Internet Regulation Watch: A Look at Content Censorship and Filtering

Will the Internet be censored by thought police?  Perhaps not yet, but some recent trends indicate that some regulations may involve “content police,” for lack of a better word.

Censorship of Wikipedia.

The latest uproar involved a page in Wikipedia that was blocked from U.K. Internet users.  The blocked page included an image of a 1976 music album cover that someone reported as inappropriate child pornography to the Internet  Watch Foundation, whose blacklist is used by a majority of British Internet service providers.   The image, which appeared on the cover of the German rock group Scorpion’s “Virgin Killer” album, was not deemed illegal by the United States’ FBI.  Yet, because it was deemed distasteful by a single, quasi-government group in the UK, the majority of UK Internet users were blocked from viewing the Wikipedia page containing the image.

Perhaps not being able to view a web page seems benign.  But there were other consequences, including commercial implications.   The Internet  Watch Foundation also considered adding  Amazon (US) to the list of sites blocked from UK Internet users because the album cover image is included in Amazon’s shopping pages.

Unintended Consequences of Content Censorship.

Because of the way that the censorship block was implemented, ZDnet reports that at least one UK ISP provider blocked Wikipedia’s entire content from UK viewers, in effect, creating a denial of service attack (instead of just one page blocked, the entire site was blocked).  The IFA is apparently not accountable for the intended or unintended denial of service attacks.

The IFA eventually backed down on its Wiki and Amazon censorship.  The BBC reports that it regretted ” … the unintended consequences for Wikipedia and its users.”

The Great Aussie Firewall Fight Continues – Consequences of Filtering and No Transparency.

The “Great Aussie Firewall” which needs to be passed by Parliament before it becomes mandatory, is touted the strictest Internet content filter imposed by a democratic country.

While the intent is to block child pornography and similar material, the unintended consequences include a filter for words that are not used in a pornographic context — i.e., the word “breast” on a medical site concerning breast cancer.  Researchers found that a number of sexually explicit sites were able to make it past the filter.  In instances where the proposed filter was most accurate, Internet speed was reduced by up to 86%.

Reportedly, the Aussie firewall would block 1300 websites — but the list of prohibited sites is arbitrary and not available for public review.

As reported earlier on this site, Internet filtering of “offensive” words can lead to distorted news stories and information.  For example, the American Family Way’s news filtering service finds the word “gay” to be offensive and replaces it with the word “homosexual.”  As a result, Olympic winner Tyson Gay’s name was changed to “Tyson Homosexual” on the filtered news stories.

Free Speech vs. Truth.

A big debate throughout the 2008 election cycle had to do with “responsible journalism” and the impact of bloggers on political campaigns and issues.  Sarah Palin had this to say:

Mitch Wagner wrote a thoughtful article about journalism’s role as “gatekeeper” of truthful media stories in Information Week.  In the article, he suggests that journalists and mainstream media should strive to be the last source of information, providing a fact-check for blogger-driven front page news.  He also discusses the frightening conclusion of environmental lawyer Dusty Horwitt who allegedly opined that “… the government should mandate an energy tax which would make owning computers and Internet access too expensive, to reduce the number of blogs.”

“Digital fascism” is a word employed by Andrew Keen, author of an opinion piece called “The Internet is Bad for You.”  His opinion suggests that in times of prosperity, the Internet is fine, but in times of economic trouble, it can create a political nightmare because people will question government authority and have unrestricted access to opinions and the ability to express their own opinions, creating what he calls unrealistic expectations.

Mr. Keen might be more comfortable with the prepackaged “news” that government officials distribute.  PR Watch routinely reports on media spin, as well as corporate and government propaganda.

Self-Regulation:  A Look Beyond Government Filtering and Censorship.

If you own a company that you feel has been slandered or you feel that you have been personally slandered on a website, there’s always the American way:  Sue.

ABC News reported in July 2008 that lawsuits against bloggers were rising, and discussed various court actions against citizen journalists for libel.  The article also discusses media insurance for citizen journalists and bloggers.

Parents who are concerned about their children being exposed to pornography or violence on the Internet can take responsibility for what their children view instead of expecting the government to do it for them. Services such as Net Nanny (provided by Content Watch and which has won numerous awards) will protect you and your family from unwanted pornography, social media predators and much more.  You can get a 25% discount on NetNanny by clicking this special link:

Buy Net Nanny now and Save 25% BUY NOW

Self-censored shopping sites will, I believe, become more commonplace on the Internet.  An example of this is Abunga.com, an online bookstore that ABC News wrote about in its March 4, 2008, article, “Online Bookstore Charged with Nazi Tactics.” The story’s gripe seems to be that the bookstore, which allows users to block what they deem to be unsavory and non-Christian content from the store’s listings, was not a democratic process because the bible was not blocked when experimenters tried to see if the self-censorship process was as truly democratic as the site said it was.  My opinion is that sites such as Abunga are voluntary, so consumers who are not into “Christian censorship” can shop elsewhere.  Similarly, people who claim to be Christians and who are upset about media distributed by YouTube can make a choice to view content on GodTube instead of trying to regulate what others’ may choose to watch.

Opinion and Conclusion.

Internet regulation is something that I think we will be hearing more and more about … and will be pitting content providers, artists, social conservatives and political groups against one another.  Canada will be issuing possibly new Internet regulation policies next month and we will all be waiting to see what happens with the Aussie firewall. And there’s talk about “Web Police” to monitor deceptive anti-virus software and other malicious downloads.

I’m of the opinion that we need to take responsibility for ourselves and our family members instead of expecting the government to do it for us.  If you’re worried about your kids seeing something bad online, then don’t give  them unsupervised access to the computer.  At the very least, take responsibility and install a filter.

As to news stories, don’t believe everything you read or hear — whether it’s online or offline.  Research it.

When it comes to anti-virus software, don’t just download anything you see.  Consider going to a site such as Cnet that tests its available downloads to ensure that they are free of spyware, viruses, and other malware

All of us who live in democracies have a choice about who we buy from, where we shop, what we read.  The responsible thing is to exercise our individual choices, not expect some regulatory body to do it for us.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Related ...

• March 30, 2009 -- Internet Regulation | Can the Government Snoop Through Your Computer? (3)
• November 1, 2008 -- Internet Regulation: The Government Knows What’s Best (16)
• June 20, 2009 -- Another Look at Internet Regulation (2)
• June 1, 2009 -- Internet Regulation | The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (1)
• May 19, 2009 -- Internet Memories (2)
• May 9, 2009 -- Internet Regulation: Cyberbullying Legislation (0)
• April 28, 2009 -- Internet Regulation: Fairness Doctrine for the Internet? (5)