How Should Humanity Run the Internet?

[HellsingerAngel]

I apologize, in advance, if this has been done. It's a very broad topic for the search bar to catch.

There are so many threads on debatable topics these days about how the Internet should be that I thought it might be time to take a step back and really think about it. As we know it, the World Wide Web has become a very vast, untamed piece of space that, for the most part, as no real governing law about it. Because it spans internationally with almost complete anonymity, it has become a place to both be celebrated and feared by certain circles. However, I'm sure we all have a bone to pick with how the Internet is, so I ask everyone: what are your thoughts on how we progress the World Wide Web from here?

Should there be something in existance akin to the "Internet Police Department" who is staffed by people who get paid to enforce laws on the Internet? If there are laws to be placed, should they be determined by a body of people such as the U.N., the Internet Service Providers, or someone else in high authority? What should those laws be? Should there be official penalties for minors viewing adult content? Should we get rid of our anonymity in favour of bringing actual ownership to what we say and do, or should anonymity be a privledge to those that do not abuse it? Should we organize certain age groups to play video games together (ex. for a 13+ rated game, ages 13-19 all play together, ages 20-30 all play together, etc) to avoid the spread of argivation it seems to create, or should this be an optional feature within games over the internet themselves?

I'm sure there are a lot more topics to be covered and I welcome anyone to add points as they see fit. The only thing I ask, because this is a discussion point, is that there be a reasoning behind the opinion so that people may discuss your thoughts on the topic. So, what do you think should be done?

 

[zfactor]

To answer your questions in order: I have no idea where the internet is going, there should be no laws about it, no, yay anonymity! No laws because of literally anyone can access it and anyone can modify or host a websit on it, so every country would have to agree to a set of laws (and when has all of humanity ever agreed on anything?).

I am in favor of video game age groups, but they shouldn't be mandatory, you can choose to play on various servers with various age restrictions. Or you can play on whatever server you want.

There is a quote (I am paraphrasing) about the internet: The Internet is the only thing humanity has built that humanity doesn't understand, the largest experiment in anarchy the world has ever seen.

 

[Berethond]

The Internet is the only thing humanity has built that humanity doesn't understand.

But what about Macroeconomics.

 

[The Austin]

We should destroy 4Chan.

 

[Zer_]

To be honest. The Internet should be kept as a neutral zone. The Internet's anarchy is a beautiful thing, and it gives us such awesome things as a result. Obviously, using the internet to break real world laws is a bad thing, and should be punished, but things like censorship, or trying to apply jurisdiction to anything on The Internet should be a huge NO!

 

[HellsingerAngel]

To answer your questions in order: I have no idea where the internet is going, there should be no laws about it, no, yay anonymity! No laws because of literally anyone can access it and anyone can modify or host a websit on it, so every country would have to agree to a set of laws (and when has all of humanity ever agreed on anything?).

So you're pro sexual harassment, hacking(theft), identity theft, verbal abuse, graphic violence and slander so long as it's on the internet, even if those are all illegal in all other public places? How harsh.

I am in favor of video game age groups, but they shouldn't be mandatory, you can choose to play on various servers with various age restrictions. Or you can play on whatever server you want.

While I agree you can switch servers on PC games, what about dedicated servers like Xbox Live where that would be a more prevelent issue?

 

[Baneat]

That sounds almost dystopic. The internet should be a free exchange of ideals, It shows how when people are left to their own without nannying they produce incredible things. Granted, there are dark corners, but that's no reason to punish the vast, vast majority.

 

[Kortney]

I think it's fine how it is now to be honest. There is a large degree of anonymity, but if you are doing something really illegal like making a snuff porn website and things of that severity then I'm fine with you being arrested for it. Really, anything you are doing on the internet that is causing other people harm then I'm all for you going down for it.

 

[Not-here-anymore]

Just as in real life, it's remarkably easy (easier, even) to simply lie about age, location etc... on the internet. It's sheer size makes it largely impossible to police for anything but the most noticeable or reported crimes.
The idea of people running/policing the internet is just a dream - it could not be done without withdrawing a noticeable portion of the population from real life, and just having them trawl the web for illegalities and inconsistencies. It's not economically or socially feasible.
Furthermore, I'm rather fond of the anonymity the internet lends, at least in principle. As long as content inappropriate for minors is labelled as such, nothing needs to be changed. (I'm aware that that won't stop anyone who wants to access such content, but it does at least prevent accidental discovery of it)

EDIT: The internet is a perfect view into the anarchy that hides behind humanity. Unrestricted, unfettered, anonymous chaos! It's beautiful, in a strange way. And chaos isn't necessarily a bad thing. Great leaders and influential demagogues will come from the mists of the web in the future - I look forward to seeing what the world will be like when the generations that have seen most of this anonymity come to power! Possibly because I'm a blind optimist, but we shall see.

