Monday, December 1, 2008
Teh Internets (Porn-)Free Internet for All?
Posted by Paul Constant on Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:37 PM
I know that there are those who'd complain about this, but I think it's a pretty nice idea:
Outgoing Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin is pushing for action in December on a plan to offer free, pornography-free wireless Internet service to all Americans, despite objections from the wireless industry and some consumer groups.
I know it would be slow, but it's better than nothing, yeah? It would be weird if this wound up being a legacy of the Bush administration.
Share via
1
Free internet is a great idea, but who decides what is porn and who decides how this porn is filtered and who fixes things when it blocks something that isn't porn?
2
Free wireless everywhere? Fuck yeah! Great for checking emergency restaurant info, solving arguments with Wikipedia, etc. Let's do it!
3
Quick, Paul: Define pornography.
I'd bet cash money that there are a lot of people out there who'd disagree with you. And they'd win the debate if they outnumber you on this discussion. So Slog would probably be porn... I've heard Wikipedia triggers a few filters...
This service wouldn't just be slow, it'd be worthless.
I'd bet cash money that there are a lot of people out there who'd disagree with you. And they'd win the debate if they outnumber you on this discussion. So Slog would probably be porn... I've heard Wikipedia triggers a few filters...
This service wouldn't just be slow, it'd be worthless.
5
But what would constitute pornography? That's the tricky question. To some people, Maxim magazine is pornography - where do you draw the line? What about esoteric fetish sites that don't show naked human genetalia? These are the questions we should be asking, Paul. Is the internet without pornography even the internet anymore?
7
Any site that has ever posted a picture of so much as a female breast, even in an artwork, or printed a swear word, or suggested that abortion should continue to be legal, or mentioned any kind of contraception at all, however briefly, or described any kind of sexual activity (or drug use), even in the most euphemistic terms ("Bob and Susan made love") would classify as porn according to the government.
Do you really want a government agency deciding which websites are allowed and which are not? You don't think kooks wouldn't manipulate this to bar "undesirable" political viewpoints?
Do you really want a government agency deciding which websites are allowed and which are not? You don't think kooks wouldn't manipulate this to bar "undesirable" political viewpoints?
9
They aren't serious about this. It is a Republican ploy to perpetuate the culture war by getting everyone arguing over porn and censorship, and hopefully netting some Democrats who can be labeled pro-porn and anti-child in fund raising and in attack ads. If they can delay technological progress and enrich their pals in the process, it becomes a GOP trifecta.
10
Plus: millions of people still live in places without even cell phone coverage. How exactly are they going to go about this? This is a bigger commitment than RFD. How much? $100 billion would hardly even get you started.
11
But who would want it? Don't tell me Christian fundies, because they want and use it more than anyone.
12
meh. barriers are made to be broken. give me the free wi-fi - i'll figure out how to break it and get to the porn.
sincerely,
diggum
sincerely,
diggum
13
Look: I appreciate that there is no set government definition of porn. But there are a lot of people who are too poor to pay for internet. And it's better for them to have access to e-mail and some news sources for free than for them to have nothing, which is what they have now.
18
I know all the laptop-wielding netroots-types love the free-gubmit-internets idea, but it's really, really poor progressive policy:
1. Internet access is not a classic public good. There is no clear positive externality (how does it help me if you can use Wikipedia to settle your bet?) The cost in not uncapturable (it's no problem to meter and bill someone for their bandwidth use).
2. It's a wealth transfer from poor to rich. The poor's taxes will contribute, but it's the upper-middle class hanging around Starbucks with their wireless laptops.
3. It's a classic case of crowding out. There is already a large, competitive, and successful private market in internet access that would be destroyed by its public replacement.
4. It's not about "jobs, jobs, jobs". The labor-to-capital ratio for the internet access industry has got to be among the lowest of any industry you can think of.
5. It will result in endless civil liberties problems, because the great mass of Americans hate the idea of subsidzing "pornographers and terrorists" and politicians will react to that.
1. Internet access is not a classic public good. There is no clear positive externality (how does it help me if you can use Wikipedia to settle your bet?) The cost in not uncapturable (it's no problem to meter and bill someone for their bandwidth use).
2. It's a wealth transfer from poor to rich. The poor's taxes will contribute, but it's the upper-middle class hanging around Starbucks with their wireless laptops.
3. It's a classic case of crowding out. There is already a large, competitive, and successful private market in internet access that would be destroyed by its public replacement.
4. It's not about "jobs, jobs, jobs". The labor-to-capital ratio for the internet access industry has got to be among the lowest of any industry you can think of.
5. It will result in endless civil liberties problems, because the great mass of Americans hate the idea of subsidzing "pornographers and terrorists" and politicians will react to that.
19
@13 and @7, your two statements put together is why this is a terrible idea. Having a gov't filter on what an entire class of people depend on for their information is a very scary proposal.
20
This idea strikes me as the US wanting to catch up with the "great firewall" of China. I understand that some people may not be able to afford an internet connection, but many of these same people also can't afford a computer. So free wireless, filtered or not, does them little good. Why not put the money (and believe me, filtered or not, this will cost money) into more computers in libraries, and leave it up to the local librarians what, if anything, to filter. This way even the homeless non-computer owner has internet access, and the government stays out of the censorship business.
