corpus_id
int64 0
6.32k
| docid
stringlengths 32
32
| text
stringlengths 134
6.16k
|
|---|---|---|
200 |
a68d81be712d0ea9b429ee271603d443
|
digital freedoms access information house believes state should provide States can develop new power-grids without needing to furnish all citizens with broadband in order to avail of the smart grid. The cost of developing these technologies and implementing them across the board are woefully high, and the inefficient nature of government services means they would only be more costly to the taxpayer. A better solution would be to liberalize the energy markets in order to encourage private firms to invest in the development of the smart grid.
|
201 |
52cfed879f93cc7e1807949745f95c79
|
digital freedoms access information house believes state should provide Broadband is a necessary evolution of internet technology that firms would be wise to avail of if they wish to remain competitive. But it is this very desirability that makes the provision of broadband a lucrative business in which many firms participate. Business on a large scale is rarely organised in diffuse patterns, but clustered in major population centres. Economic development can be furnished by the private sector investing in broadband where there is a market. Growth will not be slowed just because some farmers in Nebraska have slower internet. Singapore is an aberrant example, as it is so small and its population so dense that it would be impossible to compare its provision of broadband access to most other countries.
|
202 |
b61e1601008daff16b7185fac3a337cd
|
digital freedoms access information house believes state should provide Internet access is not a fundamental right. It is a useful enabler of rights. But that is not reason to guarantee it to all, any more than states owed every citizen access to a printing press a few centuries ago. Even were it a right, internet access could be provided far more efficiently and effectively through the private, rather than the public, sector.
|
203 |
51eca6bb9e28ef6241f7dbfa75d6ff7b
|
digital freedoms access information house believes state should provide The state can work more effectively through the private sector
If the state is worried about provision of broadband in areas too sparsely populated or disadvantaged, they can provide subsidies to private firms to develop the areas that are not profitable without needing to develop full government-operated companies. Just because the state is not providing the service does not mean that there cannot be compulsory to provide access to everywhere, many countries post offices for example are obliged to deliver to every address. [1] Government employees tend to be overpaid and underworked, leading to chronic inefficiencies that would be absent in a private firm, even one backed with government money.
Furthermore, the cost to the state is prohibitively expensive to go it alone, because state contracts have a marked tendency to go over budget, ultimately harming the taxpayers. These overruns are a standard part of government projects, but they can be ruinous to large scale information technology projects. Indeed, one-third of all IT projects end with premature cancellation as the direct result of overruns. [2] The future of countries’ economic prosperity cannot be entrusted to an organization that will stack the odds toward failure. This policy does not make sense when it is an area in which the private sector is willing to make substantial contributions to the cost. The only way to guarantee a decent level of service and an appropriate level of cost is to allow the private sector to take the lead, and to supplement it with incentives to build more and better systems. In the United States encouraging private investment in broadbrand infrastructure has led to a total of $1.2trillion ploughed into broadband access while Europe’s more state investment approach is falling behind. [3]
[1] United States Postal Service, “Postal Facts”, 2012, http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-facts/welcome.htm Royal Mail Group, “Universal Service Obligation”, http://www.royalmailgroup.com/regulation/how-were-regulated/universal-service-obligation
|
204 |
767cdc22c5d3aac13887c12a5fbbcbe8
|
digital freedoms access information house believes state should provide State intervention would crowd out private firms
The imposition of a powerful state firm dominating the broadband market would serve to reduce the ability of private providers to compete. The greater resources of the state would be able to give it the power to dictate the market, making it less attractive to private investment. Creating a monopolistic provider would be very dangerous considering that this is a sector upon which much of future national development relies. [1] Crowding out private firms will make them less inclined to invest in new technologies, while the state provider is unlikely to fill the gap, as traditionally state utilities rely upon their power of incumbency and size rather than seeking novel services. An example of this is Eircom which, when it was the state utility, provided broadband of a lower quality and at higher price than most private providers. The end result of state dominance and reduction of private competitors is a loss of innovation, a loss of price competition, and an erosion of customer service.
[1] Atkinson, R. “The Role of Competition in a National Broadband Policy”. Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law 7. 2009, http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jtelhtel7&div=4&g_sent=1&collection=journals
|
205 |
651e6c52ef58f64cd79fcca9b47d6687
|
digital freedoms access information house believes state should provide It would provide an efficient service for everyone
A single, universal provider of broadband would allow the government to rationalize the management and development of the service. Multiple private service-providers ultimately end up causing three serious problems. The first two are straightforward, that private firms competing in the same area waste money creating multiple distribution channels that are unnecessary for the number of consumers, and that when they opt not to compete they end up dividing up territory into effective utility monopolies. The third problem is especially salient to the state when it is attempting to provide for everyone: many areas are too sparsely populated or economically underdeveloped that private firms are unwilling to invest in them; these areas are entirely dependent on state intervention to allow them to get broadband access. Thus for example, in the United States 19 million people in the United States still have no broadband access. [1] Much like electrical and water utilities, a single provider can create the most efficient outcome for consumers, and when that provider is the state it can guarantee affordable prices and commit to not price-gouging as private firms are wont to do. [2] Broadband should be treated as a utility, and the state has always proven to be the best purveyor of public utilities.
[1] Elgan, M. “Should Wireless Carriers be Nationalized?”. Huffington Post. 10 October 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-elgan/wireless-carriers-nationalized_b_1955633.html
[2] Encyclopaedia Britannica. "Public Utility." Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. 2013 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/482523/public-utility
|
206 |
90cf81ff2f30a9cd83015aa8b07d126d
|
digital freedoms access information house believes state should provide Broad-based access to broadband is essential for countries to be competitive and to excel
Information technology is critical to the success of contemporary economies, with even the simplest business ventures. Uneven or non-existent penetration of broadband is a major drag on economic progress. [1] The private sector has been unable to effectively adapt with a holistic approach to the provision of data space and internet speed. The state providing these services would guarantee a high quality of service, and penetration across the country, linking all citizens to the network. For a country to compete internationally it needs broadband, and the surest way to provide it, since the private sector has resolutely failed to do so, and where it does provide services, it tends to overcharge. [2] As the Western world is left behind by the internet speeds of erstwhile developing states like Singapore, which has almost total penetration of high quality, state-sponsored broadband, it needs to refocus on what can reverse the trend. [3] Broadband is one of the steps toward the solution.
[1] Elgan, M. “Should Wireless Carriers be Nationalized?”. Huffington Post. 10 October 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-elgan/wireless-carriers-nationalized_b_1955633.html
[2] ibid
[3] Kass, D. “FCC Chairman Wants Ultra High Speed Broadband in 100 Million US Households by 2020”. IT Channel Planet. 18 February 2010. http://www.itchannelplanet.com/technology_news/article.php/3865856/FCC-Chairman-Wants-Ultra-High-Speed-Broadband-In-100-Million-US-Households-by-2020.htm
|
207 |
4660c4060b469baa050ccad75207dd82
|
digital freedoms access information house believes state should provide The information age demands a right to broadband access
As information technology has come more and more to pervade people’s lives, it has become abundantly clear that a new set of positive rights must be considered. In the forefront of this consideration stands broadband. Broadband allows for far more rapid access to the internet, and thus access to the world of information the internet represents. Today, a citizen of a free society must be able to access the internet if he or she is to be able to fully realise their potential. This is because the ability to access the fundamental rights to freedom of expression and civic and social participation are now contingent upon ready access to the internet. Thus access to the internet has itself become a right of citizens, and their access should be guaranteed by the state. This right has been enshrined by several countries, such as France, Finland, Greece, and Spain, thus leading the way toward a more general recognition of this service as a right in the same way other public services are guaranteed. [1] It is a right derived from the evolution of society in the same fashion that the right to healthcare has grown out of countries’ social and economic development.
[1] Lucchi, N. “Access to Network Services and Protection of Constitutional Rights: Recognizing the Essential Role of Internet Access for the Freedom of Expression”. Cardozo J. of Int’L & Comp. Law, Vol.19, 2011, http://www.cjicl.com/uploads/2/9/5/9/2959791/cjicl_19.3_lucchi_article.pdf
|
208 |
ff318473624b4bdca9a3f7548391fa5c
|
digital freedoms access information house believes state should provide Universal broadband is a necessary prerequisite to developing more efficient and effective power-grids
Advanced infrastructure technology often relies on the existence of broadband technology universally installed across the grid. Countries like South Korea and Japan have succeeded in expanding their power grids by means of “smart grids”, power-grids that are far more efficient than existing structures in previously leading states like the United States, that make use of the broadband network in the provision of power. The US government has since committed to creating its own new grid, one that would increase efficiency, supply and management, and lower costs of energy provision to its citizens. [1] Such grids depend on the reliable and advanced broadband networks. The incentive for states to employ broadband across their territory is tremendous, beyond mere access to fast internet. This is why private firms will never be sufficient in efficient provision of broadband, because they do not reap all the benefits directly of the smart grid that can arise from its development. The state providing broadband is an essential part of upgrading energy provision for advanced countries in the 21st century.