 

[HellsingerAngel]

I think it's fine how it is now to be honest. There is a large degree of anonymity, but if you are doing something really illegal like making a snuff porn website and things of that severity then I'm fine with you being arrested for it. Really, anything you are doing on the internet that is causing other people harm then I'm all for you going down for it.

But that can be difficult to find. Child pornography sites, both digital and real, are still difficult to pin down, but somehow get plenty of business. Should we not have a similar investigative force dedicated solely to the Internet to help bring these sorts of things down?

To be honest. The Internet should be kept as a neutral zone. The Internet's anarchy is a beautiful thing, and it gives us such awesome things as a result. Obviously, using the internet to break real world laws is a bad thing, and should be punished, but things like censorship, or trying to apply jurisdiction to anything on The Internet should be a huge NO!

Unfortunately, "real world laws" varey wildly. What is illegal in one country (ex. priating) is not in another, but would you not say that it is still potentially harmful how the Internet can copy and spread ideas for free which are meant to be profited from? The fact that anything you do that can be reporduced digitally you may never see any credit what so ever for? Do you not see the potential of a governing force to regulate these sorts of things?

That sounds almost dystopic. The internet should be a free exchange of ideals, It shows how when people are left to their own without nannying they produce incredible things. Granted, there are dark corners, but that's no reason to punish the vast, vast majority.

Dystopic isn't really the right term, here. Dystopic suggests that corperations govern us, so that a select few rule the many. Besides, those are not my views. This is a thought experiment. I'm asking what your ideas are, not for you to comment on my proposed ones.

Speaking of dystopian points, wouldn't it be wildto have some sort of political system with parties putting their candidacy up every X amount of years to run the Internet their way. Like a government to form laws and we all go on some dedicated site and vote for whoever we think should be in charge of putting through laws. Something to think about, no?

 

[Ham_authority95]

"How should humanity run the internet?" you ask...

We shouldn't.

 

[HellsingerAngel]

Just as in real life, it's remarkably easy (easier, even) to simply lie about age, location etc... on the internet. It's sheer size makes it largely impossible to police for anything but the most noticeable or reported crimes.
The idea of people running/policing the internet is just a dream - it could not be done without withdrawing a noticeable portion of the population from real life, and just having them trawl the web for illegalities and inconsistencies. It's not economically or socially feasible.

Considering this has been achieved by around ten thousand people on 4Chan over and over again, as well as local programs such as Crime Stoppers (http://www.canadiancrimestoppers.org/) I don't think it's that farfetched at all. While I understand the internet is vast, every governing body on the planet has some sort of policing force - sometimes several! - in which to control the populace. We're talking about something on a global scale, here. We have billions of people to choose from. Again, I think it could be a very real possibility if humanity wished it to be.

Furthermore, I'm rather fond of the anonymity the internet lends, at least in principle. As long as content inappropriate for minors is labelled as such, nothing needs to be changed. (I'm aware that that won't stop anyone who wants to access such content, but it does at least prevent accidental discovery of it)

So it's ok for websites to profit off of minors, but not legitamit sex shops?

 

[Danzaivar]

If we 'run' the Internet, we're doing something wrong.

 

[Kortney]

But that can be difficult to find. Child pornography sites, both digital and real, are still difficult to pin down, but somehow get plenty of business. Should we not have a similar investigative force dedicated solely to the Internet to help bring these sorts of things down

We already do. Many branches of organisations such as the FBI have an internet focus. As time goes on, we will continue to get more and that's a good thing.

 

[HellsingerAngel]

But that can be difficult to find. Child pornography sites, both digital and real, are still difficult to pin down, but somehow get plenty of business. Should we not have a similar investigative force dedicated solely to the Internet to help bring these sorts of things down

We already do. Many branches of organisations such as the FBI have an internet focus. As time goes on, we will continue to get more and that's a good thing.

Ah, but the FBI don't have juristiction in, say, Canada. And no, Canada does not have an organisation that actively searches out these things unless they are brought to the attention of our governing police forces. So again, what do we do about that? U.S. citizens still have a plentiful access to child pornography and they can only mop up the viewers and not the source.

EDIT: And before you say anything, it takes a very long time and a lot of paperwork for someone like the FBI to give the RCMP a nudge towards taking down a child pornogrpahy site, let alone finding out who's running the operation. By then, someone could easily jump ship and wipe their digital trail before starting up a new business in another crawl space of the internet.

