Debate thread.
Simple question.
Let's see if we can get a logical and intelligent debate going here.
Should the internet be exempt from the normal laws of the world. And if so should there be some form of a universal law system? What would the pros and cons of one be.
Let's do this!
Let's see if we can get a logical and intelligent debate going here.
Should the internet be exempt from the normal laws of the world. And if so should there be some form of a universal law system? What would the pros and cons of one be.
Let's do this!
Comments
-
I'd stick to the rules that people have to agree to when singing up for different sites that the site company/organization/etc make up.
Obviously not every site will need to follow the same rules, as some are for kids, some adults.
I mean more of a worldwide law blanket.
Laws against cyber bullying, just like there are laws against real life bullying.
Do you see what I'm saying? -
iShopBellaOo wrote: »I mean more of a worldwide law blanket.
Laws against cyber bullying, just like there are laws against real life bullying.
Do you see what I'm saying?
yea should be some restrictions to what happens on the net.sometimes it does carry over to real life.but at same time i wouldnt want to see it so restricted to where you cant express yourself or share opinions whether its socially acceptable or not. -
Anger_Rising wrote: »yea should be some restrictions to what happens on the net.sometimes it does carry over to real life.but at same time i wouldnt want to see it so restricted to where you cant express yourself or share opinions whether its socially acceptable or not.
The question is how do you draw that line?
Obvious things like adult child material is wrong.
But what do you do about trolling? Trolling would get you in trouble in real life. Why doesn't it on the internet?
I'm not for or against it, but I do understand both sides of it. -
iShopBellaOo wrote: »I mean more of a worldwide law blanket.
Laws against cyber bullying, just like there are laws against real life bullying.
Do you see what I'm saying?
I still facepalm at the fact of some people getting cyberbullied that are older.
But Yes, I think sites themselves should have a certain rulebook, but it shouldn't get into specifics, as that is the sites job as I said, depending on content/age. -
I still facepalm at the fact of some people getting cyberbullied that are older.
But Yes, I think sites themselves should have a certain rulebook, but it shouldn't get into specifics, as that is the sites job as I said, depending on content/age.
So hotbeds for trolling such as encyclopedia dramatica, or 4chan should be allowed to maintain a ToS that allows them near complete freedoms? -
iShopBellaOo wrote: »The question is how do you draw that line?
Obvious things like adult child material is wrong.
But what do you do about trolling? Trolling would get you in trouble in real life. Why doesn't it on the internet?
I'm not for or against it, but I do understand both sides of it.
well deffinatley anything thats abusive to children yea should have serious consequences behind it as im a parent of 4 sons.idk bout trolling or w.e cuz im not exactly a "net" person other then cf and my job.i just dont want everything in life to become tainted by too many rules and laws but at same time yea there are those exceptions to it -
iShopBellaOo wrote: »So hotbeds for trolling such as encyclopedia dramatica, or 4chan should be allowed to maintain a ToS that allows them near complete freedoms?
Like I said there should be a certain simple background for sites to follow, that if they don't, they get put down.
But if someone goes on a site, and they're not ready for what is to come, then that's their fault.
But I do stand that government shouldn't have a big control and set laws for every site to follow, just simple things, but such things as trolling, is dependent on the site, and it should be the sites job. Now something like Child p, should be in the overall, as that is dramatically different. -
I'd say you should let the sites themselve make most of the rules, but within certain limits stated by the governement of the country where the site is based. Those would be things considered illegal in said country.
Why only rules from the country they're based in?
As inhabitant of that country, you are bound by the laws of the country, so any websites made should also follow whatever laws are in order, such as the mentioned CP. You can't enforce a worldwide book of rules for the internet for the simple reason that you would need all governements to approve of them, which is most likely not going to be easy.
Trolling is getting more and more media attention, so there might be some laws about it in the future. I think now the only laws are for cases where there's suicide involved... And sites like 4chan should keep their liberty for a few reasons imo. First of all, it gives people a place to troll. A place with the unlimited power of being anonymous. Only downside for some people: you don't get credit for your trolling, even if you troll it for years. Secondly, 4chan is known for being a home to trolls. Most people that go to 4chan are aware of that. So you might say it is their own fault if they get trolled and can't stand it.
So I'd say sites should follow a country-based set of rules, with total liberty within the boundaries of said rules. -
Most of the media cases of trolling amuse me, most of them are kids getting bullied on facebook. Ever heard of the block button?
But that also brings up a problem.
The internet is a international entity, if you had to conform to the laws the server was based in you would have to learn the laws of all of the countries that run servers you frequent, it would be completely illogical, perhaps a basic worldwide guideline each country would mandate, and then be able to add to it further, like for China who are known for their black lists. -
HostileB3aSt wrote: »read the bill of rights, the 9th ammendamant, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
We are not discussing American politics here.
The intent of this is a worldwide ruleset on the internet, the bill of rights doesn't apply to the world. -
iShopBellaOo wrote: »Most of the media cases of trolling amuse me, most of them are kids getting bullied on facebook. Ever heard of the block button?
But that also brings up a problem.
The internet is a international entity, if you had to conform to the laws the server was based in you would have to learn the laws of all of the countries that run servers you frequent, it would be completely illogical, perhaps a basic worldwide guideline each country would mandate, and then be able to add to it further, like for China who are known for their black lists.
You wouldn't, it would be the sites' responsability to make sure the rules are followed. I mean the rules of the country and their own rules. e.g.: Z8 forum has a rule against promoting illegal activity, ranging from game cheats to stuff like pirating movies. Because it is one of their rules, they are supposed to make sure it is followed.
In other cases (when the rules of its country are not mentioned in the ToS/rules of the site), there might still be the chance that someone would blame them for what he did wrong on said site. Most sites don't like being sued... -
Phillybear wrote: »You wouldn't, it would be the sites' responsability to make sure the rules are followed. I mean the rules of the country and their own rules. e.g.: Z8 forum has a rule against promoting illegal activity, ranging from game cheats to stuff like pirating movies. Because it is one of their rules, they are supposed to make sure it is followed.
In other cases (when the rules of its country are not mentioned in the ToS/rules of the site), there might still be the chance that someone would blame them for what he did wrong on said site. Most sites don't like being sued...
I see what your saying, but even so, wouldn't merely a short generalized ruleset of international internet usage work?
a "ten commandments" of the internet?
Upon which each individual country could further add rules and restrictions? -
iShopBellaOo wrote: »I see what your saying, but even so, wouldn't merely a short generalized ruleset of international internet usage work?
a "ten commandments" of the internet?
Upon which each individual country could further add rules and restrictions?
That should certainly be possible. But each country would have to see those rules as necessary anyway (or at least not disagree with them), so wouldn't they be part of their respective rulesets already?
On the other hand... a basic international ruleset would be a good base for working towards a larger ruleset, always open for growth if all countries agree.
But what if a country changes its mind after a few years? Like with a new governement, that sees one of the rules as too restrictive or outdated? -
-
Phillybear wrote: »That should certainly be possible. But each country would have to see those rules as necessary anyway (or at least not disagree with them), so wouldn't they be part of their respective rulesets already?
On the other hand... a basic international ruleset would be a good base for working towards a larger ruleset, always open for growth if all countries agree.
But what if a country changes its mind after a few years? Like with a new governement, that sees one of the rules as too restrictive or outdated?
Countries often come together to review the terms of treaties.
And the "internet ruleset" could possibly becoming a true international ruleset starting to bring together other countries. -
iShopBellaOo wrote: »Countries often come together to review the terms of treaties.
True, true.iShopBellaOo wrote: »And the "internet ruleset" could possibly becoming a true international ruleset starting to bring together other countries.
Could you explain it a bit more? Not exactly sure what you mean... -
Phillybear wrote: »True, true.
