It is even being said that the Internet needs to, and will, change to accommodate what some people think it should be. I find this to be an erroneous assumption, or one that is, at the least, open to question. Special interest groups are advocating control and regulation of content, a concept generally known by its baser moniker, "censorship." Their fears, and their inability to control these fears, cause them to demand that others not make material available containing content the would be censors may find objectionable.
Historically, open access to information and popular opinion only seems to scare those worried about losing control, or those who fear a point of view or an idea they are either unfamiliar with or don’t agree with. This is usually due to the realization their own views are based on somewhat tenuous grounds and will not easily withstand the scrutiny of an opposing viewpoint. Hence the call to regulate the Internet.
Now, I’m not saying that CyberSpace won’t change as people discover new possibilities, but I don’t think it needs to change to cover-up and sustain old fears and biases. I see people evolving towards what CyberSpace has to offer. One compelling concept of open networks and information exchange is that there is no control other than each individuals own moral standards.
As CyberSpace becomes more popular people are discovering the utility of having information available, and are also becoming aware that information usefulness follows a bell curve. The chance of any individual finding the information they need is increased by the existence of the extremes. The wider the range of data and information available, the greater the chances of someone being able to find the information they are looking for. The growth of CyberSpace is in part fueled by the increase in choices, not by limiting choices.
Some advocates of self-regulation point to the lack of control on the Internet, and say if we don’t do something about the lack of control it’s like giving up without taking responsibility for giving up. They then assume the next step is someone else coming in, taking control, and restricting your freedoms.
But isn’t what we are giving up here actually a repressive idea? That seems pretty responsible to me. If one doesn’t clamor for restrictions, then none are usually given (and yes, I see some obvious exceptions to this.) If someone wants their own restrictions, they are free to impose any internal restrictions they want. If someone wants to ask that others set restrictions for them, because they lack the ability to make their own choices about the content they are interested in, well...I just kinda feel sorry for them :-( The net exists and is growing because all are welcome without restrictions. Just because a piece of data exists somewhere, you are not required to go and get a copy.
The availability of sexually related materials (hereafter shortened to just porn) is an issue that becomes a natural for advocates of censorship to jump on. With apologies for having to restrict adult’s freedoms and choices, they claim it’s their duty to protect children from learning about reality...errr...from exposing children to disturbing images and ideas at an age when the children are supposedly not able to deal with it.
As far as tender minds being exposed to potentially corrupting influences, numerous examples have been given in the USENET newsgroup alt.culture.internet pointing out that in the pre-teen years they’re much more interested in other, more age-specific topics. The normal reaction to porn is either "that’s gross" or a lack of interest. By the time children become teens and interested in sex, if a parent hasn’t already broached the subject openly and honestly, they’re in trouble anyway, and all the porn on the ‘net isn’t going to make any difference.
The diversity of opinions and tastes of cybernauts means there is going to be as much diversity in the available information content. It does not follow, though, that there is no commonality of interest, and thus, no net.culture or need for netiquette. I see quite a few concepts and possibilities which the technology of the Internet allows that are commonly shared by most cybernauts:
The ones having to do with information and knowledge I see as being the most important. I think there are four basic needs for survival: food, water, sex, and knowledge. Without the knowledge of where to obtain the other three, no individual or species will last very long. The evolution of science and society both depend on the growth of knowledge, and the CyberSpace community that is developing in the Information Age presents an opportunity to watch and participate in the evolution of a paradigm shift. This is perhaps the greatest commonality of interest.
Having pre-established restrictions on one’s choices may work for the couch potato set that seems to have lost the ability to think for themselves, but for most cybernauts limited choices isn’t what drew them to CyberSpace in the first place.
Yes, there’s porn on the ‘net. My observations after doing Internet training for about a year and a half now are that many people are initially interested in where they can find the porn. They become proficient at uu-decoding multipart graphic binaries. After a while, the newness wears off and they go on to discovering that there’s an order of magnitude more to the resources of CyberSpace. About the worst that porn can do is fill up all the unused space on one’s hard drive :-)
I expect someone will write a web browser that will only connect to approved sites. This will give parents the ability to restrict where their children may wander in CyberSpace. I also expect it won’t be widely used, and even those who profess to use it will have a full featured browser on a floppy disk hidden under the underwear that they’ll use when they think no one is looking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|
Questions or comments about these Web pages? Send e-mail to
dave@reststop.net