Slashdot Log In
No Space for MySpace?
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri May 12, 2006 03:23 PM
from the gotta-keep-connected dept.
from the gotta-keep-connected dept.
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.
Related Stories
[+]
Politics: Politicians Target Social Sites For Restrictions 497 comments
cnet-declan writes "Politicians are looking for reasons to convince citizens to vote in November, and polls say suburban parents are worried about the internet. Wednesday top House Republicans announced a bill to make 'social' Web sites unreachable from schools and libraries. The bill is intended to go after MySpace, but the actual text of the legislation covers sites that let users 'create profiles' and have a 'forum' for conversations -- which would include Slashdot and many blog sites. House Speaker Dennis Hastert claims it's necessary to stop 'dangerous predators' out here on the Interweb."
[+]
Politics: Illinois Bill Would Ban Social Networking Sites 293 comments
AlexDV writes "Library blogger Michael Stephens is reporting that an Illinois state senator, Matt Murphy (R-27, Palatine), has filed a bill that 'Creates the Social Networking Web site Prohibition Act. Provides that each public library must prohibit access to social networking Web sites on all computers made available to the public in the library. Provides that each public school must prohibit access to social networking Web sites on all computers made available to students in the school.' Here is the bill's full text."
This local effort harks back to an attempt last May to get federal legislation banning school and library use of social networking sites (Wikipedia summary here). The DOPA bill passed the House but died in the Senate.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
1st Ammendment? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
After all, what is email but user-created content that is then shared with others?
Re:1st Ammendment? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:1st Ammendment? (Score:2)
-Rick
Re:1st Ammendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:1st Ammendment? (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Censorship Questions Arise (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Censorship Questions Arise (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
It's aimed soley at institutions that receive money from the "Universal Service Discount" program, y'know that "fee" or "tax" that is added onto your phone bill every month. This money is
Re:Censorship Questions Arise (Score:4, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wouldn't this cover any web-hosting service?
Re:No user-created content? (Score:2, Funny)
Wouldn't this cover any web-hosting service?
Hell, isn't a school a site [answers.com] that enables users to create their own content and share it?
-Grey [wellingtongrey.net]
Re:No user-created content? (Score:2)
Re:No user-created content? (Score:2)
Wouldn't this cover any web-hosting service?
Or e-mail? Ha ha.
Mike.
DOPA? (Score:5, Funny)
China (Score:5, Funny)
Like all politics... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Like all politics... (Score:2)
Neat! (Score:4, Insightful)
Porn in the Library (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Porn in the Library (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Porn in the Library (Score:2, Funny)
No, it has one of those anti-glare filters. If I had a nickel for every time I've lost an erection as a result of glare on the screen blocking my view of teh pr0n, I could rent me some high class
Re:Porn in the Library (Score:2)
Since when does the peepshow loan out books?
Let the schools do it themselves. (Score:2)
Someone I knew found out the admin password by watching him type it because he lost the password to his account. He used it to change the school's homepage to a websense looki
wrong end of the stick? (Score:3, Insightful)
oh rihgt, cause those that follow the rules are much easier to controll, and if they cant vote, all the better
Web 1.0 (Score:2)
I thought "Web 2.0" was supposed to mean the new "Ajax powered" web, where people use Javascr
Re:Web 1.0 (Score:2)
Re:Web 1.0 (Score:4, Funny)
</i>
Why is this that big a deal. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Why is this that big a deal. (Score:2)
Why? If his manager feels the need to blog that, that's his manager's decision. But if he's going to slack off all day doing crap like that, chances are if yo
Most Schools Already (Fail To) Do This Already (Score:4, Insightful)
can you regulate the internet? (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Rupert and Hillary, sittin' in a tree... (Score:2)
Murdoch owns MySpace.
Hmmmmm....
Why don't they just skip this step... (Score:2)
Brainless kids online (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
We Already Do That (Score:2)
It's a fabulous idea! (Score:3, Funny)
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.)
Wikipedia (Score:3, Insightful)
MySpace is a scapegoat! (Score:3, Interesting)
It's also quite safe if parents take some VERY basic precautions - turn off public viewing of the homepage (so only friends see it) and don't post very personal information (like schools or real names). And, of course, teach your kid not to be a moron.
I'm sick of congress trying to pass legislation to overcome terrible parenting. Parents need to teach their kids better so they won't talk to 30+ year olds or arrange to meet folks they only met online. It's common sense and the parents responsibility.
With VERY basic precautions and common sense, 99.9% of kids are perfectly safe and, when they're not, there are generally alot more serious problems at home than whether or not a kid has a myspace account.
Ignorance Run Amok (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Ignorance Run Amok (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right. It's a case of selective government censorship, which is arguably worse and less constitutionally sound than the rampant kind that applies to everyone.
Since myspace and pedophiles are the topic of the (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be *gasp* legal even.
Federal funding (Score:3, Informative)
1) Offer federal funding to sources of media (schools, libraries).
2) Get them hooked on it.
3) Threaten to cut it off if they don't comply with a freedom of speech limitation.
Really, they could pass any law at all using this technique. Ex: "The president is now above all laws. Any state that does not agree to enforce this loses all state funding."
The federal legislature would never pass a limitation on their own power, but it is possible for the states to propose and pass an amendment without federal support according to Article V [usconstitution.net] of the US constitution. (Note 2 explains this [usconstitution.net])
I suppose that is silly though - the states could just start refusing federal funding. But that isn't likely unless all of them do because no state wants to be at a disadvantage.
Reading TFB... (Score:3, Insightful)
And what I found... wasn't as bad as the news reports made it out to be. Granted, it's still silly and won't stop kids from accessing sites they want to see. But it wouldn't, as now written, ban library access to all of Web 2.0.
The bill would require federally-funded libraries to ban access to Web 2.0 sites through which students:
So if your Web 2.0 sites don't allow readers to "easily access" the bad stuff, you are clear.
*Of course* the devil be in dem der details. Which still makes this bill a lousy idea. But it wouldn't force librarians to shut down access to every discussion board and group blog on the Web.
Federal funding is federal power (Score:3, Insightful)
This same sort of abuse happens in all sorts of ways. Look at how federally-funded scientists don't get to work on certain problems in biotech, or how states containing federally-funded roads (i.e. all of them) have to have a certain drinking age -- whether the people who live and vote there want it or not.
If we make the feds stop taxing us, so we can afford to send the money to our state governments to fund our schools instead, then this kind of abuse will not be possible. So the next time some politician running for a federal office says, "I want to be the 'education president'" ask him if he's willing to prove it by cutting education funding.
Re:Dupe (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
It falls squarely in the realm of research if your paper is about cutting yourself after listening to Linkin Park or an in-depth analsys about how you