Could you explain it a bit more? Not exactly sure what you mean...
Creating a international guideline for the internet could lead to other countries beginning to work together to work international rules in real life.
Essentially one ruleset governing all countries, but at the same time maintaining flexibility to allow the countries government to maintain control of their laws. -
iShopBellaOo wrote: »So hotbeds for trolling such as encyclopedia dramatica, or 4chan should be allowed to maintain a ToS that allows them near complete freedoms?
Why not, you have to abide by these same rules when you walk in to a McDonald's or a Bank, or a Government Building, or a Public Library.
Heck, even the Transit commission here in Toronto owns the space around a Bus Stop that says you can't smoke on TTC Property.
While I agree the higher level laws on the internet create very scary scenarios. For example, the recent proposal that gives the President of the USA an internet "kill switch" I think is just dumb. You can't stop information, and the social network that is the internet. One person in the world should not be able to control communication like that. (this is in the same way I don't agree with some out-side censoring of the internet as a whole from some countries).
But in the context of being able to say what you want on a private portion of a website remains very true.
This site, for example is purchased and is a little tiny corner of the internet where people can talk about Cross Fire (among other things). But because it is a private section of the internet we (the people who own the site) govern the laws that take place on it.
It's no different than running in to a book store, yelling at the top of your lungs and screaming a bunch of racist or offensive comments. Chances are security is going to ask you to quiet down, or leave. And if you persist then more authorities will be brought in.
Freedom of speech is a buzz word quoted out of context too many times, the INTERNET is a place for free speech, but that's like saying you can't stop me from yelling something on the street. No we can't stop you from going outside and yelling something on the street. But if it affects others, (businesses in this case) then they can take some sort of action against that. -
Should add, that response is directed to some of the earlier posts in the thread.
The higher thought of having some sort of internet ruleset I think is virtually impossible to police.
I'm inclined to think that it's a pipe dream to expect the amount of people on the internet to abide by a set of rules.
Being on the internet in a less-anonymous way would most certainly solve some of those problems though. For example, in some parts of Asia you have to use your government ID numbers to log in to games and on the internet.
Therefore it eliminates anything bad because you can actually be arrested for internet crimes.
With the anonymity the rest of the world seems to have with getting on the net I doubt you could make a set of rules people would follow unless the above happens. -
It would be way easier to create a ruleset for the internet than for the entire world... There are simply too many differences on too many fields, economic, religious, political, even ethnic differences all stand in the way of a global ruleset.iShopBellaOo wrote: »Creating a international guideline for the internet could lead to other countries beginning to work together to work international rules in real life.
Essentially one ruleset governing all countries, but at the same time maintaining flexibility to allow the countries government to maintain control of their laws.
The internet generally doesn't have all these fields, making it easier to state some global rules there. You could bring the EU up as an example, but that is far from perfect. And they don't have to find agreements between communist and capitalist countries for example.
The thing with making international agreements is that there will always be at least one side trying to push their values deeper into the international ruleset or trying to get more control/benefit. If you go global, you meet radical oppositions, that possibly can't find an agreement. -
I agree with most of what you said saidin, except for one thing, websites like 4chan and encyclopedia dramatica aren't simply small corners of the internet, they affect most websites, starting a revolution on 4chan can heavily effect other websites as was proven multiple times, but most notably the lukeywes/youtube incident.
Based on what you said, 4chan should be able to have a ToS that allow the people within their forums complete freedoms, to start riots that effect other websites around them.
That's like saying one bus company has the freedom for all their passengers to go stand in front of a rival companies bus, just because they can. -
The internet relies on being semi-free. When it starts being charged, this idea, this whole notion shatters. Reading about an internet kill switch is virtually impossible. In fact, it is impossible, as people will find a way to bring back everything online. And That also doesn't mean that people will find another way. For example, how many illegal sites are there? How many controversial topics remain on the internet? Even 12-chan, has rumours in the deepest corners about being re-hosted and re-hidden.
