Internet Regulation and Censorship - Interesting Open Letter to MPAA

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by mrscoach

I took it as more of an explanation that he isn't someone jumping on the bandwagon but is, instead, someone who knows how others in his profession feel. And that the casual internet user looks to them as parakeets in the coal mines (my words, not his) for warning if their rights are being threatened.

When it comes to how it's regulated, the opinion of someone who has nothing to do with how the net was created or it's day-to-day maintenance, is just as valid as his.

[DiapDealer]

Like I said, I very well could have misinterpreted his intention with the use of words like "I" and "we." But that doesn't change the fact that the entire letter was nothing but demagoguery, and as such... only serves to pump up those who already agree with him.

I'm one of those people who agree with him. I'm already on board. And I don't think the "THIS. IS. SPARTA!!" speech will do anything to sway people from the other side (let alone phase Christopher Dodd one bit), but I'm sure it felt pretty good.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm one of those people who agree with him. I'm already on board. And I don't think the "THIS. IS. SPARTA!!" speech will do anything to sway people from the other side (let alone phase Christopher Dodd one bit), but I'm sure it felt pretty good.

What is it exactly that you agree with?

The way I see it the point he was trying to make is that the internet is not, and should not be run by corporations but by the community of users, as well as the fact that the ones who worked and work on building it support the users.

[RainingLemur]

That was an interesting letter, I suppose. I agree with some of what he was saying. But, I hope he doesn't separate his shoulder while patting himself on the back.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

What is it exactly that you agree with?

The way I see it the point he was trying to make is that the internet is not, and should not be run by corporations but by the community of users, as well as the fact that the ones who worked and work on building it support the users.

Why in the hell are you making this so difficult?!?

I agree with WHAT he's saying.
But I don't believe the WAY he chose to say it is going to score very many points (or make a bit of difference in the long run).

That is all.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Why in the hell are you making this so difficult?!?

I agree with WHAT he's saying.

WHAT do you think that he is saying? The god complex that you read in the letter would be the opposite of what I think that the letter is saying.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

WHAT do you think that he is saying? The god complex that you read in the letter would be the opposite of what I think that the letter is saying.

I've seen you play this ultra nit-picky, semantic argument game plenty of times before. Others may indulge you, but I'm not your huckleberry. Don't despair, though... there's plenty of other gamers around.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I've seen you play this ultra nit-picky, semantic argument game plenty of times before. Others may indulge you, but I'm not your huckleberry. Don't despair, though... there's plenty of other gamers around.

It's not nit-picky or semantic. The message of the letter seemed clear to me, but your view of it is different. You said that you agree with the sentiment of the letter and I just want to know what you think that is.

[mrscoach]

Neutral corners.
I think we all agree that the letter states that 'the internet' is its users and WE do not want corporations/governments telling us what we can and cannot view.

I may not have seen the letter as being full of self importance, but that doesn't mean that Diap didn't. Is either of us wrong? No, it is a matter of perspective. One feels the elephant's trunk, the other it's ear, it's still the same elephant.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by mrscoach

Neutral corners.
I think we all agree that the letter states that 'the internet' is its users and WE do not want corporations/governments telling us what we can and cannot view.

I disagree, because the government does tell people what they can and cannot view (think of film ratings that restrict the viewers). I think that the internet is the way to get the information across, and I think that the author of the letter sees it as a tool:

Because we will not have the Internet censored, we are also implacably hostile to any attempts to impose controls on it that could be used for censorship – whether or not that is the stated intent of the controls.

[mrscoach]

Telling someone they are too young to view something is far different from telling an adult they cannot view something at all.
How is what I said wrong? What do you think the author of the letter sees as a tool? I cannot place the pronoun back to anything but 'the letter'. Did you mean he sees the internet as a tool? Well, yes, that would probably be a fair assessment. He doesn't want his 'tool' stifled in any way. Or be told how to use his 'tool'. (No intent to sound suggestive, that was just a bonus)

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

When it comes to how it's regulated, the opinion of someone who has nothing to do with how the net was created or it's day-to-day maintenance, is just as valid as his.

I'm the opposite, for whatever reason I prefer it when lawmakers know something about what they are planning to regulate. I guess I'm weird that way.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I'm the opposite, for whatever reason I prefer it when lawmakers know something about what they are planning to regulate. I guess I'm weird that way.

How it works is a sideshow to issues involving net neutrality and censorship.

[darryl]

I also felt that the letter came across as quite self-congratulatory and self-important in parts. The vision of the wise old "elders", and the hands off "our" network particularly stand-out for me. And of course he purports to speak for a particular group, which is itself presumptuous with this wide and loosely defined group.

I don't know the writer personally and do not know whether or to what degree he is indulging his vanity, and this seems to be a judgment which differs from reader to reader, ranging from readers who ignore this aspect completely to those to whom it is so overwhelming that they don't even finish reading it (which is a shame). Such an impression is there. But bear in mind that a writer must in this type of letter establish some type of claim to authority and his right to speak on behalf of others.

But let's not let this overshadow the ideas conveyed. Even if the writer was totally vain, presumptious and arrogant he nevertheless has put down in words the way it seems that many people feel. Unfortunately, the letter will not change the policy of the MPAA, nor prevent attempts to resurrect SOPA and PIPA, nor prevent future outrages. But this is not the purpose of an "open" letter such as this. Or, to be more accurate, not the direct purpose.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by darryl

I don't know the writer personally and do not know whether or to what degree he is indulging his vanity, and this seems to be a judgment which differs from reader to reader, ranging from readers who ignore this aspect completely to those to whom it is so overwhelming that they don't even finish reading it (which is a shame). Such an impression is there. But bear in mind that a writer must in this type of letter establish some type of claim to authority and his right to speak on behalf of others.

I agree with the sentiment, but I'll be danged if I'm going to indulge him while he pats himself on the back. As far as I'm concerned, his credentials are irrelevant to the topic at hand.