The problem with the internet is that it sucks.
A more unreliable organ could scarcely be imagined. And it’s mostly an anonymous vehicle for spreading falsehoods, manipulating stocks , etc, in which no one takes responsibility for their actions. I don’t want to regulate the internet, per se – just make it transparent so that we know who said what, when, and always have the opportunity to correct the million and one errors that are spawned on the internet every hour of every day.
Comment by kent beuchert — January 13, 2009 @ 7:45 pm “

Considering this comment is coming from someone infamous for spamming the comments section of thousands of articles discussing electric cars with…well, read them for yourself. Google “Kent Beuchert” and prepared to be amazed.

Personally, I think the internet should be free and unregulated and human beings should try to evolve to deal with it.

I don’t want to regulate the internet, per se – just make it transparent so that we know who said what, when, and always have the opportunity to correct the million and one errors that are spawned on the internet every hour of every day.

Doesn’t this happen every day in face-to-face conversations? Do you always know who you’re talking to and if what they say is correct? Don’t you have to evaluate each conversation based on the speaker and context?

True, you often know the name of the person you’re speaking with, but do you always know? Can strangers lie to you? Can friends?

In the face-to-face world, I suppose government could mandate having name tags or badges on everyone listing his or her credentials and maybe laws forbidding conversations where the participant is informed or could misrepresent the topic. Obviously, this was not your point. But as absurd as it sounds, what’s the difference if the medium is the Internet?

On both the Internet and in the physical world, we can choose be responsible consumers of the information we’re offered, or we can believe everything we read and hear.

In any domain, I think it’s far more likely that governmental control will not be able to guarantee absolutely reliable truth, and add more intrusions, restrictions, and stifling of communication. It’s no doubt why the American constitution placed this as the very first Amendment – to redundantly and explicitly state that the government has no business in this arena.

The current government is already trialling a proposed internet filtering scheme which, if successful, we be mandatory for all ISPs in the country.

There are already harsh laws against online child-porn or child-abuse.

An elderly man with a heart condition was arrested because he re-posted a video where a father shook a baby *slightly* aggressively to make the baby laugh, which child welfare groups described as child abuse. We’ve already had someone arrested for posting digital photos of a beach where there were topless /semi-clothed children.

The internet = a peaceful, non coercive, exchange of information and speech. Government’s hate it.

After all a thing as vital as the human heart cannot be allowed to operate on it’s own. What if it missed a beat?