In this article we will discuss the technical and ethical background of Internet controlling task also known and Internet censoship.
Here is the fragment of manifesto from one of our readers who was indignant about new law proposal.
I want to remind people that the government will not let you do something that is going to affect your health and your ability to work, you cannot do something that is going to be harmful to you or to others.
I want to remind them that we Americans have never been able to do this and we will never be able to do it, our society and our country are in trouble, so we are going to do everything we can to be the best nation on earth.
I want to tell you that if we can be wise, and if we are brave, and if we are hardworking and honest and honest in the way that we care for our fellow Americans, then all the world can live in peace.
I want to tell you that we will not be controlled by politicians.
As the Trump administration seeks to impose more controls on the Internet, some tech experts are questioning how the president has such wide leeway to do so.
The administration has issued new rules for Internet providers to block or “unblock” certain sites based on a new legal theory known as the “Perez Doctrine.”
The “Perez Doctrine,” which is not legal to question in the U.S. as a private citizen, is the legal rationale behind how the U.S. government views Internet providers as a means of controlling speech, information or other content on the Internet.
According to the administration, the Perez Doctrine applies to Internet providers like Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon.
For the Trump administration, the Perez Doctrine has always been an issue of concern — particularly when it comes to the Internet. While this administration is likely to change the definition of the Perez Doctrine in the future, the Obama administration allowed this to continue to be an issue of concern for Internet users.
“The Perez Doctrine should not be confused with the Obama administration,” says Chris Soghoian, an Internet freedom advocate who was the U.S. representative to the World Wide Web Summit. “The Obama administration said that ISPs should not be subject to the law. But the Trump administration is now saying that it done for their safety.
We will control our own affairs, we will have the best education that the entire world is waiting for.
We will be the most beautiful people on earth, and we will not be controlled in any way.
What are the controversies of the new regulations?
Both the US and the European Union want changes to the regulations on the Internet and freedom of expression. This is the aftermath of matters related to the election of Doland Trump for the president of the United States and elections in other countries of the old continent.
We remind you of the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Cambridge Analytica Ltd (CA) was a British political consulting firm that came to prominence through the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal.
The unclear activity of the company, which is being analyzed with particular intensity by Channel 4, “New York Times” and “The Obsever”, has affected as many as 50 million Facebook users. Although Mark Zuckerberg’s corporation demanded that the collected data be destroyed in 2015, it ultimately did not happen.
Even more worrying is the fact that Cambridge Analytica CEO Alexander Nix, unaware he was being taped, boasted of having secretly influenced more than 200 elections around the world.
Including, for example, the Czech Republic, Argentina and India. CA probably also influenced the elections in Italy, Ukraine, Mexico, Kenya, Brazil and Malaysia. Nix has already been suspended, as has the suspected enterprise’s access to Facebook.
Effects of an election scandal and manipulation
The above-mentioned scandal caused a huge stir both in the US and in Europe. The authorities began a frantic search for legislative solutions that would counteract this type of action in the future.
the subject is very broad and raises a lot of controversy due to the fact that some regulations may have a counterproductive effect.
Putting power into the hands of a corporation can create a precedent that gives unlimited power to filter content considered manipulation
Figuratively speaking, the concern is that a mechanism designed to combat manipulation may be used for manipulation.
A censorship tool in the hands of people who will not be controlled – it can do more harm than good.
FCC new regulations and Trump’s law in US
In May, President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeting tech companies, like Facebook and Google, and Section 230 of the Communications Act, the pivotal internet law that provides them broad legal immunity over content posted by their users. The order instructed the Commerce Department to draft a petition prompting the FCC to reinterpret the law. The Department submitted its petition to the FCC in July.
The FCC denied their request. The order was put on hold while the government worked its way through its appeal with the appeals court. In November, the appeals court reversed the decision, saying the FCC lacked jurisdiction.
The petition has now been sent to the Supreme Court. If the high court approves and the petition is granted, the FCC will be forced to reconsider the regulation. That could lead to a lot more content on Reddit.
The president has said he wants Reddit to grow, but that will have some effect on the website. Reddit users are already divided over the proposed regulation—Reddit is largely white men and their content has more relevance to them than those of other groups. The website has become notorious for having a large number of hate subreddits.
That’s something you might see on Twitter, but it’s an issue that’s hard to quantify. The website has also been criticized for censorship and hate speech that has been deemed “trolling”. You could also argue for a website like The Daily Dot that has a liberal bent, which could be used in the petition to explain the lack of concern about free speech and free speech on the site.
What are the plans for the future
Copyright protection is important. However, the project developed by the EU and the US is not suitable for this. Developed countries, which are working on the new rules, want internet companies like YouTube and Facebook to check everything ordinary users post online and eliminate any material containing copyrighted content.
How will these companies be able to do this? Of course, using a special algorithm. And because companies prefer to be too careful rather than risk fines, the programs will be so harsh that we won’t be able to upload anything that has the slightest chance of infringing copyright. A video of your friends having fun at a music festival that you wanted to post on Facebook? Locked because copyrighted music is playing in the background. That funny meme you wanted to tweet? Blocked because it contains photos from the video.
We cannot rely on programs to draw the line between freedom of speech and what is really pirated material. And it’s not just about your freedom of speech. Your right to private life is also at stake, as the only way these companies can filter uploaded files is by continuously monitoring user activity.
Furthermore, the EU and the US have already said they will be watching YouTube videos. This could happen in the future if the new rules are adopted.
Conclusion
The Internet, with all the information that is on it, is a great place to share information, as there are many places where people can come for free without spending money. For us, the internet is an important tool. And the EU and the US need to understand the importance of the Internet in the society to make it as safe and secure as possible.
The current internet regulation is not the right way to get there, and it may lead to a new level of problems for the EU and the US. For us, this is an important issue and one that has to be taken care of quickly.
We will keep you posted. about this topic
