RSS
Twitter
Bill Aims To Curb Net Censorship Abroad
from the at-home-is-another-story... dept
Just as we've been told by our government that we need to censor the internet in our schools and libraries, a bill is being pushed through Congress that would create a new Office of Global Internet Freedom with $16 million to spend on technology to stop foreign nations from censoring the internet. Of course, I thought the US government was already funding just such a project by Bennett Haselton. The sponsors of the bill see it as the equivalent of working on Voice of America or Radio Free Europe.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
Foreign nations bad, media companies good
So, it's important that we prevent foreign nations from censoring the Internet -- but it's OK for private companies in oligopolies (like cable and telco) to build "walled gardens". Hmmm.
Just an other example of the "govenment bad, commerce good" mindset that is blind to restrictions on freedom so long as they are imposed by non-state actors (oh, wait, that's terrorism).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Foreign nations bad, media companies good
The difference is that you're stuck with a government (unless you move), but companies are subject to market forces. Contrary to what many people who post here think, companies are focused on making money, not on violating or protecting your privacy or on encouraging free thought or limiting free thought, or almost any other hot button issue you can think of. If it makes them money, they'll do it. If you come up with a way to let record companies make more money by giving away all their music (and if you don't think that radio is a close approximation), then they will likely do it.
Example: if/when McDonald's thinks that they can make more money selling vegetarian food, they'll do it. They're not fanatical beef evanagelizers -- they're a business. Sure, they may be much more likely to continue down the beef road because it's working for them, but that doesn't mean they're stupid. It just means that the market doesn't really think what people might like to believe it thinks.
Governments have constitutions restricting their actions because their power is otherwise practically absolute. Corporations are governed by the same laws that govern you and me. If you create a bunch of content and decide to offer it in your own "walled garden," what's *wrong* with that? I may not think it's a good idea, but it's fundamentally your property, not mine. If you write a book, should I get to read it for free? I might like to, but you'd be out of the book-writing business pretty damn quick if that was your business model.
Censorship isn't the same as not giving you free access to my stuff. I mean, really -- is charging for tickets to Star Wars censorship? That's your "walled garden." Cellphone plans that only give you low rates when you call their customers -- is that censorship? That's your walled garden too. Of course, the answer is no. Why not? Because you get to *choose* whether to involve yourself with these companies. Just because we don't get what we might like doesn't mean it's censorship, a violation of free speech, or even unfair or a bad idea.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Foreign nations bad, media companies good
I agree. Companies have a right to do whatever they want, no matter how stupid. :)
Governments, though, have power over people to force them in ways that block off their rights to things. I don't think anyone has a right to access a commercial product (even if I do think much of the content industry would do better if they did open up their content).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment