FOREWORD: This is yet another essay I had to write for school, this time my English/Communications III class. It is called "The Advocacy Project," which involved us picking a controversial, topical issue in modern society, researching it for a few months, creating multiple bibliographies citing sources and detailing where we picked up information from, and finally, writing the paper - what I deemed the easiest task of all. Writing the entire thing took me about three hours total, which I felt was shockingly little compared to the "hype" this paper receives throughout the school. I learn of the ominous nature of this project when I was a two week-old Freshman, but I must confess, I still slept nights. Because I am so confident and focused with writing, I found it to be a liberating passtime, something blatantly contrary to most the beliefs most teenagers hold when they need to write a research paper.
Unfortunately, what you're looking at is not the final draft. This is the long-version, actually. The criteria for the paper was it had to be no less than four pages, but no more than six (which I find grossly low for a research paper, especially considering other classes with the same project had to make there's no less than seven pages), Times New Roman/twelve-point font, and double-spaced. By the time I had my Calibri/eleven-point font extended to TNR and double-spaced, it was roughly ten pages long. I had to do immense editing - some of the most grueling and depressing I've made in a while as much of the detail of the essay is lost - and the final copy is six pages long and very, very unsatisfying in my mind. Luckily, I knew ahead of time I'd release it on my site, and now the time has come.
I'm very looking forward to hearing responses on this, regardless of how mild or passionate they may be. Even if you read it and find yourself informed about an issue that you didn't know about before, my work is complete and my goal reached. I must also mention that this will, yes, not read quite like my typical blog posts/film reviews because of the fact that it was a formal essay for school and I needed to meet specific criteria. When you see a name in parenthesizes following a quote, all that is is citing the appropriate author of the article the quote was taken from.
Without further adieu, I hope you enjoy "Access Denied: The Fight to Prevent Internet Censorship."
__________________________________________________________
"Access Denied: The Fight to Prevent Internet Censorship"
Since the early 1990’s, the internet’s role in every aspect of life has been incalculably beneficial and an extreme boon to business, communication, accessible information, and opinions more-so than any other modern invention of the time. How many inventions can you say not only incorporated but revolutionized those aspects, while simultaneously bringing a newfound connectivity to other places around the world? Steve Jobs once said that, “the computer is the most important tool in human history.” If that’s true, then the internet is germane to that tool and also exists in the same state of importance. Consequently, despite the “open-forum” design of the internet, with millions of websites, blogs, online forums, and message boards co-existing to give users an outlet of research and pleasure, there have been a number of attempted policies created by government officials all across the world to try and censor or restrict content posted online. This practice has been dubbed as “internet censorship,” and with the internet achieving increasing popularity day-by-day, the question of “does the internet need to be censored/policed” has been proposed, with one of the countries currently in talks for more internet regulation being America. Internet censorship is a practice that will intentionally corrupt the internet as a whole, largely restricting free speech, forcing companies to follow gray legislation, and make it already more difficult for entrepreneurs to break into the world using the internet as a tool.
In order to formally state the impact and potential threat internet censorship has on everybody in America, one must first recognize that they possess an uncanny ability to do just about anything on the internet. Unless you are in a school or a work place, where racier, more explicit sites are blocked, you are virtually a lone-man on an open playground, with the ability to access message boards, social networking sites, sites that allow you to buy online, store websites, video-sharing sites, pornographic sites, etc. In America, the abilities a person has when they sit back and go online are often taken for granted, and regarded as a luxury that is an indelible right. The fact is that it is a right and should remain; if legislation were to pass dealing with internet censorship it would slaughter the civil liberties of users who have rightfully created the internet. Consider how much content on the internet is "user-generated" content, meaning it wasn't created by corporate suits or elite individuals, but the common people of the world who visited the website and thought it would be in their best interest to add to the site. Sites like Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Vimeo, Tumblr, and Reddit would've never began to thrive if people didn't visit the site and feel compelled to come back or invite more people. Moreover, two bills, bluntly titled the "Protect IP Act" (PIPA, the House of Representatives' bill) and the "Stop Online Piracy Act" (SOPA, the Senate's bill), were being debated in Congress during the 2011 year. The bills, while named differently, had the same overall goal; to stop the illegal downloading and distribution of what was considered "intellectual property" or "copyrighted content." Things like movies, music, and software have been downloaded illegally since the internet's beginnings and have increased tremendously, costing all three of those separate industries money. Those aforementioned bills are byproducts of lobbyists from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the music industry to force Congress to take political action and stop the illegal downloading once and for all. The issue at hand, however, was that the bills were so broadly worded that they were open to interpretation that could effectively dismantle the internet's biggest asset; free speech. In China, the practice of internet censorship has already overextended itself to being a practice centered on annihilating content the government doesn't want its citizens to see. A quote from an article titled "Internet censorship in China" states, "websites in China are required to employ people who monitor and delete objectionable content; tens of thousands of others are paid to guide bulletin board web exchanged in the government's favor...the government blocks websites that discuss the Dalai Lama, the 1989 crackdown on Tienanmen Square protestors, Falun Gong, the banned spiritual movement, and other internet sites." Or look at India, where, according to a different article, "[the country] adopted the new 'IT Rules 2011' that supplemented the IT Act 2000. These rules made it mandatory for internet intermediaries to remove objectionable content with thirty-six hours of receiving complaint. But the terms included were vague and open to interpretations" (Priyanka). What would the United States be like if they promoted democracy, equality, free speech, and open information if they were to sneakily block access to websites and censor content rumored to house illegal, downloadable content?