You can't stop the internet, and only laws that extend to the physical effect of the internet can be applied. (eg-cyberbullying carries on to if they are also bullied in real life)
What happens in the Internet, stays in the internet, on your own risk.
As well as that, 4chan is huge. It's similar to the idea of Inception, it just needs one small idea to start mountains rolling. Granted, i doubt most people would know about it, but 4chan is...
It's omni present. -
Actually alpha, it is impossible, even our government doesn't have the power to order an immediate disconnect of private buisnesses services to citizens.
We could just use a direct ip connection instead of routing through a DNS.
Obamas an idiot who most likely uses a mac. -
[GM]Saidin wrote: »The higher thought of having some sort of internet ruleset I think is virtually impossible to police.
I'm inclined to think that it's a pipe dream to expect the amount of people on the internet to abide by a set of rules.
Being on the internet in a less-anonymous way would most certainly solve some of those problems though. For example, in some parts of Asia you have to use your government ID numbers to log in to games and on the internet.
Therefore it eliminates anything bad because you can actually be arrested for internet crimes.
With the anonymity the rest of the world seems to have with getting on the net I doubt you could make a set of rules people would follow unless the above happens.
That is why I think that the sites should make sure the rules are followed. If they don't, the site can be removed or fined. Though this would punish the wrong person, it would keep the rules policed.
It would look like: World makes ruleset, each country polices its sites, each site polices its users.
For serious crimes on the internet, people are already being tracked down and prosecuted (again CP as example). An international ruleset, policed by each country would not change that... It would even be as easy/hard to police as a country-based ruleset. -
Phillybear wrote: »That is why I think that the sites should make sure the rules are followed. If they don't, the site can be removed or fined. Though this would punish the wrong person, it would keep the rules policed.
It would look like: World makes ruleset, each country polices its sites, each site polices its users.
For serious crimes on the internet, people are already being tracked down and prosecuted (again CP as example). An international ruleset, policed by each country would not change that... It would even be as easy/hard to police as a country-based ruleset.
More than that, the international ruleset would prevent another wikileaks.
All the countries would track him down together instead of some countries with no extradition laws sheltering him. -
iShopBellaOo wrote: »I agree with most of what you said saidin, except for one thing, websites like 4chan and encyclopedia dramatica aren't simply small corners of the internet, they affect most websites, starting a revolution on 4chan can heavily effect other websites as was proven multiple times, but most notably the lukeywes/youtube incident.
Based on what you said, 4chan should be able to have a ToS that allow the people within their forums complete freedoms, to start riots that effect other websites around them.
That's like saying one bus company has the freedom for all their passengers to go stand in front of a rival companies bus, just because they can.
You could say the same about facebook or any social network site. Just think about groups like "If this get X likes, Mr. Y shaves his hair in a swastika". Ok, they won't generate the exact same mass as 4chan and illegal stuff can be stopped easier. But the possibility is there.
Facebook isn't made for that purpose, but the same goes for 4chan....
![[MOD]Rex](https://z8games.akamaized.net/cfna/forum/customavatars/68/navatar_3617368.gif){kind=avatar}
Categories
- All Categories
- Z8Games
- Off-Topic - Go To Game OT Forums
- 1 Z8 Forum Discussion & Suggestions
- 16 Z8Games Announcements
- Rules & Conduct
- 5.2K CrossFire
- 951 CrossFire Announcements
- 942 Previous Announcements
- 2 Previous Patch Notes
- 1.4K Community
- 122 Modes
- 600 Suggestions
- 85 Clan Discussion and Recruitment
- 274 CF Competitive Forum
- 19 CFCL
- 26 Looking for a Team?
- 702 CrossFire Support
- 52 Suggestion
- 116 Bugs
- 28 CrossFire Guides
- 166 Technical Issues
- 47 CrossFire Off Topic