|
Post by Tenniru on Dec 20, 2006 19:46:57 GMT -5
Well we sure as hell don't have any power. People can talk about YouTube and Wikipedia all they want, but those only give the illusion of power. Without even the slightest second thought, both organizations would, more than likely, remove anything that they were told to by the government, especially if there was money and or litigation to back up such a demand. And if they refused? Both would be shut down faster than you could whine about it on LiveJournal. First amendment be damned. And all our pitiful whining wouldn't make the slightest difference, unless we could get some money on our side and it would take a lot of money. More than any of us combined could muster. And I seriously doubt people would be willing to put off their PS3 purchases for Wikipedia. We don't have power over the information age. No more than ants in an ant farm have power. Just because the people who are really in charge (Businesses, Rich People and the Government) haven't flushed us down the toilet yet doesn't mean they can't or wouldn't. As I said, the power we supposedly have is only power we are allowed through the negligence of the powers that be. When they stir, we become ants and get stepped on. Sure, they could always break Wikipedia and YouTube. They'd probably love to. However, you'd notice that they're not. It's amazing what a politician will avoid doing if he risks losing a re-election campaign, and what a potential candidate will do if it means him being elected. Bringing down incumbents doesn't take money; just bad PR. On something as big and easy to use as the internet, the only way to stop a bit of information is to break the whole system. You can't bring down the whole internet and media - even if you did, imagine the voter backlash. In November, every two years, you have loads of power. The time between that can easily be used to take aim, and the incumbents all know that.
|
|
|
Post by Sz on Dec 20, 2006 20:16:11 GMT -5
It's not up to the government to ask things removed from Wikipedia or Youtube, unless it's classified information.
What you doofuses might want to worry about is dumbass corporations thinking that taking anime clips off of Youtube is going to make we want to buy their DVDs... for instance.
|
|
|
Post by Keith T. Hemari on Dec 20, 2006 20:24:43 GMT -5
*shrugs* They can, they won't - for now.
Like I said, while they can't do it without repercussions, they'll leave us alone. That's the only power the geeks of the internet (in so far as this, so-called information age is concerned, which is really what I was talking about in the first place, before it was dragged into the general politics realm) have right now. We have power, because those who are in power have not found a way to have power over us.
You can look on the bright side and say "hey, that means we're safe", but I will always toss in that "for now" bit. So far, the government and the various commercial organizations involved have not found a legal or even viable way to keep the internet under control, but that doesn't mean they don't want to or aren't trying to find a way. Every year, it seems, there's some new threat to the 'net. What was it this year? Net Neutrality? Who knows what it will be next year? So far, so good, but should we ignore the possibility or the attempts, just because it hasn't worked?
Does that mean we're in charge? Does that mean that we, the people here on our computers have power over the internet? I say it doesn't. It's like mother nature. If you live by a volcano, you don't have power over it just because it hasn't erupted on you yet.
The people who are really in charge are the ones who control the elements that make up the internet. The web-hosts, the computer hardware and software companies, the government who manages the FCC, and so on. We are using their services and, in some cases, skirting their rules. Hosts can, by contract, take down a site, without warning or explanation. Most of us, I think, never think about that little loophole. A cable or phone company can cut service in the same manner.
So far, they are benevolent, because it behooves them to be so. As you said, Tenniru, it would be worse for them if they did start overtly messing with us. But the government can make new laws and companies can keep open those little loopholes. None of these things, I might add, we get any say on.
I'm not saying it's like those idiotic conspiracy people who believe the government is watching them, I just see that the position that we who surf the web have isn't as stable as Time was implying. They're making us out to be some sort of super men, when we're really just a loose and often chaotic conglomerate of individuals who share only a marginal connection of common interests. It stinks of pandering and commercial salesmanship, and though I appreciate the compliment, I find it distasteful.
Sz: Yes, but the government is the one who would enforce said restrictions. The companies campaign to the government to enact laws and bring in offenders. And I think they speak more with money than with words or wisdom.
|
|
|
Post by Tenniru on Dec 20, 2006 22:56:31 GMT -5
You can look on the bright side and say "hey, that means we're safe", but I will always toss in that "for now" bit. So far, the government and the various commercial organizations involved have not found a legal or even viable way to keep the internet under control, but that doesn't mean they don't want to or aren't trying to find a way. Every year, it seems, there's some new threat to the 'net. What was it this year? Net Neutrality? Who knows what it will be next year? So far, so good, but should we ignore the possibility or the attempts, just because it hasn't worked? I would. Even if they could legally and viably do it, the moment they try you'll see a power shift big enough to leave scorchmarks on the congressmens' door placards. It's a volcano you can do constructive things with that can only erupt if someone does it manually. Everyone will see the person do it, the eruption will kill nobody, and the residents of the volcano town will descend on him like angry bees on a confused piniata beater. That's not the government. Also, as long as capitalism exists you can always buy a new host. Until the November of the year of an even number. A politicians' mind is so anchored in that event that unless he's absolutely insane he might as well be facing the electorate at the moment he slips his voting card into his desk. I agree; it's a vague copout.
|
|
|
Post by Keith T. Hemari on Dec 20, 2006 23:59:30 GMT -5
Eh, whatever. I have nothing more to say that I haven't said already and I really don't feel like pursuing it any further.
Yeah, Time was annoying, I dislike government and monkeys eat bananas. Moving on.
|
|