It has already been established that in the case of internet censorship in America - with the very close passing of two incredibly dangerous bills - one macro-problem we would've been dealing with was the loss of free speech in a country predicated off of the system of democracy. One thing that seems in order, at least, is that the masses can agree that downloading illegal content off the internet, also called "piracy," is wrong and it's that digital theft that leaves many of our favorite celebrities and musicians uncompensated for their hard work. But remedying a problem just to start another one, intentionally or not, is unorthodox. Yet, one of the practices intended by these two bills would've been getting popular web-empires to follow the gray legislation put forth by two bills. Had SOPA and PIPA been signed into law, something called "Google blacklisting" may have well taken place. An example of "Google blacklisting" would be if someone uploaded the new film Oz: The Great and Powerful to the internet and made their own website where people could stream the film. Say if you Googled that film, it would be one of the first links to appear in the search results. SOPA and PIPA would've made it so that person's link to watch the film would be completely omitted from the search results, and the only way it could be accessed was by obtaining the IP address of the site and visiting it. In an article concerning the methods of an event called the "SOPA Blackout," where numerous sites refused operation on January 18, 2012 as an attempt to voice opposition on the bill, Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt stated, "the solutions are draconian. There's a bill that would require [internet service providers] to remove URLS from the web, which is also known as censorship last I checked" (Carter). Returning to the previous example, what would happen if another person's website had "Oz: The Great and Powerful" tagged to appear in the search results as well? Would their site be blocked as well, even if they had nothing to do with the illegal uploading of the film? That is the biggest issue with these two bills; they are so broadly worded, open to incalculable interpretation depending on who is asked to give their input on them, and they would result in heavy policing of content issued on social networking websites. Sites like Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube, rather than working on ways to creative innovative new features or continue providing accessible content to their users, would have to work around the clock to monitor content posted by individuals and remove it if it violates whatever detrimental content is at hand here. As of now, all three sites have in place a system involving bots that are programmed to track and remove content that is sexually offensive or sparking hate or outrage. Is their own particular legislation still gray? To an extent, but far more manageable considering the things they've accomplished thus far. The thought of not being able to access websites based on content is an unruly way to limit citizens of the global internet.