[1] Kass, D. “FCC Chairman Wants Ultra High Speed Broadband in 100 Million US Households by 2020”. IT Channel Planet. 18 February 2010. http://www.itchannelplanet.com/technology_news/article.php/3865856/FCC-Chairman-Wants-Ultra-High-Speed-Broadband-In-100-Million-US-Households-by-2020.htm
|
209 |
993c42e697744009cbdac3fcdff17ccc
|
freedom expression house would block access websites deny holocaust Taking a neutral stance is a tacit endorsement of the validity of the message being spread as being worthy of discussion. Holocaust denial does not deserve its day in the sun, even if the outcome were a thumping victory for reason and truth. Besides, the Holocaust deniers are not convinced by reason or argument. Their beliefs are impervious to facts, which is why debate is a pointless exercise except to give them a platform by which to spread their message, organize, and legitimize themselves in the marketplace of ideas.
|
210 |
849c3206fd128a5210115ee7037ef611
|
freedom expression house would block access websites deny holocaust Freedom of speech certainly may be curtailed when there is a real harm manifested from it. Holocaust denial, in its refusal to acknowledge one of the most barbaric acts in human history and attempt to justify terrible crimes, is an incredibly dehumanizing force, one that many people suffer from, even if they do not need to read it themselves. We may have the freedom to express ourselves but that does not mean we have the freedom to make up our own facts. The threat Holocaust deniers represent to free society demands that their right to speech online be curtailed.
|
211 |
6332819988487b4394104066bbb1c556
|
freedom expression house would block access websites deny holocaust Forcing Holocaust deniers out of the spotlight and underground can only serve the cause of justice. Surveillance efforts can be employed more rigorously if need be, and will be considerably more legitimate to employ against these groups when their actions are acknowledged to be illegal. With them out of the spotlight they are less likely to rope in new recruits among casual, open-minded internet-goers.
|
212 |
9b19713b8311a3140b4af4f17bb69f3a
|
freedom expression house would block access websites deny holocaust While some people might be enticed by the mystique of Holocaust deniers as transgressors, far more people will be put off by the firm hand of the state denying them a powerful platform from which to speak. Even if some are enticed these individuals will find it much more difficult to access the information they seek and so only the most determined will ultimately be influenced. Some Holocaust deniers will always lurk in the shadows, but society should show no quarter in the battle for truth.
|
213 |
94fc988a2659eee65cfb8375aac21777
|
freedom expression house would block access websites deny holocaust The internet is a flourishing place for discourse because it is absolutely free to all, and everyone accepts and experiences the fruit of that freedom. When the government abandons its stance of neutrality and begins censoring materials, even if it begins only with the nastiest examples, it compromises the copper-fastened liberties that the internet was created to furnish. Many people will abuse that tool, but thankfully people can evade the hate sites easily and never have to experience them without compromising their own freedoms by censoring their opponents.
|
214 |
8b5469b2a5012b34bb1b48d33184335b
|
freedom expression house would block access websites deny holocaust Holocaust deniers will always find ways to organize, be it in smaller pockets of face-to-face contact, clandestine social networking, or untraceable black sites online that governments cannot shut down because they cannot find them. The result of blocking these views from the public internet only serves to push their proponents further underground and to make them take less public strategies on board. Ultimately, it is a cosmetic, not substantive solution.
|
215 |
954eba6f4edcd285062eeea494689bea
|
freedom expression house would block access websites deny holocaust While it is true that Holocaust deniers spread misinformation and seek to undermine and bend the systems of discourse to be as favorable as possible, they are a tiny fringe minority of opinion, and the number of sites debunking their pseudo-history is far greater than that of the actual deniers. Even young people are able to surf the web with great skill, and can easily see that the Holocaust denial position is fringe in the extreme.
|
216 |
70ce8eea7772645482e107bd7359e6f0
|
freedom expression house would block access websites deny holocaust Denying Holocaust-denier their right to speak is a threat to everyone’s freedom of speech. It is essential in a free society that people be able to express their views without fear of reprisal. As Voltaire said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. As the facts are against the Holocaust deniers their opponents should have no fear of engaging them in open discussion as they will be able to demonstrate how erroneous their opponents are.
|
217 |
d98972f7aaefca51176e165d901a5e3e
|
freedom expression house would block access websites deny holocaust The organizers will go underground
A major risk with any extremist organization is that its members, when put under significant legal pressure, will go underground. For example The Pirate Bay, a major bittorrent file sharing website, simply moved to cloud hosting providers around the world to prevent it being shut down. [1] The power of the state to actually stop the development of neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier networks is extremely limited, as they will be able still to organize in secret, or even semi-publicly, via social networks and hidden websites. While their visible profile would be diminished, it would not guarantee any positive gains in terms of stamping down on their numbers. Indeed, when they no longer use public channels it will be ever harder for the government to keep track of their doings and of their leaders. The result of this censorship is a more emboldened, harder to detect group that now has a sense of legitimate grievance and victimhood against the state, which it can use to encourage more extreme acts from its members and can spin to its advantage during recruitment efforts. By leaving them in the open they feel more comfortable acting within the confines of the law and are thus far less dangerous, even if they are more visible.
[1] BBC, “The Pirate Bay moves to the cloud to avoid shutdown”, BBC News, 17 October 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19982440
|
218 |
2648348ea88205f0e1d0dc86aaaf2b43
|
freedom expression house would block access websites deny holocaust Everyone has a right to freedom of expression
No matter how unpalatable their opinions may be, everyone should have the right to voice them. The very core of a free society is the right to express one’s mind freely, without hindrance from the state. When the state presumes to judge good speech from bad, and to shut off the channel by which the designated bad speech may flow, it abrogates its duty to its citizens. The government does this by presuming to make value judgments on kinds of speech, and thus empowering itself, and not the people, to be the final arbiter of acceptable speech. Such a state of affairs is anathema to the continuation of a free society. [1] With free speech the all sides will get to voice their views and those whose opinions have most evidence will win out so there is no need for censorship as the marketplace of ideas will prevent ideas without sufficient evidence from having an impact. Furthermore, the particular speech in question is extremely fringe, and is for that reason a very unusual one to be seeking to silence. Speech can be legally curtailed only when there is a very real and manifest harm. But that is not the case here, where the participants are few and scattered, and those who would take exception to what the Holocaust deniers have to say can easily opt out online.
[1] Chomsky, Noam. “His Right to Say it”. The Nation. 28 February 1981, http://www.chomsky.info/articles /19810228.htm
|
219 |
701a10d715989b057bc16379a3bd17c1
|
freedom expression house would block access websites deny holocaust Denial of access adds mystique to their beliefs
By denying people the ability to access sites set up by Holocaust deniers the government serves only to increase their mystique and thus the demand to know more about the movement and its beliefs. When the state opposes something so vociferously that it is willing to set aside the normal freedoms people have come to expect as granted, many people begin to take greater notice. There are always groups of individuals that wish to set themselves up as oppositional to the norms of society, to be transgressive in behavior and thus challenge the entrenched system. [1] When something like Holocaust denial is given that rare mystique of extreme transgression, it serves to encourage people, particularly young, rebellious people to seek out the group and even join it. This has been the case for neo-Nazism in Germany. In Germany Holocaust denial is illegal, yet it has one of the liveliest communities of neo-Nazis in Europe. [2] Their aggressive attacks have only served to boost the movement’s mystique and many have flocked to its banner. By allowing free expression and debate, many people would be saved from joining the barbaric organizations that promote the lies of Holocaust denial.
[1] Gottfried, Ted. Deniers of the Holocaust: Who They Are, What They Do, Why They Do It. Brookfield, CT: Twenty-First Century Books, 2001.
[2] BBC. “Germany’s Neo-Nazi Underground”. BBC News. 7 December 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16056399
|
220 |
2e9eb217fb29343fce0a7e603f4e1b1a
|
freedom expression house would block access websites deny holocaust Holocaust denial sites are an attack on group identities
The internet is the center of discourse and public life in the 21st century. With the advent of social networks, people around the world live more and more online. Unlike any other kind of hateful speech that might flourish on the internet, Holocaust denial stands apart. This is due firstly to the particular mark that the Holocaust has made on the collective consciousness of western civilization as the ultimate act of human evil and depravity. The Holocaust is now a defining part of Jewish identity, denying it attacks all those who suffered and their decedents. Allowing Holocaust denial websites is allowing the rejection of groups’ very identity. Thus its apologists do far more harm than any troll, misogynist, or even apologist of other atrocities. For this reason, the government can justifiably censor sites promoting these absolutely offensive beliefs while not falling down any sort of slippery slope. The second reason Holocaust denial stands apart from other sorts of internet abuse is that these sites are often flashpoints for violence materializing in the real world. More than just talk, neo-Nazis seek dangerous action, and thus the state should be doubly ready to remove this threat from the internet. [1] Accepting that Holocaust deniers have a point that should be articulated across the internet would be helping these neo-nazi groups gain a foothold. The particularly grievous nature of the Holocaust demands the protection of history to the utmost.
