Thread: How would you regulate the internet?

We have never had a need for it to be regulated outside of basic laws. No selling unmarked/illegal guns and weapons, drugs, children, etc. and all that stuff you find on the dark web. It seems like people are getting a bit out of control when it comes to commerce online and this is heavily tied into politics right now. People are being kicked off of GoFundMe, Paypal, Mastercard Visa, and Patreon. Some have lost all means to make a living online and because of the smears to their name, very few people will hire them in person.

How would you regulate the internet to keep things completely fair for everyone? Do you think it is necessary?

Originally Posted by KorinKitty

How would you regulate the internet to keep things completely fair for everyone? Do you think it is necessary?

I wouldn't. Or more specifically I wouldn't add anything beyond what's already been put into place. The internet was just fine 20 years ago when lawmakers didn't understand it. The main change I would make is to force ISPs into becoming a utility (ie. they can't decide who to serve and who not to serve, just like water and electric). While I have the utmost respect for private businesses doing what they want to do, most ISPs (and content hosting services like Google/YouTube) are already heavily tied into the government and are highly subsidized by your tax dollars to operate. They pull TONS of electricity off the grid, use up vast swathes of land...forcing them to give me a connection to host/view whatever I want (short of what is illegal to view/possess in the first place) is what I want. As things are, these companies that provide the majority of Internet services hold a monopoly on the service itself AND how you get to use it.

I'm hardly looking for open season dumping grounds as that's not what the internet is...


I think it can be hard to draw the line. You can buy a child on the dark web? That's news to me. Who would want to pay for one? (Selling, on the other hand... ) Anyway, I think adhering to "basic laws" is mostly as far as what's needed. Were it up to me, I'd be less strict about piracy. If people want to pirate, they'll pirate. DRM as a result of regulations can ruin the experience for genuine buyers. However much regulation there is, with our currently technology there will always be grey and black markets. Even if somehow Tor and the deep/dark web could be eliminated there are already other avenues for illegal activities that are virtually untraceable. There's only so much regulation that's actually possible.

Surface web though, which the 99.99% use, I wouldn't really care a lot about that either. I'm talking about more recent arrests from mean words on Twitter, etc. Offensive words should never have to be regulated on a social media platform. Having said that, anything that alludes to acts of terrorism are a different story. Regardless of race and religion this kind of information should be passed onto the authorities. OOPS! British authorities don't really do anything about this kind of thing. Radicalised aspiring terrorists have been monitored in the past, but rarely action is taken before another incident. So my stance is pretty clear there. These kinds of comments (and domains/websites) should be heavily regulated. But a mere opinion or so-called "hate speech", nah. (Fun fact: OSN was hacked by ISIS once. It was weird as hell.)

SERIES OF TUBES!!

This would have to be some sort of live INTERNET MANS COMMITTEEUIEUE discussion with me dressed as Hitler or something for me to get my ideas across.

Although what Zemekis said is very relevant. Not so much in UK markets but the US is plagued with shitty ISPs.

Originally Posted by BaronOfStuff

SERIES OF TUBES!!

This would have to be some sort of live INTERNET MANS COMMITTEEUIEUE discussion with me dressed as Hitler or something for me to get my ideas across.

Although what Zemekis said is very relevant. Not so much in UK markets but the US is plagued with shitty ISPs.

If you dressed as Hitler, depending on where you live, you might get put in prison. Even if it was to be funny or meant for comedic purposes. That is actually scary. I am thankful the US still cares enough about free speech and expression.

Originally Posted by KorinKitty

If you dressed as Hitler, depending on where you live, you might get put in prison. Even if it was to be funny or meant for comedic purposes. That is actually scary. I am thankful the US still cares enough about free speech and expression.

United Kingdom. I'd get away with it no problem if it was presented comically.

Unless every single limp-wristed self-loathing white liberal prick complained, which they probably would. Even then, parody would most likely keep me clean. So look out for the sequel!

I wouldn't regulate what can be done. At least for the most part.
If someone threatens harm, and there's credible evidence, arrest that bastard. But if someone's doing something to be funny and trolly, then you should let them. The internet is supposed to be a place where you can say anything you want with anonymity But now it's a place where if you say one bad thing, your entire career on the internet can be destroyed.
That being said, Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from Consequences. You can say whatever the fuck you want on the internet, but people can in turn call you whatever they want in response. I just feel it's not right to ban someone for saying/doing something "offensive", especially considering how many things are considered "offensive" now. It's sickening how pussified some people have become.
I think most people here know the story of Count Dankula, who was arrested for making his wife's "wee dog" react to him saying Sieg Heil. Now, without context, that seems bad. But Danky mentioned in the video that he wanted to make the super cute dog do the most uncute thing in the world, and that's be a Nazi.
Of course the regressive media blasphemed him, and blacklisted him from tons of events, and are STILL hounding anyone that tries to hire him. All because he made a cute dog be a Nazi.

What a lot of these idiots don't get is that comedy comes from tragedy. Something has to be the victim of comedy. Comedy without that tragedy is just...not funny.

Originally Posted by pseudohippie

I wouldn't regulate what can be done. At least for the most part.
If someone threatens harm, and there's credible evidence, arrest that bastard. But if someone's doing something to be funny and trolly, then you should let them. The internet is supposed to be a place where you can say anything you want with anonymity But now it's a place where if you say one bad thing, your entire career on the internet can be destroyed.
That being said, Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from Consequences. You can say whatever the fuck you want on the internet, but people can in turn call you whatever they want in response. I just feel it's not right to ban someone for saying/doing something "offensive", especially considering how many things are considered "offensive" now. It's sickening how pussified some people have become.
I think most people here know the story of Count Dankula, who was arrested for making his wife's "wee dog" react to him saying Sieg Heil. Now, without context, that seems bad. But Danky mentioned in the video that he wanted to make the super cute dog do the most uncute thing in the world, and that's be a Nazi.
Of course the regressive media blasphemed him, and blacklisted him from tons of events, and are STILL hounding anyone that tries to hire him. All because he made a cute dog be a Nazi.

What a lot of these idiots don't get is that comedy comes from tragedy. Something has to be the victim of comedy. Comedy without that tragedy is just...not funny.

Most people don't know this because apparently history is racist now, but if you look back in time, comedy was hugely popular during and after WWII. There are even some people who react with laughter when faced with anything tragic, I know one personally. She doesn't mean to laugh at things that are bad but it is a reaction to how she copes with the stress.