Chilling of free speech on the Internet?

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

Just sort of random musings here but does is seem like there's a slow but steady creep towards greater control and regulation of speech and content on the Internet or am I just going all Alex Jones here?  It seems like the pernicious influence that has killed off relatively unbiased dissemination of info via traditional media is now going after "new" media.

Facebook's been caught repeatedly censoring right-learning stories and links.  Google's search algorithms are doing the same.  Twitter's been blocking "offensive" tweets.  Now YouTube's demonetizing content they deem to be unfriendly to advertisers while at the same time recruiting an army of thought police (called YouTube Heroes) to patrol the channel and stifle speech.

Between that, the victory of BMG over Cox Communications in their recent lawsuit, and the US ceding control of the Internet naming system, I think it's going to get to be a much more dull, sanitized internet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37114313

[Boggit]

1984 is catching up - "Youtube Heroes" who are tasked as censors.... >:D It's not good is it?

[bayonetbrant]

private entities get to police their own content...

if you don't like the way FaceBook algorithms work, create your own site with a better idea and see if it attracts an audience.

To me, the content issues are less of a concern than the delivery issues, where we allow the bandwidth providers to throttle the speeds at which certain content goes through.

[JasonPratt]

I started laughing hard at the start of that parody, and I was literally laughing so hard I was crying by the end. I had to stop and go back a couple of times because I couldn't see.

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

[Boggit]

Good find SDR. O0

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

Bit more on it here. Kinda depressing that it's two Canucks discussing the issue and coming to the realization that, as non-US citizens, they really can't do much other than encourage Americans to pester their congressmen and senators.

[Boggit]

Well, I'm in the UK. I get the point that on balance it's better that the US with a good overall record on free speech remains as custodian of the internet, even though the US may have abused their position over the NSA scandal. I tend to agree that if it is given over to an unaccountable body like the UN there are plenty of countries who want to suppress free speech, or replace it with propaganda.

[Nefaro]

... I tend to agree that if it is given over to an unaccountable body like the UN there are plenty of countries who want to suppress free speech, or replace it with propaganda.

Hell, some already heavily restrict free speech and information in their own country.  China, for example.  Remember web access being cut off in numerous mideast countries during the "Arab Spring" revolutions? 

On balance I think there are more nations of despots, and other censorship supporting d-bags, in the UN than those heavily supporting free speech and 'Net Neutrality'. 


A former UN head rep (Bolton iirc) has already stated that he fully expects the UN hoodlums to take control and push their internet agendas within a decade, after they get a foot in the door with this.  Watch for even more demands.

Thanks again, Maobama.

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

Well shit....

[Boggit]

Very sad. :( Given the choice between reforming the NSA and relinquishing control over the DNS to the UN, when it was protected (mostly under the 1st amendment) was a very poor decision by Obama, and a bad day for free speech.