21
Will this include Poor-nography--which is the purient enjoyment of the suffering of the impoverished? Or will this just embody that?
22
What @19 said: This is an exaggeration, but ask yourself: Is it better for people to have no news or exclusive access to Fox video clips and streaming conservative talk radio?
I think I know the answer.
I think I know the answer.
24
Meanwhile, while the Red Bushies keep pushing their Big Government Big Brother ideals down our throats, the rest of the world is getting high-speed cable access for one-TENTH what we pay at FOUR to TEN times the speed.
Don't trust anti-government Republican Socialists to ever do a capable job - EVER.
Don't trust anti-government Republican Socialists to ever do a capable job - EVER.
25
While it is at first tempting to endorse the idea of free wi-fi as a boon to poor people, I doubt all that many poor people would be able to use it. If you can't afford even cheap dial-up connection, my guess is that you probably can't afford a wi-fi capable computer either. Mostly, this service would be used by road warriors and travelers with laptops, not the poor people it would be intended to help.
If you really want to help poor people get access to the internets, throw more money at free access in libraries.
Oh, and fuck the whole censorship thing. Completely lame, unenforceable, and unworkable.
If you really want to help poor people get access to the internets, throw more money at free access in libraries.
Oh, and fuck the whole censorship thing. Completely lame, unenforceable, and unworkable.
26
I think that an important way to approach this problem is to consider that internet is just another infrastructure that a community, town, city, state, or country can have, and for that matter, have to the benefit of those living there. Perhaps, with the legal headache of 'porn' out of the way it could actually put in practice. Such would eventually benefit everyone, especially if whoever gets the porn on/off switch doesn't have a lifetime term. Furthermore, I don't think this plan is as elitist as has been suggested, this will be to the better of poor folk. Build it and they will come!
27
Wireless internet is not infrastructure. Unless you are going to hand out the computers, it is basically like building a bunch of water mains without requiring residential buildings to have plumbing.
Porn is just another banner under which to commit heinous crimes against our civil liberties, like "Terrorism" and "Drugs".
This is another frankly brilliant move by the far-right-wing Republicans, co-opting a half-baked progressive concept in order to foist their authoritarian values onto all of us.
Porn is just another banner under which to commit heinous crimes against our civil liberties, like "Terrorism" and "Drugs".
This is another frankly brilliant move by the far-right-wing Republicans, co-opting a half-baked progressive concept in order to foist their authoritarian values onto all of us.
28
I'm disappointed in you, Paul. That you couldn't see though this ploy is pathetic.
As some commenters have already stated, the poor and homeless can't afford computers, so free internet does them no good. Those who can afford a personal computer can surely afford faster and more reliable internet than this service could provide, so it does them no good.
So, in a time when the federal government is spending hundreds of billions of dollars trying to bailout our failing financial sector, the FCC wants to spend hundreds of billions more to provide a shitty internet service NO ONE WILL USE. All just to stamp out SECKS on the internet. SECKS! Dirty SECKS!
Think about that. The FCC is willing to drive our country into bankruptcy just to get rid of internet porn.
As some commenters have already stated, the poor and homeless can't afford computers, so free internet does them no good. Those who can afford a personal computer can surely afford faster and more reliable internet than this service could provide, so it does them no good.
So, in a time when the federal government is spending hundreds of billions of dollars trying to bailout our failing financial sector, the FCC wants to spend hundreds of billions more to provide a shitty internet service NO ONE WILL USE. All just to stamp out SECKS on the internet. SECKS! Dirty SECKS!
Think about that. The FCC is willing to drive our country into bankruptcy just to get rid of internet porn.
30
What indeed is porn? In desperation, I have whacked it to an episode of Charmed (think lesbian sorority house), as well as a Target flyer when lingerie was on sale.
33
That's a great idea, Paul...then they can get to work cleaning all those nasty, dirty books out of libraries and bookstores!
36
free internet, sure would be nice, but is it smart? I don't think it is. If you think about it, the internet is a sort of business. It fuels so many other forms of business that would lose effectiveness should the internet be offered free. Most directly affected, in my opinion, are phones and other telecommunication services like it. the value of these services would decrease, thus losing value, hurting the entire business cycle that is fueled by the internet.
There are ways to make internet access more affordable and easier to aqcuire. In portland, for example, there is a new internet technology that gives consumers access throughout the city through one routing device (www.clear.com/?utm_source=bc). Something like this would make internet more convenient, which I think should be the main goal for people like Obama and those in the FCC.
There are ways to make internet access more affordable and easier to aqcuire. In portland, for example, there is a new internet technology that gives consumers access throughout the city through one routing device (www.clear.com/?utm_source=bc). Something like this would make internet more convenient, which I think should be the main goal for people like Obama and those in the FCC.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Health Care Passes the House by Paul Constant
-
Your Daily Douchebag by Dominic Holden
-
The Procession for Officer Brenton by Dominic Holden
-
What She Said by Dan Savage
-
Titties and Beer by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: She Needs Oral by Dan Savage
-
Rules for Waitstaff by Bethany Jean Clement
-
That's It: R-71 Wins! by Dominic Holden
-
What He Said by Dan Savage
-
This "Pledge of Allegiance" Drives Me Crazy, Teabaggers! by Paul Constant
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (36) RSS