that Karl Rove would have had attack ads out within hours claiming that the Dems support showing kiddie porn to kids or something like that. He fights that damn dirty. I'm really pissed off over them voting yes to something that plays around with undefined "obscenity" and I can fault them for being spineless wussies and a pile of weiners who want everything to have rounded edges and be covered in nontoxic pink foam padding so nobody gets hurt, because they're the party of protecting people from themselves. On the other hand, I'd expect Rovian attacks on them claiming they want kids to see porn and goatse.cx and all that if they voted no. I'm pissed at the GOP, because this is another pile of morality legislation. And I can get REAL bitchy at the GOP for playing regulation games with the Internet and its content in the face of the GOP's views of NetNeutrality. Why? Let's examine something here:
Mr. FITZPATRICK (R) of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. KIRK (R), Mrs. MILLER (R) of Michigan, Mr. WELDON (R) of Pennsylvania, Mr. ENGLISH (R) of Pennsylvania, Mr. DAVIS (R) of Kentucky, and Mr. CASTLE (R)) introduced
That's SEVEN REPUBLICANS behind this bill. Gee, jr, I wonder what would happen if more Dems said no... certainly the GOP would never stoop so low as to attack the Dems and run ads saying they don't want to keep our kids safe on the Internet. And how hopefully you see why I'm seeing hypocrisy on the subject of regulating the Internet here. That 'splain things to you? Sound a bit more rational?
Someone said something like H.R. 5319 is beyond legislating morality. It's legislating against interactivity.
Both.
`(I) protects against access through such computers to visual depictions that are--
`(aa) obscene;
`(bb) child pornography; or
`(cc) harmful to minors; and
Well, geez, by that definition we should block a lot of *.gov, because at the very least a lot of the government is obscene and harmful to minors.
Basically, you are making fun of someone who has a medical condition. It could be cancer, MS, mental disability, anything.
And this hasn't been done to me here? Oh snap. Have a word with your fellow incompassionate party members, would you? Otherwise, as they say, "turnabout is fair play".
posted by anonymouscoward at 02:23 A.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
What are you talking about? I have never made fun of you for having a medical condition, have I?
posted by fequalsma73 at 02:58 A.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
AC - I've argued various points on the net neutrality law, but haven't yet formed an opinion on it...thanks for caring about what I think - that's a new one from you.
And you really must stop lumping all Republicans together...just like Dems or FSM lovers, we're quite a diverse group with our ideas. I'm one of those who believe that the less government involvement in our daily lives the better. I believe in individual responsibility for the actions you take. So I wouldn't be supporting federal bills which regulate what you can or cannot view on the internet. However, being more of a constitutionalist, I believe that if STATES wanted to pass such laws to apply within such states, then that's their right under the US Constitution...
As an aside, this from the conservative Chuck Muth - have fun!
June 29, 2006
WHAT'S MICROSOFT AFRAID OF?
It wasn't too long ago that some competitors of Microsoft used the power of government to compel the technology giant to do something not in the company's best interest. The matter cost Microsoft a boatload of money and a ton of aggravation. So you'd think an experience like that would serve as a powerful lesson on the dangers of government regulation of business, wouldn't you?
Well, it seems the lesson may have gone in one ear and out the other.
For some unknown reason, Microsoft has teamed up with far-left groups such as MoveOn.org in support of federal legislation which is now commonly referred to as "Net neutrality." Net neutrality, notes the Free Enterprise Action Fund, is nothing short of "expanded government regulation of the Internet." It's easy to see why the Lefties would be in favor of this idea, but why Microsoft?
That's exactly the question the Free Enterprise Action Fund and other Microsoft shareholders want the company to answer.
Reuters reported last week that the Free Enterprise Action Fund - which holds more than 4,000 shares of Microsoft stock - wants the company to explain its rationale for supporting Net neutrality. The fund wants to put a proposal before shareholders, for an up-or-down vote at the next meeting, which would direct Microsoft management to prepare a report "analyzing the business and economic rationale, regulatory impacts, legal liabilities and any effects on product development and customers" of Net neutrality.
Sounds reasonable enough.
But Reuters reports that Microsoft has "asked the Securities and Exchange Commission if it could exclude the proposal from its annual shareholder vote without facing enforcement action by the agency."
"What is Microsoft afraid of," asks Tom Borelli, a portfolio manager at the Free Enterprise Action Fund.
Darn good question. If Microsoft, despite its nightmare experiences with government regulation, now sees government regulation of the Internet to be a good thing, it shouldn't be afraid to explain that policy position to its shareholders, should it?
Inquiring minds wanna know.
posted by MaggieThurber at 06:44 A.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
Maggie - if someone stopped lumping people together there'd be no rationale for bigotry or hatred by group. And then some people wouldn't have a reason to get up in the morning and they'd be all purposeless in life.
What're you thinking??!!! :-)
posted by katie82640 at 10:41 A.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
Katie - LOL!
posted by MaggieThurber at 11:27 A.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
there was a drive by on another thread. Sadly the gun was empty again :-)
posted by katie82640 at 12:56 P.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
If parents are concerned (and they should be) about what their children are doing on myspace - they can go there and set up a user account.
www.myspace.com
It only takes a minute or two and they can view their kids myspace and posted comments and what profile is communicating with them.
It isn't any different - imo - than allowing people they don't know on the street to talk to them privately. And parents have a right to know what their children are doing - and an obligation to supervise them.
posted by katie82640 at 02:37 P.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
A little MySpace news:
"Fox Interactive Media has entered into a nearly $1 billion, 3+ year deal with Google to exclusively power search across most Fox online sites, including Myspace. The partnership will begin in the fourth quarter of this year and extend though the second quarter of 2010."
"The deal will include the integration of a Google search box on all Myspace pages, and Fox also disclosed that they intend to “work with Google” in creating a Myspace toolbar that allows users to extend their Myspace experience beyond the site itself."
"Fox also noted that they expect to surpass 100 million Myspace user profiles this month. This deal will significantly increase total revenue on Myspace, which is estimated to currently be generating about $350 million annually."
posted by jr at 11:46 P.M. EST on Mon Aug 07, 2006 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
