Thursday, March 19, 2009

Government Regulation of Social Networking Sites: Is it Worth it?

In short, my answer is no. Aside from my own reservations about excessive government control and spending, I believe that such a course of action would be a practical and technical impossibility. To begin with, do we need regulation of such sites in the first place? Sure, there are predators and phonies out there but these things exist in the non-virtual world as well. As a society we have not found it necessary to regulate and control every possible area where someone can be harmed, and I don’t think that such regulation is required for social networking sites. While there are penalties and agencies in place for when things like identity theft occur there is no overall watchdog like the FCC to keep track of every transaction or claim that is made in the retail world. If one cites pedophiles trolling chat rooms or social networking sites for young prey as reason to regulate the virtual world, I think that the example of children in parks is a good counterpoint. Certainly, those intent on doing harm to young children would be quick to survey playgrounds and the like, but as a society we have acknowledged that and taken proactive measures against such things happening. Because it is not even close to physically possible to have police or guards in every single high risk area, parents either personally supervise their children or educate them to beware of potential predators. By taking on such personal responsibility many parents have undoubtedly reduced the number of cases in which the police might have to be called in. I think that in the case of children using the internet a little education and vigilance on the part of parents can go a long way.
Furthermore, the cost of an agency similar to the FCC would be astronomical. The organization itself estimates that it will need $338,900,000 in order to operate in 2009.( http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/fcc2009budget.html) While I’m not an economist or budget expert by any means I can only figure that an agency charged with policing a medium as vast as the internet, notwithstanding the already substantial portion of users on social networking sites, would be even greater. And for what? So that the government might be able and more proactive in perusing our personal information? I’m completely supportive of taking a hard line against pedophiles, identity thieves, and other web criminals but I am not willing to give up my privacy so that (merely for argument’s sake, not seriously) some bureaucrat can try to determine whether or not my favorite movies listed on facebook constitute a risk to children, or maybe even the Federal Government.
I lived in China for 4 months and I can say first hand that intense monitoring of the internet by the government leads to nothing good, unless you’re speaking in terms of state control. While I wasn’t too annoyed by the sites or searches I couldn’t go to (I’d already seen pictures of the tank in Tiananmen Square so I wasn’t disappointed when that was denied), I knew from speaking with an IT Security expert beforehand that my traffic was being monitored and that is just creepy if nothing else. Additionally, all of this monitoring slows internet traffic down and with so many users the censors (even if they are primarily digital) just can’t keep up, resulting in a less enjoyable experience for all. I think my position is pretty clear and I might speak with a little more passion since I’ve experienced intrusive monitoring, but where do you stand on government regulation of social networking sites? While I’m not an alarmist or paranoid, I would also want to think about what slippery slope agreeing to such measures might lead to.

15 comments:

  1. If something is illegal, it is illegal, and police need to do what they can to protect the public from harmful activities. However, in the real world (at least in the US), the police force is not omnipresent. Certain crimes depend on the public reporting them to the police for anything to get done. A similar mentality should be encouraged on the internet; if people observe cyber-bullying or pedophile activity, they should do something about it. Because online actions have real-world consequences, the idea that people are responsible for these actions should be promoted on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The government should take the necessary steps to prevent illegal activities, but a lot of the things mentioned are simply immoral or unethical and not illegal. The steps that it would take to police the internet would limit our accessibility and free-speech. Because of this I believe we must police our own web domains. This means having the users hold each other accountable and report suspicious activities to the web admins. One of the common functions added to online communities such as craigs list and facebook is to report suspicious activities. This function allows the people of the community to control how interactions occur and makes the environment a true democracy where everyone feels safe.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In today’s day and age children of all ages are surfing the web for school projects as well as for their personal reasons. Children may search for a game and end up on a totally inappropriate site just by the click of the mouse. Parents have the ability to change parental controls to prevent things like this from happening but individuals all of the world have the ability to create a website and post whatever they would like. Website crimes do have real world consequences but to catch a “cyber criminal” is a lot harder then many would believe.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In my opinion, some regulations of social networking sites are necessarily to be established, in order to guide the whole society toward a more healthy and positive direction.
    First of all, there are too much pornography and violence-related information or websites that can be easily, (in)voluntarily, or even accidentally found online. It might be hard to define whether an adult chooses to be exposed to pornography or violence resources is positive or negative, since one should be fully responsible for his/her behavior. By contrast, if a kid is accidentally and involuntarily exposed to these websites, it might not be a good thing. Therefore, it would be nice if some web filters can be set up by parents, or if some child internet protection acts can be done by governments. Second, people today can barely live without the Web. In other words, our virtual life online is almost as important as our real life. Since people are spending time/ effort/ and even money on these social networking sites, it makes so sense if governments do nothing with the Web. Just like governments are constantly trying to make this world a better place to live in, they should protect or improve people's life online through some ways, such as reducing cyber crimes, since both virtual and non-virtual lives are almost equally important to modern people today.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I may be alone in this opinion, but I actually don't think it's so easy to find pornographic material inadvertently. I've never had a web search while doing school research yield porn results and while doing image searches, the adult content filter is enabled, so I've never run into problems there either. I definitely think children should be monitored to an extent by parents and teachers, but this is not something that needs to be government administered. In the case of SNS or the internet in general, I'm of the same 'don't do it' opinion. And if we're going to try to regulate SNS, who regulates the regulatory body? In my mind, there most certainly needs to be some system of checks in place to prevent 'abusive' behavior. I must also say that the whole 'everyone has to look out for everyone else and report on suspicious behavior' bit is good to an extent, but at what point does it become 'spy on your neighbor/fellow internet users'? Just like it's important to notify the police when you witness a crime or hear sounds that seem to indicate something bad is happening, it's certainly important to notify someone of higher authority if you're privy to information that shows illegal activity online, I just in the online setting, lines can get blurred perhaps more easily than the real world. Despite this, I still don't think government should regulate SNS. In my opinion, they're just like anything else in life; you know going in that there are risks, and if you choose to go in regardless, it's up to you to be aware of what you are doing and to keep yourself as safe as possible. I think part of why people are so quick to say the internet needs regulation is because it makes it so much easier for people to connect and therefore so much easier for younger people to get themselves into not so good situations. I'm going to end this ramble by saying I don't think there's an easy solution to problems of pedophiles on SNS or online crime, but I do not think government regulation is the answer.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The costs of a government regulating body would be astronomical, especially since the internet is international and foreign governments would have to work together to create said body. The only positive side I can think of is that it will create more jobs. I think site self-regulate adequately enough as is. I've seen tons of stuff on the internet that gets flagged or pulled. I've known people who have been reported for flame wars on LiveJournal and also people who have been kicked out of forums for inappropriate comments. It is true that it is rather easy for them to repeat their "crimes" but that is true in any situation. As for people who commit real crimes by using the internet, they should be punished but monitoring all SNS activities is not going to stop a child molester or a bully. It is only going to motivate them to get more creative if they continue to use the internet or it will prompt them to go somewhere else that is easier. It could easily start a slippery slope as the government chases criminals from arena to arena and everyone else is stuck with the regulations.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree with many of the comments, and also do not believe that the government should heavily monitor online activity. Not only does it make surfing the internet an unpleasant experience because the sites are slow, but it makes me feel uncomfortable knowing that "big brother" is watching.

    I feel that the basis of the free market, is that it's up to the web sites themselves to monitor the activity and to make sure that there isn't anything shady occurring. The web site should hire people to look over comments and make sure that people are not being harassed or that children are not under threat. If the companies handle it themselves, then they can do so in a manner that isn't detrimental to the web site. I'm sure that they are aware of their bandwidth limitations and would ensure that any surveying doesn't interfere with the web sites purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Personally, I think that there are benefits to having a governing body and not, but most importantly, we must realize that inevitably, the internet is owned by no one, so regulating it is a difficult task. This is what inherently makes the internet different than all other things because it is not tangible, and regulating something that isn't tangible is difficult. Like people have said though, it is important to monitor it in the since that we can prevent stalking and other crimes on the internet. To the author's initial counterpoint, I think that considering we have the ability to monitor the internet way more accessibly than parks, we should use that ability for good right?

