No Space for MySpace?

conq writes "BusinessWeek looks at the flaws in the bill proposed by the House of Representatives that would block access to social networks and Internet chat rooms in most federally funded schools and libraries. One big problem with their bill is it is much too vague, it 'could rule out content from any number of Internet companies, including Yahoo! and Google.' What's more, DOPA would prohibit sites that enable users to create their own content and share it. That covers a wide swath of the online world, known colloquially as Web 2.0, where users actively create everything from blogs to videos to news-page collections." This is analysis of a bill we covered yesterday.

1st Ammendment?

[renehollan (138013)]

"What's more, DOPA would prohibit sites that enable users to create their own content and share it".

There's something "Freedom of Speechish" about that that doesn't sound quite right. What's the argument going to be? "No, we aren't preventing speech about topic X -- we're preventing all speech". Riiiiight.

Re:1st Ammendment?

[EvilMagnus (32878)]

Sounds like it'd ban email, too.

After all, what is email but user-created content that is then shared with others?

Re:1st Ammendment?

[smbarbour (893880)]

Wouldn't your contact list be your own private social network as well?

Re:1st Ammendment?

[pete6677 (681676)]

Unfortunately it is becoming all to common for politicians to pass legislation on subjects they know nothing about with disastrous consequences. Remember the DMCA, and the Communications Decency Act of 1995?

Re:1st Ammendment?

[Cromac (610264)]

How many republicans blame the internet for shining a light on what they're doing and thereby raising public awareness and undermining their popularity?

Probably about as many as there were Democrats complaining about the same thing in the 2004 election when people were finding out all about Kerry.

Censorship Questions Arise

[Salty Moran (974208)]

The argument is that it's "federally-funded" areas that are being targetted for enforcement, but wouldn't that amount to the government selectively banning content from the public? In which case wouldn't it be easy-pickings for a lawsuit over first amendment rights?

Re:Censorship Questions Arise

[fireboy1919 (257783)]

Not at schools. The government has decided that anybody is basically allowed to do anything they like to students.

You have no protection against search&seizure, no accused rights, and no first - and absolutely definitely no second ammendment rights.

The logic is that until your old enough those rights really belong to your parents - which is why most of the initial punishments in school involve sending the kid home. If someone does something to you at school it is assumed that your parents sanction it because they go there and have access to the school board.

Along the same lines, however, parents are generally allowed to say that they don't want a particular book to be in a school library (like "Heather Has Two Mommies") or do want it despite a librarian's insistence that it's inappropriate (as I've actually seen come up with "Harry Potter").

I don't see how they're justifying general public libraries, though.

Re:Censorship Questions Arise

[Golias (176380)]

What's incredibly short-sighted about this bill is that the Internet is not, and never was, intended to be a tool for one-way information gathering. Plenty of such tools already exist. The value of the Internet is a direct result of the fact that it is a means of two-way communication.

MySpace gets used for a lot of frivolous blogs and teen flirting, but it's silly the way it's being scapegoated. Just as with AOL chat a few years ago, the bogeyman of a Creepy Old Guy wanting to run off with your teenager keeps getting trotted out, but the vast majority of statuatory rape cases are going on in homes, with family members or close friends of the family.

Where's the crack-down on a dad's 40-year old drinking buddy slipping upstairs to visit his daughter during a back-yard BBQ? That's the *real* teen abuse problem.

For the most part, there are no "strangers in the bushes" to worry about, and the way to guard against such rare cases is to teach your teen some sense.

Look, princess: The grown-up who wants to hook up with you at a motel is not "cool". If he was "cool" he could find women his own age to sleep with. He's a LOSER, and you should stay away from him. Now, have fun chatting with your pals on MySpace, but remember that I have a profile on your Friends list, and will check in from time to time. There will be consequences for misbehavior.

This bill would do absolutely nothing to protect children. Irresponsible kids and their adult predators will simply move to a different medium to hook up, such as text messaging on cell phone networks. I'd like to think that those behind this bill are simply ignorant of that fact. If you live in Michael Fitzpatrick's Congressional district, please write to him and explain that fact.

No user-created content?

[lawpoop (604919)]

"DOPA would prohibit sites that enable users to create their own content and share it."

Wouldn't this cover any web-hosting service?

DOPA?

[windex (92715)]

Why not just call it DOPY, so we get a better picture of what the politicians are thinking.

China

[McGiraf (196030)]

That's it! I'm moving to China.

Like all politics...

[Moqui (940533)]

Oh crap, my constituents are upset again about something. Let's knee-jerk a bill together that is ill-defined and problematic. God knows it won't ever pass, but it looks like we did something!

Neat!

[by Anonymous Coward]

So Congress gets to bask in the glow of the "protect the children" big lie, AND deal a significant blow to that pesky "blogger" problem. This bill is like a politicians' wet dream.

Porn in the Library

[abscissa (136568)]

So it is perfectly legal to view porn in the public library, and they will even give you a special screen to do it... but not myspace?

Re:Porn in the Library

[bloobloo (957543)]

Is the screen special because it is easy to wipe clean?

wrong end of the stick?

[Burlap (615181)]

how about insted of going after the law abiding we go after those who are breaking the law?

oh rihgt, cause those that follow the rules are much easier to controll, and if they cant vote, all the better

Why is this that big a deal.

[Irish_Samurai (224931)]

OK, I can see why a public library might need a little more room to wiggle, I will definitely concede that point - but public schools and those oh so great government jobs? They don't need access to MySpace.

I also have a hard time believing that it isn't vague for specific reasons. Police might need to be able to access these sites for research reasons, as would some Gov't employees tasked with research. You don't want those people restricted in their web access.