[1] BBC. “Germany’s Neo-Nazi Underground”. BBC News. 7 December 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16056399
|
221 |
0a76b33e6d4658966cd339ba26ed6db0
|
freedom expression house would block access websites deny holocaust The freedom of Holocaust deniers to use to the internet legitimizes their organization and message in eyes of consumers
When the internet places no moral judgments on content, and the gatekeepers let all information through on equal footing, it lends an air of legitimacy that these beliefs have a voice, and that they are held by reasonable people. This legitimacy is enhanced by the anonymity of the internet where deniers can pose as experts and downplay their opponents’ credentials. While the internet is a wonderful tool for spreading knowledge, it can also be subverted to disseminate misinformation. Holocaust deniers have been able to use the internet to a remarkable extent in promoting pseudoscience and pseudo-history that have the surface appearance of credibility. [1] Compounding this further, the administrators of these sites are able to choke of things like dissenting commenters, giving the illusion that their view is difficult, or even impossible to reasonably challenge. They thus create an echo chamber for their ideas that allows them to spread and to affect people, particularly young people susceptible to such manipulation. By denying these people a platform on the internet, the government is able to not only make a moral stance that is unequivocal, but also to choke off access to new members who can be saved by never seeing the negative messages.
[1] Lipstadt, Deborah. Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. New York: Free Press, 1993.
|
222 |
c699c1d32dbf1653b62471775a9896a9
|
freedom expression house would block access websites deny holocaust Governments should not allow forums for hate speech to flourish
Denial of the Holocaust is fundamentally hate speech. It is the duty of the government to deny these offensive beliefs a platform of any kind. [1] By blocking these sites, the government denies a certain freedom of speech, but it is a necessarily harmful form of speech that has no value in the market place of ideas. Many people, often Jews, but also members of other discriminated against minorities like Roma, suffer directly from the speech, feeling not only offended, but physically threatened by such denials. Holocaust denial however goes beyond hate speech because it is not only offensive but factually wrong. The attempt to rewrite history and to sow lies causes a threat to the truth and an ability to co-opt the participation of gullible individuals to their cause that mere insults and demagoguery could not. It represents a threat to education by undermining the value of facts and evidence. For this reason, there is essentially no real loss of valuable speech in censoring the sites denying the Holocaust.
[1] Lipstadt, Deborah. Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. New York: Free Press, 1993.
|
223 |
19183b18a4026e97e324f7ba3c63a209
|
freedom expression house would block access websites deny holocaust A ban would stop Holocaust deniers from engaging in effective real world actions
The greatest fear with hate groups is not just their hateful rhetoric online, but also their ability to take harmful action in the real world. When Holocaust deniers are able to set up standard websites, they have the ability to mobilize action on the ground. This means coordinating rallies, as well as acts of hooliganism and violence. One need only look at the sort of organization the Golden Dawn, a neo-fascist Greek party, has been able to develop in part through active use of social media and websites. [1] By capitalizing on the tools of the 21st century these thugs have succeeded in bringing sympathizers to their cause, often geographically diffuse, into a tight-knit community capable of action and disruption that harms all citizens, but particularly the minority groups they are presently fixated upon. By utilizing social media and websites Holocaust deniers have gained a new lease on life. The government can significantly hamper these organizations from taking meaningful actions, and from coalescing in the first place by denying them their favored and most effective platform.
[1] Savaricas, Nathalie, “Greece’s neo-fascists are on the rise... and now they’re going into schools: How Golden Dawn is nurturing the next generation”, The Independent, 2 February 2013, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/greeces-neofascists-are-on-the-rise-and-now-theyre-going-into-schools-how-golden-dawn-is-nurturing-the-next-generation-8477997.html
|
224 |
c7091d47aeda262b8904eaeb2c93bf56
|
p ip internet digital freedoms privacy house would ban all anonymous Freedom from consequences is not a necessary component of freedom of speech. If someone is free from legal restraints surrounding their ability to speak, they are free to speak. Freedom of speech does not entitle an individual to absolute freedom of consequences of any kind, including social consequences to their speech. While someone should certainly be free to state their opinion, there is no reason why they should be entitled to not be challenged for holding that opinion.
|
225 |
b1ba9e64bc3bad50395e126a6001a9b7
|
p ip internet digital freedoms privacy house would ban all anonymous Self-improvement through an alias or false identity is unlikely to lead to genuine self-improvement. When individuals have multiple identities, they may think of them as distinct from one another, and are thus unlikely to transfer self-improvement from one to another. For example, a recovering addict may only have a renewed attitude in their online identity, and not in real life where it is more important. This is unlikely to be beneficial, and may be actively harmful in terms of limiting the improvement of real life identities.
|
226 |
e19d797b6d7dc8654ddc7779d3edb26e
|
p ip internet digital freedoms privacy house would ban all anonymous Protest of this kind is less meaningful. When an organisation such as this is criticised only by anonymous individuals, who are likely to be difficult to contact or learn more about, it is less likely to lead to any kind of long-term meaningful resistance. In the case of Anonymous and the Church of Scientology, there have been no notable acts of resistance to the Church of Scientology other than Anonymous.
Anonymous resistance makes other kinds of resistance less likely to happen, and rarely leads to significant change or action.
|
227 |
b7ee9fe89ed06256e4e48f2ca5c2d303
|
p ip internet digital freedoms privacy house would ban all anonymous Small reduction in ability to seek out help and community outweighed by a large reduction in hate speech. Anonymity is not essential to seeking out help and community. The internet is a large and expansive place, meaning that if an individual posts on an obscure site, people that they know in real life are very likely to see it. Even having your real name attached is unlikely to single you out unless you have a particularly distinctive name. Anonymity adds very little to their ability to seek out this help and community.
Additionally, anonymity is frequently used as a tool to spread hate speech, [1] which the people this point is concerned with are the primary victims of. Even if a lack of anonymity means a marginal reduction in their ability to seek out a supportive community, this is a worthwhile sacrifice for a significant reduction in the amount of hatred directed at them.
[1] ‘Starting Points for Combating Hate Speech Online’. British Institute of Human Rights. URL: http://act4hre.coe.int/rus/content/download/28301/215409/file/Starting%20points.pdf
|
228 |
d85fa04c18b9a0cdd5d8e5dcf405846d
|
p ip internet digital freedoms privacy house would ban all anonymous Hate speech will happen regardless. A significant amount of online hate speech is made through accounts under the real life name of the speaker. It is notable that Facebook has required its users to use their real names since 2011, [1] but has still had significant issues with hate speech long after that. [2] The fact is that an enormous amount of hate speakers see what they are saying as entirely legitimate, and are therefore not afraid of having it connected to their real life identities. The fact is that 'hate speech' is localised and culture-dependent. Since the Internet brings many cultures together, hate speech will happen almost inadvertently.
Additionally, online hate speech is very difficult to prosecute even when connected to real life identities, [3] so this policy is unlikely to be effective at making those who now would be identified see any more consequences than before. In the Korean example the law was simply avoided by resorting to foreign sites. [4] The similar lack of consequences is likely to lead to a similar lack of disincentive to posting that kind of material.
[1] ‘Twitter rife with hate speech, terror activity’. Jewish Journal. URL: http://www.jewishjournal.com/lifestyle/article/twitter_rife_with_hate_speech_terror_activity
[2] ‘Facebook Admits It Failed On Hate Speech Following #FBrape Twitter Campaign And Advertiser Boycott’. International Business Times. URL: http://www.ibtimes.com/facebook-admits-it-failed-hate-speech-following-fbrape-twitter-campaign-advertiser-boycott-1282815
[3] ‘Racists, Bigots and the Internet’. Anti-Defamation League. URL: http://archive.adl.org/internet/internet_law3.asp
[4] ‘Law on real name use on Internet ruled illegal’, JoonAng Daily, http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=295...
|
229 |
30e7bf8f2af585091e30064c6aa96586
|
p ip internet digital freedoms privacy house would ban all anonymous Similar prevention can be achieved through raising internet awareness. In the case of children, parents taking a more pro-active role in monitoring and controlling their children’s online activities is likely to be more effective than the measures of this policy. Indeed, signalling that they do need to monitor their children can actually put their children in more danger, as there are considerable risks to children online even without anonymous posting.
