WEBCAST TODAY: Censors in the Stack: Who Should Police the Web? Where and Why? @isocdc
Today, Tuesday November 7 2017, at 9am EST, the Greater Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society and Vennable LLP present a morning panel Censors in the Stack: Who Should Police the Web? Where and Why? in Washington DC. What happens when the desire for a free and open Internet collides to with efforts to prevent the growth of hate groups and violence? What are the responsibilities of the organizations that run the infrastructure of the Internet to prevent it from being misused by criminals, hate groups, and hostile governments? Do different parts of the “stack†have different roles and responsibilities? If private companies start to choose who can be heard online, will repressive governments require them to censor the global Internet? Speakers: Doug Kramer (Cloudflare); Mark MacCarthy (SIIA); Robert M. McDowell (Cooley LLP and former FCC Commissioner); Moderator Jeremy Grant (Venable LLP). The event will be webcast live on the Internet Society Livestream Channel.
What: Censors in the Stack: Who Should Police the Web? Where and Why?
Where: Washington DC
When: Tuesday November 7 2017, 9am-11am EST | 14:00-16:00 UTC
Webcast: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/censors
Twitter: @isocdc http://bit.ly/isocdctweets
jbowcock 9:27 pm on 11/10/2017 Permalink |
I came to the discussion late and was unable to participate on the live discussion. My own view on this very thorny issue is this, there is no getting away from the fact that the Internet in all its guises has to be left to the user to decide what to look for,at, watch or listen to. In any society there is an element that to any free thinking honest working individual is unacceptable, distressing, abhorrent and any other words to describe what they are aware is out on the Web. The way to deal with this is in my opinion is not policing with a mandate of censorship but making it abundantly clear to whoever decides to view this kind of content what they are about to see is…. and make it clear that continuing with that choice is taken despite the recommendation or warning in the case of potentially disturbing violent or potentially illegal content. You have to be transparent and give the user every chance to come to an informed decision about whether their actions in allowing this content on their hardware. If after that the user continues then maybe some form of simple feedback request (maybe incentivised) in simple terms give the user the freedom to choose having made them aware that the choice is theirs alone to make.
There will always be content that in any language crosses all the lines of decency and is specifically designed for the express purpose of pandering to those who are engaged in activities that are both highly immoral and illegal,cause harm and distress to the most vulnerable in all walks of life and ometimes there are no grey areas and that is where the resources of those who wish to ‘police’ the Internet should be placed but they also must be transparent about their role and themselves be open to scrutiny. There is of course the reality that the ever increasing shear volume of information that not just every day or hour even minute but every second is staggering, consequently there is that inevitability content is missed. The reality at this time is that the power of the censorship should always be in the hands of the individual. Like all broadcast media, there is the choice to switch over.