 

[Kortney]

But that can be difficult to find. Child pornography sites, both digital and real, are still difficult to pin down, but somehow get plenty of business. Should we not have a similar investigative force dedicated solely to the Internet to help bring these sorts of things down

We already do. Many branches of organisations such as the FBI have an internet focus. As time goes on, we will continue to get more and that's a good thing.

Ah, but the FBI don't have juristiction in, say, Canada. And no, Canada does not have an organisation that actively searches out these things unless they are brought to the attention of our governing police forces. So again, what do we do about that? U.S. citizens still have a plentiful access to child pornography and they can only mop up the viewers and not the source.

Nah, not entirely true. The FBI gives the local Canadian police force a call and they work together. It's happened many times before. I doubt the Canadians would say "NO THANKS NOT INTERESTED!" and hang up.

The FBI has arrested people in countries with no extradition with the USA before - so I think they can manage with Canada.

But yeah, I get your point. Obviously not all countries have internet protection in place - but as I said it's something that will come with time. The internet has only been in mainstream use for a few years now. Unfortunately though, something else that will come with time is the commercialisation of the internet and censorship. We can all forget torrent sites in 20 years time. Mark my words.

 

[HellsingerAngel]

Nah, not entirely true. The FBI gives the local Canadian police force a call and they work together. It's happened many times before. I doubt the Canadians would say "NO THANKS NOT INTERESTED!" and hang up.

The FBI has arrested people in countries with no extradition with the USA before - so I think they can manage with Canada.

But yeah, I get your point. Obviously not all countries have internet protection in place - but as I said it's something that will come with time. The internet has only been in mainstream use for a few years now. Unfortunately though, something else that will come with time is the commercialisation of the internet and censorship. We can all forget torrent sites in 20 years time. Mark my words.

So, you do have some discussion underneath you, there. Obviously if you invision regulations being placed within our lifetime, you must have some thoughts on where the Internet is going. Do you see something like an IPD coming about? Who do you think would regulate them? Do you agree that a governing force with wider juristiction would be better or worse? This is just a thought experiement, don't be shy! You are, afterall, semi-anonymous.

 

[gigastar]

It seems this way is the best way:
ALOT of interconnected servers maintained by people who left the outside world for so long theyve begun to think sunlight is something you taste.

EVEN MORE people charging about creating websites in strive for self recognition.

~2000000000 people doing things from hacking to posting snappy remarks such as the one about nolifers at the start of this post.

 

[HellsingerAngel]

"How should humanity run the internet?" you ask...

We shouldn't.

Why not? What could we possibly gain from being 100% anarchical about a public domain that we would not if we put some general limitations (no gambling unless 18, no child porn, no pornography unless certain warning and checks are met) on what can be done on the Internet? I understand this is a very large concept and even the smallest of changes would mean a fundamental shift in how we think about the internet, but this is just all theoretical and you can change as much as you can fathom! For people who believe that the Internet is a place of freedom and open mindedness, you're all fairly conformist and tight-lipped about your opinions.

 

[Kortney]

So, you do have some discussion underneath you, there.

That makes you sound ridiculously elitist.

Obviously if you invision regulations being placed within our lifetime, you must have some thoughts on where the Internet is going.

Maybe that's why I post in the thread. Your original question however wasn't "where is the internet going" it was "how should we run the internet" and I answered that. So, don't act like I'm only now complying with the thread .

Do you see something like an IPD coming about?

Do I see something like initiative for policy dialogue? Dude, what is IPD? You can't just use uncommon acronyms willy nilly like that! I'm going to guess you mean an internet police department. If you are talking about that, then no. Having a completely different sect of law enforcement creates inefficiency. The best way internet "policing" works (as evident in pretty much all Western world countries - except Canada it seems) is to have a part of the Federal (not local or state) intelligence/police program dedicated to doing it. That way efficiency is maximised and they are already working with a very effective branch of law enforcement/intelligence so they can share resources and work together. It also means that any discovery a local police force makes, it can go up the chain - inside of side to side and up and down and diagonal.

Who do you think would regulate them?

Well, as I said I would put them inside a federal source of power. It's anther reason why that's the most effective way of doing it because regulation is already there.

Do you agree that a governing force with wider juristiction would be better or worse?

An International internet police department (which, for all I know, you may have meant that with IPD) doesn't work. International anything doesn't work - humanity already knows this. That's why international law isn't enforceable. Different religions, cultures, geography and above all state sovereignty prevents that.