Other kinds of fraud can be similarly avoided by raising awareness: people should be made to realise that sending money or bank details to people you don’t know is a bad idea. In fact, the removal of internet aliases may even encourage people to trust people they don’t know, but do know the real names of, even though that is no more advisable.
|
230 |
ac56b96b3c33f78eb9a21b8b4a53ecbc
|
p ip internet digital freedoms privacy house would ban all anonymous Moves illegal activity in harder to monitor areas. Those partaking in planning illegal activity will not continue to do so if hiding their identities is not possible. Instead, they will return to using more private means of communication, such as meeting in person, or using any online services that do guarantee anonymity such as TOR. While this may make planning illegal activity more difficult, it also makes it more difficult for law enforcement officials to monitor this behaviour, and come anywhere near stopping it: at least under the status quo they have some idea of where and how it is happening, and can use that as a starting point. Forcing criminals further underground may not be desirable. The authorities in cooperation with websites are usually able to find out who users are despite the veil of anonymity for example in the UK the police have arrested people for rape threats made against a campaigner for there to be a woman on UK banknotes.1
1 Masters, Sam, 'Twitter threats: Man arrested over rape-threat tweets against campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez', The Independent, 28, July, 2013, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/twitter-threats-man-arrested-...
|
231 |
79678eb50153611bf9bcf969be935e87
|
p ip internet digital freedoms privacy house would ban all anonymous Stopping anonymity does not meaningfully prevent bullying. Internet anonymity is not essentially to bullying: it can be done through a nearly infinite number of media. Importantly, it is not even essential to anonymous bullying. For example, it is quite simple to send anonymous text messages: all that is required is access to a phone that the victim does not have the number of. It is similarly easy to simply write notes or letters, and leave them in places where the victim will find them. Anonymous posting on the internet is far from the only place where these kinds of anonymous attacks are possible.
All this policy does is shifts the bullying into areas where they may be more difficult to monitor. Rather than sending messages online that can be, albeit with some difficulty, traced back to the perpetrator, or at least used as some kind of evidence, bullies are likely to return to covert classroom bullying that can be much more difficult to identify.
|
232 |
a3d97e3a97af55464ecf276c7959eee7
|
p ip internet digital freedoms privacy house would ban all anonymous Limiting ability of oppressed individuals to seek out help and community.
Anonymous posting means people who are made to feel ashamed of themselves, or their identities within their local communities can seek out help and/or like-minded people. For example, a gay teenager in a fiercely homophobic community could find cyber communities that are considerably more tolerant, and even face the same issues as them. This can make an enormous difference to self-acceptance, as people are no longer subjected to a singular, negative view of themselves. [1] Banning anonymous posting removes this ability.
[1] ‘In the Middle East, Marginalized LGBT Youth Find Supportive Communities Online’ Tech President. URL: http://techpresident.com/news/wegov/22823/middle-east-marginalized-lgbt-youth-find-supportive-communities-online
‘Online Identity: Is authenticity or anonymity more important?’ The Guardian. URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/19/online-identity-authenticity-anonymity
|
233 |
568de474ce4eafb764eeaaaef2ad8001
|
p ip internet digital freedoms privacy house would ban all anonymous Limiting ability to experiment with identity.
The ability to post anonymously on the internet means that people can create a new identity for themselves where they will not be judged in terms of what they have done before. This can be particularly useful for people who are attempting to make significant positive reformations to their lives, such as recovering addicts, thereby facilitating self-improvement. Banning anonymous posting reduces individual’s abilities to better themselves in this way. [1]
[1] ‘Online Identity: Is authenticity or anonymity more important?’ The Guardian. URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/19/online-identity-authenticity-anonymity
|
234 |
cdcceffdcaae0e851f3909c1f66d1cda
|
p ip internet digital freedoms privacy house would ban all anonymous Reducing the extent to which large and powerful organisations can be criticised.
Organisations with lots of wealth and legal power can be difficult to criticise when one’s name and personal information is attached to all attempts at protest and/or criticism. Internet anonymity means that individuals can criticise these groups without fear of unfair reprisal, and their actions are, as a result, held up to higher levels of scrutiny. For example, internet anonymity were instrumental in the first meaningful and damaging protests against the Church of Scientology by internet group Anonymous. [1] Similarly anonymity has been essential in the model for WikiLeaks and other similar efforts like the New Yorker’s Strongbox. [2]
[1] ‘John Sweeney: Why Church of Scientology’s greatest threat is ‘net’. The Register. URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/21/scientology_internet_threat/
‘Anonymous vs. Scientology’. Ex-Scientology Kids. URL: http://exscientologykids.com/anonymous/
[2] Davidson, Amy, ‘Introducing Strongbox’, The New Yorker, 15 May 2013, http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/05/introducing-strongbox-anonymous-document-sharing-tool.html
|
235 |
05060d7fe24cd1579f72fed6f764c25f
|
p ip internet digital freedoms privacy house would ban all anonymous Reducing hate speech.
Openly racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory comments made through public forums are much more likely when made anonymously, as people feel they are unlikely to see any consequences for voicing their hateful opinions. [1] This leads firstly to a propagation of these views in others, and a higher likelihood of attacks based on this hate, as seeing a particular view more often makes people feel it is more legitimate. [2] More importantly, it causes people from the targeted groups to feel alienated or unwelcome in particular places due to facets of their identity that are out of their control, and all people have a right not to be discriminated against for reasons such as these.
The proposed policy would enormously reduce the amount of online hate speech posted as people would be too afraid to do it. Although not exactly the same a study of abusive and slanderous posts on Korean forums in the six months following the introduction of their ban on anonymity found that such abusive postings dropped 20%. [3] Additionally it would allow governments to pursue that which is posted under the same laws that all other speech is subject to in their country.
[1] ‘Starting Points for Combating Hate Speech Online’. British Institute of Human Rights. URL: http://act4hre.coe.int/rus/content/download/28301/215409/file/Starting%20points.pdf
[2] ‘John Gorenfield, Moon the Messiah, and the Media Echo Chamber’. Daily Kos. URL: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/06/24/34812/-John-Gorenfeld-Moon-the-Messiah-and-the-Media-Echo-Chamber
[3] ‘Real Name Verification Law on the Internet: A Poison or Cure for Privacy?’, Carnegie Melon University, http://weis2011.econinfosec.org/papers/Real%20Name%20Verification%20Law%20on%20the%20Internet%20-%20A%20Poison%20or%20Cu.pdf
|
236 |
2bbd5671f39c2e21f2120dc86f1915fc
|
p ip internet digital freedoms privacy house would ban all anonymous Reducing currently illegal activity.
Internet anonymity is very useful for planning and organising illegal activity, mostly buying and selling illegal goods, such as drugs, firearms, stolen goods, or child pornography, but also, in more extreme cases, for terrorism or assassinations. This is because it can be useful in making plans and advertisements public, thus enabling wider recruitment and assistance, while at the same time preventing these plans from being easily traced back to specific individuals. [1] For example, the website Silk Road openly offers users the opportunity to buy and sell illegal drugs. Sales on this site alone have double over the course of six months, hitting $1.7million per month. [2]
This policy makes it easier for the police to track down the people responsible for these public messages, should they continue. If anonymity is still used, it will be significantly easier to put legal pressure on the website and its users, possibly even denying access to it. If anonymity is not used, obviously it is very easy to trace illegal activity back to perpetrators. In the more likely event that they do not continue, it at least makes organising criminal activities considerably more difficult, and less likely to happen. This means the rule of law will be better upheld, and citizens will be kept safer. [3]
[1] Williams, Phil, ‘Organized Crime and Cyber-Crime: Implications for Business’, CERT, 2002, http://www.cert.org/archive/pdf/cybercrime-business.pdf p.2
[2] ‘Silk Road: the online drug marketplace that officials seem powerless to stop.’ The Guardian. URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/22/silk-road-online-drug-marketplace
[3] ‘Do dark networks aid cyberthieves and abusers?’ BBC News. URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22754061
|
237 |
8f2722ac2188990dd780dc209a44c128
|
p ip internet digital freedoms privacy house would ban all anonymous Reducing cyberbullying.
When internet anonymity is used for bullying, it can make the situation much worse. Firstly, perpetrators are much less likely to hold back or be cautious as they are less concerned with the possibility of being caught. This means the bullying is likely to be more intense than when it is done in real life. [1] Additionally, for victims of cyberbullying, being unable to tell who your harasser is, or even how many there are can be particularly distressing. [2]
Anonymous posting being significantly less available takes away the particularly damaging anonymous potential of cyberbullying, and allows cyberbullying to be more effectively dealt with.
[1] ‘Traditional Bullying v. Cyberbullying’. CyberBullying, Google Sites. URL: https://sites.google.com/site/cyberbullyingawareness/traditional-bullying-vs-cyberbullying
‘The Problem of Cyberbullies’ Anonymity’. Leo Burke Academy. URL: http://www.lba.k12.nf.ca/cyberbullying/anonymity.htm
[2] ‘Cyberbullying’. Netsafe. URL: http://www.cyberbullying.org.nz/teachers/
|
238 |
c57b893a1f887bb3879f32cd0acb0da6
|
p ip internet digital freedoms privacy house would ban all anonymous Reducing fraud using fake identities.