    In respect to privacy, it would certainly restrict us in some ways, but I know I am willing to give some of that up if I know that children won't be exposed to unethical and immoral things on these sites and I think that moderation of these sites by a body that sets a standard could be good. it would be an easy, efficient way of having a set rule for how you can and cannot do certain things and punishes those who insist on doing so. In that light, giving up privacy in order to gain it is a possibility. This issue overall is so difficult to take a stance on though because there are so many pros and cons and so many vague aspects of social networking sites in general.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In no way will I ever believe that Government Regulation of Social Networking sites will be "worth it." As mentioned, I don't even want to imagine the type of budget an organization with this cause would work with. Also, I am positive that the ratio of useless material to risky/alarming material on these sites is definitely in favor of useless material.

    I also worry that if government regulation of sites like these took place, there would be more motive for cyber-crime. By this I mean that there would be people more motivated to commit online crimes than ever, simply to spite the unconstitutional control of the sites. This is complete speculation on my part, but it seems completely rational that there are plenty of people that do not deal with authority very well, and would take these restrictions as motivation to get back at "the man."

    In sum, government regulation of these sites seems financially unsound, and completely unconstitutional to me.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Government regulation? Definitely a no! I feel as though the government already has a enough access to our lives and why should we give them on e more. Social networking sites are a a money making company now and I feel that it is up to the creator and user to establish what kinds of relationships are going on the sites.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I was lucky enough to go to a high school in which we were all given lap tops. These were "on loan" from the county for the entire year and we could use them in whatever capacity we wanted, except for internet use. Our internet was strictly monitored during the school day...we were unable to check email, use any social networking tool, or look at specific inappropriate websites. The only function we could use via the internet was for research purposes. Though this DID increase my effectiveness during the day, it also impeded on my ability to communicate at a quicker-rate with my peers as we worked on group projects, etc.

    Regardless, the internet-monitoring that our school implemented was faulty. There were always websites that we'd "get through" to. Games that we'd immediately share with each other... and specific shortcuts we would find.

    In the same way, I'm sure that government monitoring of social networking sites would serve a similar purpose. Internet geniuses would find a way to hack the system and find out our most personal information. Worse case scenario, this would "leak" and our most intimate details might be accessible to all the world. I don't think we're ready for this... and I don't think it's worth anyone's time.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I agree with the article in that there is a need for privacy. I also think the government should regulate certain aspects of the Internet, for homeland security reasons or some other reason that affects the US on a national level. I don't think the government should regulate what I have access to on the Internet or the types of sites I can access. I also don't think they should have access to any of our information unless it involves national security (which I highly doubt in most cases). So in the end, it's kind of a pick and choose decision, do I want some regulation to help keep this country safe? yes, definitely. Do I want the government to have full access to all my personal information?? no.

    ReplyDelete
  13. NO. Period. There are a lot of things that the government should have regulation over, and those are specifically written out in the constitution/amendments/laws. Sure let's waste a little more bureaucracy on federally trialing every stalker on the internet. Another reason the gov't should stand clear of ruling the internet is that it is basically an uncontrollable domain. There is so much content that it would take an unthinkable amount of man hours and time and money to look over all sites.

    I mean, how would they regulate a site such as facebook anyways? Here's a guess: run a query for age and any pictures with alcohol. Then what would they do with the results? Regulating a social networking site would be almost unlikely as regulating the massive amounts of illegal music downloading that occur on the internet. The government has more important issues to deal with in our age than to worry about some content on a website.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think that government regulation of social networking sites would be a complete and utter disaster. I personally believe that the US government has overstepped its bounds recently (bailing out these major financial institutions, and as of a few days ago buying an automobile conglomerate)and this would be way too much. I know that the government already has a nice file of information on us all, but to have them knowing what is on my Facebook account is way beyond creepy.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Criminal activity needs to be controlled on the Internet, just as it does in the real world. While we know how to take proper precautions when using various aspects of the Internet, not every user does, particularly those that are youngest and oldest.

    In addition to government regulation, parental controls need to increase in prevalence and use. The inability of a child to accidentally venture onto an explicit adult site is prevention, which is the ultimate solution.

    ReplyDelete