Blacklisting sites and policing content is when the "censorship" part of "internet censorship" really does come out, but what comes out when the realization is that shackling the internet so broadly and blatantly could also put a strain on an already troubled American economy? Returning to the exploration of the idea of websites that boast "user-generated" content, these sites would be hit hardest if a bill were to pass with internet censorship in mind. Sites like the aforementioned Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube would need to hire people to scroll through content posted on their page, deleting things that are not in line to the government bill(s), and dismantling the idea of free speech. An article by The New York Times shows that site legislation already in place is difficult to follow stating, "Youtube prohibits hate speech, which it defines as that which 'attacks of demeans a group' based on its race, religion and son; Facebook's hate speech ban likewise covers 'content that attacks people' on the basis of identity. Google and Facebook prohibit hate speech; Twitter does not explicitly ban it[...]legal scholars say, it is exceedingly difficult to devise a universal definition of hate speech" (Sengupta). Social-networking companies are already having a difficult time distinguishing from free speech vs. hate speech and acceptable content vs. illegal content. Creating more ambiguous laws and more regulations for social-networking sites to follow is a preposterous notion that would leave almost no room for creativity and simply emphasize regulation. On the economy issue, the internet's popularity has, without a doubt, increased at a very good time. If the American government/economy did not have deals with Google, Facebook, and other billion dollar websites, chances are, the country would be in far worse debt than any of us could ever imagine. The internet has been one of the few things that actually helps a person's business grow to new heights, with the ability to create a website and promote it simultaneously being available to the creative artist for little to no cost. Imagine the chaotic misconceptions and controversy that would hit young, ambitious entrepreneurs if internet regulation were passed. This would stifle job/business growth, and cripple a business sector that is thriving now. Rebecca MacKinnon writes in The New York Times, "Compliance with the Stop Online Piracy Act would require huge overhead spending by internet companies for staff and technologies dedicated to monitoring users and censoring any infringing material from being posted or transmitted. This in turn would create daunting financial burdens and legal risks for start-up companies, making it much harder for brilliant young entrepreneurs with limited resources to create small and innovative internet companies that empower citizens and change the world" (MacKinnon). The thought of potentially compromising or restricting young entrepreneurs who will be the ones to thank for making America a bit stronger than it is now, and forcing social-networking sites to comply with gray legislature is something we simply can not do in current times. It is our job to protect speech and job-growth; not cripple it.
Like all major issues, there is another side in the mix that is stirring up buzz on why the issue of "protecting the internet" and "monitoring content" is a good one. Proponents for internet censorship, or the bills SOPA and PIPA, cited how it will compensate movie and music studios and make their business more lucrative in the long-run. However, they failed to look at just how smart and tricky these websites are that host copyrighted content free of charge. Consider the instance when several countries try to take action against the torrent-empire "The Pirate Bay," a large filesharing site based in Sweden that allows its users to download music files, movie files, TV show files, software files, game files, etc. A New York Times article states, "Earlier this year, after months of legal wrangling, authorities in a number of countries won an injunction against The Pirate Bay[...]The order blocked people from entering the site. In retaliation, The Pirate Bay wrapped up the code that runs its entire website, and offered it as a free downloadable file for anyone to copy and install on their own servers. People began setting up hundreds of new versions of the site, and the piracy continues unabated" (Bilton). The article then goes on to state how the creator of The Pirate Bay, ambiguously going by the online username of "Mr. Spock," wanted to build drones and send them into the air which would allow people to download movies and music through the assistance of wireless radio transmitters. As technology in combating piracy adapts and grows larger, the techniques taken by pirate websites grow sneakier and trickier. While this seems like a focus simply just on the issue of piracy, it's fair to state that is risking free speech rights and the ability of maintaining an "open-forum" atmosphere online worth it to try and curb an intricate, airtight model that will continue to adapt with time? If there's one thing the public and elected officials have gone on to open their eyes to in recent time, it's how quickly technology can evolve on both ends of the spectrum. Proponents of SOPA and PIPA are supporting what the bills intend to do and not what they really will do.
In summation, the idea of potentially filtering content and free speech on the internet is an issue that has been greatly undermined when it would affect more than half of the country and the way they get their information, However, because of an "internet blackout," which caused popular websites like Wikipedia, Reddit, Mozilla, and Google to "go dark" in protest of the aforementioned bills, the bills were brought to a sudden halt in Congress. While the bills were practically dead, the issue remained alive, and just recently, the House of Representatives passed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) in April 2013, which would loosen privacy restrictions on the internet and make the government more "aware" of what an individual was doing on the internet. The bill currently is in the Senate, and its inherent controversy despite its hefty lobbyist price-tag of $84 million leaves it in limbo. It appears that this time around Americans are taking greater action to keep their internet free, being that internet censorship restricts free speech, elbows companies to follow loose legislation, open to interpretation, and greatly limit the creativity and aspirations of young entrepreneurs. Clearly, the movement is more trouble and torment than it's worth, but that fact still doesn't seem to get through the heads and minds of the U.S. Congress, which stands by their decision to restrict those who use a medium they're not wholly familiar with.
We should all fight against internet censorship. any government should leave internet freedom alone.
ReplyDelete