Anonymous posting can be used to make people believe you are someone who you are not. This can be done in order to acquire money from victims either by establishing a dishonest relationship or offering fraudulent business opportunities. [1] It is also a frequently used tool in child abduction cases, where the perpetrator will pretend to be a child or even classmate to gain enough access to a child in order to make abduction viable. It is estimated that nearly 90% of all sexual solicitations of youth are made in online anonymous chat rooms. Additionally, in the UK alone over 200 cases of meeting a child following online grooming, usually via anonymous sites are recorded. [2]
These are enormous harms that can be easily avoided with the removal of anonymous posting online.
[1] ‘Online Fraud’. Action Fraud. URL: http://www.actionfraud.police.uk/fraud-az-online-fraud
[2] ‘Online child grooming: a literature review on the misuse of social networking sites for grooming children for sexual offences’. Australian Institute of Criminology. URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/3/C/1/%7B3C162CF7-94B1-4203-8C57-79F827168DD8%7Drpp103.pdf
|
239 |
fef373dc9e6b03c7f1271099bd1482c2
|
society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents While cyberbullying is indeed a danger to children, it is not an excuse to invade their personal life-worlds. The UNCRC clearly states that “(1) No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation,” and that, “(2) The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attack.” These ‘interferences’ or ‘attacks’ not only apply to third parties but to parents as well. [1] Moreover in less traditional ‘offline’ spaces children have far greater ability to choose which information they share with their parents and what they do not. As online spaces are not inherently more dangerous than those offline, it seems reasonable to suggest that similar limitations and restrictions on invasions of privacy that apply online should also apply offline. What a parent can do is to be there for their children and talk to them and support them. They should also spend time surfing the Internet together with them to discuss their issues and problems. But the child should always also have the opportunity to have his or her own protected and private space that is outside the every watchful surveilant eye of the parent..
[1] United Nations Children’s Fund. Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Fully revised 3rd edition. Geneva. United Nations Publications. Google Search. Web. May 2013.
|
240 |
338734b598e5c0c172cd065a5c5168be
|
society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents Certainly parents should help their children to make most of their time with the computer and their phone. However, monitoring children in order to do so is lazy, or more precisely a form of ‘remote-control parenting’. Parents abuse of their children’s inherent right to privacy and feel that they have satisfactorily fulfilled their parental role when instead they are just lazy and unwilling to talk to their child personally about being a responsible netizen. [1] How are children to develop a healthy relationship to sharing information and privacy protection if they are constantly being surveilled by their own parents? More effective parents would instead choose to personally and positively teach their children about time management.
[1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.
|
241 |
c09f65594010f6a506c0f4a5c9baae57
|
society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents While it is certainly beneficial for parents to immerse themselves in the digital world, it may not be good for them to be partially and informally educated by simple monitoring. Especially for parents who are not already familiar with the internet, monitoring may simply condition them to a culture of cyberstalking and being excessively in control of the digital behavior of their children. As it is, a number of children have abandoned Facebook because they feel that their parents are cyberstalking them. [1] Besides, there are other ways of educating oneself regarding ICT which include comprehensive online and video tutorials and library books that may cater to an unfamiliar parent’s questions about the digital world.
[1] “Kids Are Abandoning Facebook To Flee Their Cyber-Stalking Parents.” 2 Oceans Vibe News. 2 Oceans Vibe Media. 11 Mar 2013. Web. May 2013
|
242 |
5da4f42b2b706bd8f9744042b5fa6448
|
society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents Indeed it is important to consider that children do not receive or send sexually disturbing media. However, as proposition has already stated parents are much less likely to be digitally savvy than their children. Should they wish to learn children are likely to be able to penetrate any elaborate digital monitoring set by a parent. As it is, Defcon, one of the world’s largest hacker conventions, is already training 8- to 16-year olds to hack in a controlled environment. [1] That pornography is so widely available and so desirable is the product of a culture the glorifies sexuality and erotic human interaction. The effects on childrens well-being are by no means clear, indeed it can be argued that much of what parents are no able to communicate to their children in the way of sexual education is communicated to them through Internet pornography. While this brings with it all manner of problems, aside from the outrage of their parents there is little scientific data to suggest that mere exposure to pornography is causing wide-scale harm to children. Instead, it may be that many of the ‘objects’ of these debates on the rights of children are themselves quite a bit more mature than the debates would suggest..
[1] Finkle, Jim. “Exclusive: Forget Spy Kids, try kiddie hacker conference.” Reuters. Thomas Reuters. 23 Jun 2011. Web. May 2013.
|
243 |
8c1fade690a053445bcc9308cf185a3a
|
society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents The individual right to privacy must certainly encompass the digital realm as proposition says. It is also undeniable that individual privacy enhances individuality and independence. However, this privacy can and should be regulated lest parents leave children ‘abandoned’ to their rights. [1] “One cannot compare reading a child’s journal to accessing his or her conversations online or through text messages,” says Betsy Landers, the president of the National Parent-Teacher Association of the US and explains, “It’s simply modern involvement.” [2] Thus, Hillary Clinton argues, “children should be granted rights, but in a stage-by-stage manner that accords with and pays attention to their physical and mental development and capacities.” [1] Applying this principle, children should be given digital privacy to an equitable extent and regulated whereby both conditions depend upon the maturity of the child.
[1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.
[2] Landers, Betty. “It’s Modern Parental Involvement.” New York Times. 28 June 2012: 1. New York Times. May 2013.
|
244 |
c23f57def7ef1f081e76cf127631839c
|
society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents It is true that trust is a cornerstone of relationships. Admittedly, the act of monitoring may initially stimulate feelings of distrust which are particularly destructive in relationships. But nonetheless, trust is earned, not granted. The only proactive way to gauge how much trust and responsibility to give a child in the digital world is monitoring. By monitoring a child, parents come to assess the initial capability of the child in digital responsibility and ultimately the level of trust and the level of responsibility he or she deserves and to be assigned subsequently. Ideally, the initial level of monitoring and follow-through should be maximum in order to make clear to the child that he is being guided. Only when a child proves himself and grows in digital maturity can monitoring and follow-through be gradually minimized and finally lifted. [1]
[1] Bodenhamer, Gregory. Parents in Control. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995 Inc. Web. May 2013.
|
245 |
9b6e74e61296630cb478bb4b6242b38d
|
society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents While it is practical to use these parental controls, it is not always realistic to set such limited parameters to the digital freedom of children. Children need to understand that they have the capacity to breach their parents’ trust. [1] This not only allows a child to understand how to interact sensibly with the internet, but to experience taking an initiative to actually obey parents in surfing only safe sites. Selectively restricting a child’s digital freedom does not help in this case. Thus, monitoring is the only way for children to experience digital freedom in such a way that they too are both closely guided and free to do as they wish. Moreover, this is also self-contradictory because opposition claimed that children are capable of circumvention which children would be much more likely to do when blocked from accessing websites than simply monitored.
[1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.
|
246 |
99b4a38eab5bfd11fd51b53ed8c83826
|
society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents Opposition claims that monitoring is ‘laziness’. Admittedly, monitoring makes digital parenting more efficient and comprehensive. But, such technology makes parenting practical, not ‘lazy’. As it is, many people blame technology for their own shortcomings. [1] Thus, parents need to know that monitoring will not do all the work for them. It is not lazy to monitor your children, it is clearly essential that children are monitored when involved in activities such as sports. The internet is a dangerous environment just as the sports field is and should have similar adult supervision.
[1] Bradley, Tony. “Blaming Technology for Human Error: Trying To Fix Social Problems With Technical Tools.” About. About. 30 Mar 2005.
|
247 |
b3da208b5758fd8d9e515ab8f893de06
|
society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents Monitoring allows parents to correct children who are wasting their time.
Parents also need to monitor their children to ensure that they are properly using the time they have with the computer and the mobile phone. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation 40% of 8- to 18-year olds spend 54 minutes a day on social media sites.[1] and that “when alerted to a new social networking site activity, like a new tweet or Facebook message, users take 20 to 25 minutes on average to return to the original task” resulting to 20% lower grades. [2] Thus, parents must constantly monitor the digital activities of their children and see whether they have been maximizing the technology at their disposal in terms of researching for their homework, connecting with good friends and relatives, and many more.
[1] Foehr, Ulla G., Rideout, Victoria J., and Roberts, Donald F., “Generation M2 Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds”, The Kaiser Family Foundation, January 2010, p.21
[2] Gasser, Urs, and Palfrey, John, “Mastering Multitasking”, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, March 2009, p.17
|
248 |
5cd19a718ad89cd2b89ada7d18df3313
|
society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents Monitoring decreases children’s involvement with pornography.