You do however want to restrict that moron at the DMV from checking out the American Idol blogs.

This seems to be a common way for legislators to write law that can be selectively enforced.

Ahhh, its moot anyway. These people don't understand what it is they're writing laws for anyway - they just know they have to do something or lose votes.

Most Schools Already (Fail To) Do This Already

[sous_rature (969750)]

The vast majority of high schools and elementary schools in the US (i.e. those with funding to hire someone who knows how to use the internet) already do extensive blocking of this sort of material. The problem is that with proxy sites and other work-arounds this legislation will be no more effective than the policies which are already in place. The flip side is that those teachers who have found innovative ways to use blogging, wiki-ing, and other interactive web media in their teaching won't just be able to go to local officials to clear ideas.

can you regulate the internet?

[davek (18465)]

Does anyone think that there exists sufficient language to regulate ANY activity on the internet? Governments use platforms like child porn and copyright infringement to attemnt to push legislation into the mostly lawless arena of the internet. If any sweeping legislation does get through, who's going to enforce it? Internet police? The logical conclusion is what government does with all other regulation: licence and tax. To optain an IP address, you would need a government supplied license, one which requires signing off on a legally binding agreement, paying a fee for the beurocracy, and a tax for the usage.

I don't see how else you can even think about drafting laws in a lawless arena. The first step for everything is that which China has already made: all ISPs are now 0wned by the government.

-dave

Brainless kids online

[Afrosheen (42464)]

You'd think with the amount of computer literacy children are growing up with these days, they'd have an inkling of paranoia about meeting people from MySpace and other sources. I imagine AOL deals with stuff like this on a daily basis.

  I guess Devo was right, society really is devolving and people are getting dumber overall rather than smarter. Just because a monkey can use a stick to fish ants out of an anthill we think the monkey is smart. But this is the same monkey you can trap by putting food in a glass jar. Therefore, children may appear smarter because they're typing LOL on their computers, but they're still morons at the end of the day.

Re:Brainless kids online

[smellsofbikes (890263)]

I don't think people are devolving. I think kids -- and, let's face it, society at large -- are poor at causality. As Bruce Schneier said in "Beyond Fear", we underestimate the danger of things we know, and overestimate the danger of things we don't know. So, the clueless parents and congresscreatures are scared of MySpace, and the kids who are used to it don't treat it carefully enough. If you're a homely 13-year-old and post pictures of your jammie parties for your friends, and then suddenly you hit puberty and aren't so homely anymore, are you likely to change your behavior? Why would you? Are you likely to have a clue about why people suddenly start treating you differently? This has been happening forEVER. My grandmother remembers working at a restaurant 2 miles from her house, when she was 12 (yeah, a while ago, and she lied about her age because her family was living in a hole in the ground, basically) so she'd just walk through the railyards to get to work. Then she went, rather rapidly, from 'girl' to 'woman' and suddenly she was getting chased by hobos and hassled by railroad cops, and it was probably ten years later that she finally figured out why she'd had to start riding the bus, why suddenly everyone had gotten weird.

Here's an analogy. Think of the people who sit at the x-ray machines looking for bombs in luggage. If they go 10,000 bags without seeing a bomb, they're quite likely to not notice a bomb in the 10,001th bag. Same thing with kids online, only with them it's probably more like 100 before their attention to hinky behavior has completely disappeared.

Re:Brainless kids online

[JimBobJoe (2758)]

You'd think with the amount of computer literacy children are growing up with these days, they'd have an inkling of paranoia about meeting people from MySpace and other sources.

And actually, I believe they do. The problem is media/politician spin.

A 50 year old who harrasses a 14 year old at a mall is a dirty old man, but in the same event happening via Myspace and AIM the 50 year old is a "sexual predator." The reality of course is that the online event is much safer (after all, the 14 year old is behind a monitor at an unknown location and is in complete control over the situation) but is newer and easier to misunderstand.

I contend that meeting people online first then meeting them in real life is far safer than meeting them in real life first--profiles and conversation (both online and on the phone) will give clues to the nature and personality of the person you're meeting--all of which you don't have the luxury of if you just meet them in real life first.

It's a fabulous idea!

[underpope (952425)]

I think this is a fantastic idea. Like most of the current Administration's plans regarding public schools, any such project regarding control of Internet access should NOT be funded by the federal government. Eventually, the schools will be spending so much money and dedicating so many resources to federally-required Internet restrictions and such that they won't be able to spend any money on any actual education. Et voilá! All those students grow up to become Republican neocon Bush supporters!

It's absolutely brilliant!

(And a quick note to those who will inevitably mark this as "Flamebait" or "Troll" -- I've already run this past my many Republican friends, and they all found it funny. Of course, they're all college educated and they all hate Bush, too. And reality, as we all know, has a well-known liberal bias.)

Ignorance Run Amok

[panda (10044)]

Please, mod most of the Insightful posts above as "overrated." The posters simply don't know what they are talking about, though I can't blame them because TFA never mentions this part of it.

If you read the bill, the requirement IS NOT that all schools and libraries block access to the websites, but only those that receive funding under the Universal Service Discount program. If a school or library does not receive that money, and IIRC the majority do not, then they are not required to block access to any sites, nor filter any content that is deemed "harmful to minors."

This isn't a case of rampant government censorship, but of Congress placing conditions on the money that it doles out. If you run an affected institution and don't like the consequences, then don't accept the money.

Re:Web 1.0

[Dr. Cody (554864)]

Another innovation from Web 2.0:

</i>