A 2005 study by the London School of Economics found that “while 57 per cent of the over-nines had seen porn online, only 16 per cent of parents knew.” [1] That number is almost certain to have increased. In addition sexting has also become prevalent as research from the UK suggests “over a third (38%) [of] under 18’s have received an offensive or distressing sexual image via text or email.” [2] This is dangerous because this digital reality extends to the real world. [3] W.L. Marshall says that early exposure to pornography may incite children to act out sexually against other children and may shape their sexual attitudes negatively, manifesting as insensitivity towards women and undervaluing monogamy. Only with monitoring can parents have absolute certainy of what their children are doing on the Internet. It may not allow them to prevent children from viewing pornography completely, but regulating the digital use of their children in such a way does not have to limit their digital freedoms or human rights.
[1] Carey, Tanith. “Is YOUR child watching porn? The devastating effects of graphic images of sex on young minds”. Daily Mail. Daily Mail and General Trust. 25 April 2011. Web. May 2013.
[2] “Truth of Sexting Amongst UK Teens.” BeatBullying. Beatbullying. 4 Aug 2009. Web. May 2013.
[3] Hughes, Donna Rice. Kids Online: Protecting Your Children in Cyberspace. Michigan: Fleming H. Revell, 1998. ProtectKids. Web. May 2013.
|
249 |
52daa5a1b5efe02df4eb857ca52e1522
|
society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents Monitoring raises digital awareness among parents.
Parents who are willing to monitor their children’s digital communications also benefit themselves. By setting up the necessary software and apps to secure their children’s online growth, parents familiarize themselves with basic digital skills and keep up with the latest in social media. As it stands there is a need to raise digital awareness among most parents. Sonia Livingston and Magdalena Bober in their extensive survey of the cyber experience of UK children and their parents report that “among parents only 1 in 3 know how to set up an email account, and only a fifth or fewer are able to set up a filter, remove a virus, download music or fix a problem.” [1] Parents becoming more digitally involved as a result of their children provides the added benefit of increasing the number of mature netizens so encouraging norms of good behavior online.
[1] Livingstone, Sonia, and Magdalena Bober. “UK Children Go Online: Surveying the experiences of young people and their parents.” UK Children Go Online. Second Report (2004): 1-61.
|
250 |
a0ece19575be99a9524d96a63d59f009
|
society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents Monitoring is lazy parenting.
The proposition substitutes the good, old-fashioned way of teaching children how to be responsible, with invasions of their privacy, so violating an inherent rights [1]. Such parenting is called remote-control parenting. Parents who monitor their children’s digital behavior feel that they satisfactorily fulfil their parental role when in fact they are being lazy and uninvolved in the growth of their child. Children, especially the youngest, are “dependent upon their parents and require an intense and intimate relationship with their parents to satisfy their physical and emotional needs.” This is called a psychological attachment theory. Responsible parents would instead spend more time with their children teaching them about information management, when to and when not to disclose information, and interaction management, when to and when not to interact with others. [2] That parents have the ability to track their children is true, but doing so is not necessarily likely to make them better adults [3]. The key is for parents and children to talk regularly about the experiences of the child online. This is a process that cannot be substituted by parental monitoring.
[1] United Nations Children’s Fund. Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Fully revised 3rd edition. Geneva. United Nations Publications. Google Search. Web. May 2013.
[2] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.
[3] “You Can Track Your Kids. But Should You?” New York Times. 27 June 2012: 1. New York Times. May 2013.
|
251 |
2e71cad9b6b08473d6a4a58bd5d74817
|
society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents Monitoring is a hindrance to forming relationships both outside and inside the family.
If children are being monitored, or if it seems to children that they are being monitored, they would immediately lose trust in their parents. As trust is reciprocal, children will also learn not to trust others. This will result in their difficulty in forging human connections, thereby straining their psychosocial growth. For them to learn how to trust therefore, children must know that they can break their parents’ trust (as said by the proposition before). This will allow them to understand, obey, and respect their parents on their own initiative, allowing them to respect others in the same manner as well. [1] This growth would only be possible if parents refuse this proposition and instead choose to educate their children how to be responsible beforehand.
[1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.
|
252 |
06ea4e09ea79c903a622d0b8179b5fe3
|
society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents This proposal is simply an invasion of privacy.
Children have as much right to privacy as any adult. Unfortunately there is yet to be a provision on the protection of privacy in either the United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights, though the Supreme Court states that the concept of privacy rooted within the framework of the Constitution. [1] This ambiguity causes confusion among parents regarding the concept of child privacy. Many maintain that privacy should be administered to a child as a privilege, not a right. [2] Fortunately, the UNCRC clearly states that “No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation,” [3] making child privacy an automatic right. Just as children should receive privacy in the real world, so too should they in the digital world. Individual rights, including right to privacy, shape intrafamilial relationships because they initiate individuality and independence. [1]
[1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013. P.764
[2] Brenner, Susan. “The Privacy Privilege.” CYB3RCRIM3. Blogspot. 3 April 2009. May 2013.
[3] United Nations Children’s Fund. Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Fully revised 3rd edition. Geneva. United Nations Publications. Google Search. Web. May 2013.
|
253 |
36784366b3e8a8bda6c69940addcea9f
|
society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents Other parental controls are more practical and reasonable to administer.
Monitoring would be extremely tedious and time-consuming. Many teens send over 100 texts a day, it would clearly be very time consuming to read them all along with all other digital communication.[1] By contrast content filtering, contact management, and privacy protection parental controls, which can be used to block all incoming and outgoing information, require only minimal supervision. Parents who meanwhile deem their children immature when it comes to social networking and gaming can instead impose user restrictions on the relevant websites and devices. [2] Administering these alternative parental controls leave for more quality time with children. In this case, only when children acquire sufficient digital maturity and responsibility can these controls be lifted. As they have learnt to be mature in the digital environment the children would most likely continue to surf safely even when the parental controls are lifted.
[1] Goldberg, Stephanie, “Many teens send 100-plus texts a day, survey says”, CNN, 21 April 2010
[2] Burt, David. “Parental Controls Product Guide.” 2010 Edition. n.d. PDF File. Web. May 2013.
|
254 |
9cbe35d9593498ddf79c3a9e2dec0d02
|
ital freedoms access knowledge house believes wikipedia force good Wikipedia may document the process of creation of encyclopaedia articles, but it does not illustrate the kind of research-writing we should be teaching students. Academic peer review is limited to expert readers. While expert readers can participate in Wikipedia, their voices are often drowned out by the less knowledgeable masses. Moreover, Wikipedia discourages appropriate source use and citation practices. Not only do students frequently plagiarize from Wikipedia, [1] but they also plagiarize in contributing to it. [2]
[1] Nagel, D. (2011, November 3). Wikipedia tops list of plagiarized sources. Retrieved May 9, 2012, from THE Journal.
[2] Sormunen, E., & Lehtio, L. (2011, December). Authoring Wikipedia articles as an information literacy assignment: Copy-pasting or expressing new understanding in one’s own words. Information Research 16(4). Retrieved April 27, 2012.
|
255 |
98d5fe36bc746b482d85cdfb9de25f38
|
ital freedoms access knowledge house believes wikipedia force good Collaboration in editing does not encourage democratic principles, but merely privileges the loudest voice, or in this case, the most regular user. As such, creating knowledge by consensus is inherently flawed. A fact is not true simply because lots of people think so. Traditional encyclopaedias are written and edited by academics and professional experts, whose reputation is put on the line by the articles they produce. They have the credentials and expertise that give them the authority to write without requiring widespread communal feedback. However, anyone can write a Wikipedia article, regardless of how much or how little knowledge he or she has of the subject. Worse yet, because contributors are effectively anonymous, it is impossible to assess the quality of an article on an unfamiliar topic by assessing the credentials of those who have produced it. Collaboration, therefore, becomes a barrier to the provision of reliable, accurate and up-to-date information.
|
256 |
b8a6c8696e0bc8b565beb3716b2a3e8b
|
ital freedoms access knowledge house believes wikipedia force good No organisation can succeed in being completely neutral and unbiased as is shown by the number of complaints the BBC, which is obliged to be impartial in political matters, [1] gets about bias on issues ranging from politics, [2] [3] to Israel, [4] [5] to climate change. [6] Similarly Wikipedia can be criticised for its inbuilt bias, intolerant of dissenting views. Even Wikipedians themselves acknowledge that its topic coverage is slanted. [7] Religious conservatives object to the secular liberal approach its editors consistently take and have found that their attempts to add balance to entries are swiftly rejected. This bias even extends to the censorship of facts which raise questions about the theory of evolution. Some conservatives are so worried about the widespread use of Wikipedia to promote a liberal agenda in education that they have set up Conservapedia as a rival source of information. [8]
[1] BBC. (2012). BBC Charter and Agreement. Retrieved May 16 2012, from the BBC.
[2] Helm, Toby. (2011, December 31). Labour turns on BBC over ‘pro-coalition coverage’. Retrieved May 16, 2012, from The Observer.
[3] Johnson, Boris. (2012, May 14). The statist, defeatist and biased BBC is on the wrong wavelength. Retrieved May 16, 2012 from The Telegraph.
[4] PNN. (2012, May 16), Protest Outside the BBC: End Your Silence on Palestine. Retrieved May 16, 2012 from Palestine News Network.
[5] Paul, Jonny. (2010, April 28). Watchdog: BBC biased against Israel. Retrieved May 16, 2012, from The Jerusalem Post.
[6] Black, Richard. (2009, October 13). Biases, U-turns, and the BBC’s climate coverage. Retrieved May 16, 2012, from the BBC.
[7] Why Wikipedia is not so great. Retrieved November 14, 2004, from Wikipedia.
[8] Jane, E. (2011, January 11). A parallel online universe. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The Australian
|
257 |
04e30989db9277a54e6921c9acecad9e
|
ital freedoms access knowledge house believes wikipedia force good Wikipedia is a common starting point for enquiries, but not because it is excellent; it has become a standard source of reference because it is free and easy to access. Wikipedia, through its popularity, is often the first search result found when using public search engines like Google, which draws users to its information regardless of the reliability that other sources may offer. Many of its users are students, with too little experience to ascertain the quality of an article but anxious to find the quickest and ostensibly most efficient path to the information they require. Overdependence on Wikipedia means that students in particular never develop proper research skills and increasingly accept that an approximately right answer is good enough. [1] , [2] Middlebury College’s history department even banned students from citing Wikipedia in papers, [3] and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales himself has asserted that changes to Wikipedia are necessary to make it a suitable resource for college students. [4] , [5]
[1] Graham, L., & Metaxas, P. T. (2003, May). “Of course it’s true; I saw it on the Internet!” Critical thinking in the Internet era.Communications of the ACM, 46(1), 71-75.
[2] Frean, A. (2008, January 14). White bread for young minds, says University of Brighton professor. The Times. Retrieved June 9, 2008.
[3] Jaschik, S. (2007, January 26). A stand against Wikipedia. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved March 4, 2008.
[4] Young, J. R. (2006, June 12).Wikipedia founder discourages academic use of his creation. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 4, 2008
[5] Young, J. R. (2008, May 16). A ‘frozen’ Wikipedia could be better for college, founder says. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 4,
|
258 |
e718c555206ee8dc16a99ef9699540a0
|
ital freedoms access knowledge house believes wikipedia force good Wikipedia does not provide free, open access to knowledge, for it only applies to those who already have access to both a computer and internet access. Furthermore, since very few computer retailers or internet service providers are willing to provide their services free of charge, to declare Wikipedia free is disingenuous; there are substantial charges before Wikipedia can be utilized. Moreover while Wikipedia may provide free open access to knowledge this is mostly for those who speak English. Those who need this resource are those who speak much smaller languages but as yet Wikipedia is not a good resource in these languages. The Punjabi Wikipedia only has 3,000 articles [1] despite it being a language with more than sixty million speakers. [2] . Lastly, whilst Wikipedia has advantages over traditional print encyclopaedias, tangible objects have the advantage of never going offline and therefore being able to provide their information constantly.
[1] Wikimedia. (2012). List of Wikipedias, Retrieved May 16, 2012, from meta.wikimedia.org.
[2] Ethnologue. (2000). Languages of Pakistan, Retrieved May 16, 2012, from ethnologue.org.
|
259 |
2d40928915b2202619c42a8a0e1963fe
|
ital freedoms access knowledge house believes wikipedia force good Studies indicate that the information on Wikipedia is, in fact, accurate.
The only systematic comparison of Wikipedia’s quality against its leading traditional rival, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, showed Wikipedia to be of similar accuracy. A survey in the leading journal Nature compared 42 pairs of articles on a wide range of science subjects. [1] Experts in each topic found that Wikipedia’s user-contributed articles had only 30% more errors and omissions overall than Britannica, despite the latter’s much vaunted pride in its expert authors and editors. And as Wikipedia is a constant work-in-progress, these faults were quickly corrected, whereas a traditional publication like Britannica will only revise articles at intervals of years, if not decades, if they ever do. So, over time, errors in traditional encyclopaedias persist longer than in Wikipedia.
[1] Giles, J. (2005, December 15). Special Report: Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from Nature
|
260 |
cb10fbab19a5714a9e328d3fcd3fc3db
|
ital freedoms access knowledge house believes wikipedia force good Wikipedia is a service that offers information where it is felt most necessary. If there is more information on the imaginary language of Klingon than the works of John Locke, for example, that is because more people want to read and learn about Klingon or are unable to find the information they desire elsewhere. In this way, Wikipedia is responsive to audience desires and needs. As such, there are few shortcomings in Wikipedia’s coverage. If Locke was to come into vogue, then undoubtedly his page would soon expand to meet that demand.
|
261 |
613e700a4da5b264151a527000d78d7c
|
ital freedoms access knowledge house believes wikipedia force good Wikipedia does offer a better service, not necessarily in terms of the quality of information, but in terms of the depth, breadth and accessibility of information. Enquiries will not and should not end at Wikipedia, but it provides accessible background information as well as links to additional research and publication on a topic and is, therefore, an obvious starting point. [1] Nobody at Wikipedia has claimed that it is a definitive account of human knowledge or a replacement for in-depth research. But it gives a quick guide to an unknown subject and points the enquirer on to more specialist sources. It is used to good effect by students, teachers, journalists and even judges, among many others – showing it is a valued reference source. Experienced users can quickly assess the quality of an article from its written quality and the thoroughness of its references, so they need not accept its content out of hand. Nothing on the internet should ever be accepted uncritically, but Wikipedia has earned its reputation as a valuable starting resource.
[1] Purdy, J. P. (2010). Wikipedia is good for you!? In C. Lowe and P. Zemliansky (Eds.), Writing spaces: Readings on writing, Vol. 1 (pp. 205-224). Fort Collins, CO and West Lafayette, IN: WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press. Retrieved May 9, 2010.
|
262 |
c607341c071e77fc2bc74e03de89875e
|
ital freedoms access knowledge house believes wikipedia force good Entries are not easily or wantonly manipulated. Wikipedia harnesses the best qualities of humanity – trust and cooperation in pursuit of an unselfish goal. Sceptics essentially take a negative view of society, unable to understand why people would club together to produce something so valuable without any financial incentive. [1] Wikipedia is not naïvely trusting. The majority of entries are written by a close online community of a few hundred people who value their reputations. Examples of abuse have led Wikipedia to tighten up its rules so that cyber vandals can easily be detected and editing of controversial topics restricted to the most trusted editors. Overall, Wikipedia is a tremendous human success story, which should be celebrated rather than criticised.
[1] Ciffolilli, A. (2003). Phantom authority, self-selective recruitment and retention of members in virtual communities: The case of Wikipedia. First Monday 8(12). Retrieved April 27, 2005.
|
263 |
8fce5d085bc43546adc7d09014a6f643
|
ital freedoms access knowledge house believes wikipedia force good “If we see the ongoing evolution of information in public spheres as a part of scholarly work . . . Wikipedia can enrich, extend, and enliven, rather than threaten, the scholarly enterprise.” [1] Wikipedia encourages more people, including students, to participate in scholarly work by asking them to edit and respond to its articles. In this way, it makes scholarly work more visible and accessible. Wikipedia integrates research and writing in productive ways in the service of knowledge production, which educators can exploit to teach students. [2] Wikipedia transforms people from passive users of web content to active producers of it. [3]
[1] Purdy, J. P. (2009). When the tenets of composition go public: A study of writing in Wikipedia.” College Composition and Communication, 61(2), W351-W373. Retrieved May 9, 2012.
[2] Purdy, J. P. (2010). The changing space of research: Web 2.0 and the integration of research and writing environments. Computers and Composition, 27(1), 48-58.
[3] Bruns, Axel. (2009). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang.
|
264 |
1eb7ac3c4fb69882ad4f8a3557b75ec9
|
ital freedoms access knowledge house believes wikipedia force good Collaboration in editing encourages democratic principles
The process of collaboration required to create and maintain an up-to-date, factual source of information encourages democratic practices and principles. Wikipedia seeks to achieve its democratic goal of the spread of free, open material by democratic means. As an open-source project it relies upon the collaboration of tens of thousands of people who constantly add, check and edit articles. Disagreements and disputes are sent up the line to moderators, who oversee the editing process. This “socialisation of expertise” as David Weinberger puts it [1] ensures that errors and omissions are rapidly identified and corrected and that the site is constantly and accurately updated. No traditional encyclopaedia can match this scrutiny. Indeed, “Wikipedia has the potential to be the greatest effort in collaborative knowledge gathering the world has ever known, and it may well be the greatest effort in voluntary collaboration of any kind.” [2] Not only do such democratic processes encourage democracy more generally, but they are an effective means to create a user-friendly product, as illustrated by open source software such as Firefox and Linux.
[1] The Economist. (2006, April 20). The wiki principle. Retrieved 16 May 2012, from The Economist.
[2] Poe, M. (2006, September). The hive. Retrieved May 11, 2012, from The Atlantic.
|
265 |
45742c4ff5e1e2cc8beca4a018eec17b
|
ital freedoms access knowledge house believes wikipedia force good Wikipedia is an excellent starting point for enquiries
Wikipedia pools information that previously was spread far and wide in cyberspace into one readily accessible location. Enquiries will not and should not end at Wikipedia, but it provides accessible background information as well as links to additional research and publication on a topic and is, therefore, an obvious starting point. [1] Nobody at Wikipedia has claimed that it is a definitive account of human knowledge or a replacement for in-depth research. But it gives a quick guide to an unknown subject and points the enquirer on to more specialist sources. It is used to good effect by students, teachers, journalists and even judges, among many others – showing it is a valued reference source. Experienced users can quickly assess the quality of an article from its written quality and the thoroughness of its references, so they need not accept its content out of hand. Nothing on the internet should ever be accepted uncritically, but Wikipedia has earned its reputation as a valuable starting resource.
[1] Purdy, J. P. (2010). Wikipedia is good for you!? In C. Lowe and P. Zemliansky (Eds.), Writing spaces: Readings on writing, Vol. 1 (pp. 205-224). Fort Collins, CO and West Lafayette, IN: WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press.
|
266 |
8bc635e3c8569f431da6c06d375c1ca5
|
ital freedoms access knowledge house believes wikipedia force good Wikipedia provides free, open access to knowledge
Wikipedia exists to provide free, open and easy access to information and knowledge. Its goal is to ‘distribute a free encyclopedia to every single person on the planet in their own language, and to an astonishing degree (it) is succeeding’. [1] It already has over 3.5 million articles in English alone. [2] This is more than ten times those of Encyclopaedia Britannica, its nearest printed rival. Traditionally, reference works were very expensive, which meant previously that knowledge was restricted to the wealthy, or those with access to well-funded public libraries. Wikipedia liberates that knowledge and provides volumes of online information to anyone with access to a computer, or even a smartphone, and the internet. Its impact is only restrained by the reach of internet providers and the desire of people to learn. Users do not need to be able to afford particular print objects but can access contents of Wikipedia from any location with Internet connectivity.
[1] Schiff, S. (2006, July 31). Know it all: Can Wikipedia conquer it all? Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The New Yorker
[2] Asrianti, T. (2011, April 27). Writing culture on the web: Are we still better at talking? Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The Jakarta Post
|
267 |
338470d3d7de2c38dfe5c2baa887fcea
|
ital freedoms access knowledge house believes wikipedia force good Wikipedia enshrines the principle of freedom of information
A key principle for Wikipedia is to present information as neutrally as possible. This has led to Wikipedia being banned in China, after Jimmy Wales refused to censor articles to make the site acceptable to the Chinese government. [1] Wikipedia, thus, epitomizes the principle that all should have access to the necessary information required not just to live, but also enjoy and cherish our lives. As such, Wikipedia is not threatened by variants and rivals that also seek to promote freedom of knowledge because it views them as partners to a mutual goal, not rivals. Its founder, Jimmy Wales, readily acknowledges it will eventually be superseded by another way of sharing knowledge on a mass level. [2]
[1] Revill, D. S. (2006, September 10). Wikipedia defies China's censors. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The Observer
[2] Barnett, E. (2009, November 17). Jimmy Wales interview: Wikipedia is focusing on accuracy. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The Telegraph.
|
268 |
e27e95058e8ce0ed067babcd95a40640
|
ital freedoms access knowledge house believes wikipedia force good Wikipedia threatens the academic enterprise.
If Wikipedia is taken to be an accurate resource, then the academic expertise is threatened because anyone can produce “correct” knowledge. Though academics can continue to participate in this work, they are not essential. Normal, ordinary people can do as good a job. Not only does relying on Wikipedia (incorrectly) make academics seem unnecessary, it proliferates the misinformation that academic work seeks to combat. Overdependence on Wikipedia means that students never develop proper research skills and come to believe that an approximately right answer is good enough. [1] Free, open access to huge swathes of information is a threat to both good research and the teaching of good research-writing skills. [2] Middlebury College’s history department even felt so strongly about Wikipedia’s negative influence that in 2007 it banned students from citing Wikipedia in papers. [3]
[1] Graham, L., & Metaxas, P. T. (2003, May). “Of course it’s true; I saw it on the Internet!” Critical thinking in the Internet era.Communications of the ACM, 46(1), 71-75.
[2] McClure, R. (2011.) Googlepedia: Turning information behavior into research skills. In Vol. 2 of Writing spaces: Readings on writing, edited by Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky, 221–41. Fort Collins, CO and West Lafayette, IN: WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press.
[3] Jaschik, Scott. (2007, January 26). A stand against Wikipedia. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved March 4, 2008.
|
269 |
6dba3e396c89e8e1f72dd36f45d70590
|
ital freedoms access knowledge house believes wikipedia force good Entries are too easily manipulated
Wikipedia entries are far too easily manipulated due to the ease at which they can be edited and the lack of official or authoritative oversight. Wikipedia is therefore subject to the worst qualities of humanity – as is shown by a number of scandals affecting the site. Entries can be deliberately vandalised for comic effect (as happens every April Fool’s Day), for commercial gain, or for more insidious purposes of libel or insult. Some of these deliberate errors are picked up and corrected quickly, but others exist on the site for long periods. Notoriously, respected journalist John Siegenthaler was libelled in an almost solely fictitious addition to an article that was was not detected for months. [1] Recently one very senior editor was exposed as a college drop-out, rather than the distinguished professor of theology he had claimed to be. [2] Such examples seem to confirm the doubts of Larry Sanger, the original project coordinator for Wikipedia. He has since left Wikipedia and written a number of warning articles about how open to abuse the online encyclopaedia is. [3] Without a more stringent, hierarchical editing process, such abuses can never be prevented, and the trustworthiness of Wikipedia’s information will always be questionable.
[1] Siegenthaler, J. (2005, November 29). A false Wikipedia 'biography'. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from USA Today
[2] Elsworth, C. (2007, March 7). Wikipedia professor is 24-year-old college dropout. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The Telegraph
[3] Sanger, L. (2008, January 23). How the Internet Is Changing What We (Think We) Know. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from Larry Sanger Blog
|
270 |
7571bd3dd58e92379d5008398cc468cd
|
ital freedoms access knowledge house believes wikipedia force good Wikipedia lacks the necessary coverage
One of the major problems with Wikipedia is that it has very patchy coverage. Traditional reference sources provide consistent coverage over the whole field of knowledge, with priority given to the most important topics in terms of space and thoroughness of treatment. By contrast, Wikipedia has very detailed coverage of topics in which its main contributors are interested, but weak material on other, much more important issues. [1] Thus, there is, for example, much more on the imaginary language of Klingon than there is on the life and philosophy of John Locke.
[1] Why Wikipedia is not so great. Retrieved November 14, 2004, from Wikipedia.
|
271 |
fd02088476b11e33b469d755cf1424eb
|
ital freedoms access knowledge house believes wikipedia force good The information is not accurate and sometimes undermined by poor writing
Wikipedia has become a standard source of reference because it is free and easy to access, not because it provides quality, accurate information. While a 2005 Nature comparison of Wikipedia and Britannica found that the online and print encyclopaedias were both inaccurate, [1] the Nature study itself was badly skewed, and Britannica disputed nearly half the errors or omissions for which it was criticised. [2] On this basis, Wikipedia is not just 30% less accurate than Britannica; it would be two and a half times less reliable. Comedian Stephen Colbert has even publicly skewered Wikipedia for its inaccuracy. [3] In addition, the Nature study took no account of the written quality of the submissions under comparison. All of Britannica’s entries are edited carefully to ensure they are readable, clear and an appropriate length. Much of Wikipedia’s material is a cobbled together from different contributions and lacks clarity. [4] This can mean that even where Wikipedia is accurate readers do not get the wrong information from it. Furthermore, many of its users are students, with too little experience to weigh up the quality of an article.
[1] Orlowski, A. (2005, December 16). Wikipedia science 31% more cronky than Britannica's. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The Register.
[2] Fatally flawed: Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature. (2006, March). Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved December 12, 2010.
[3] Colbert, Stephen. (2006, July 31). The word—Wikiality. The Colbert Report. Comedy Central TV Network.
[4] Schiff, S. (2006, July 31). Know it all: Can Wikipedia conquer it all? Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The New Yorker
|
272 |
11c0c86227c4475ef6343aae2519a1a8
|
ital freedoms access knowledge house believes wikipedia force good Wikipedia is driving high-quality encyclopaedias out of business, without offering a better service.
By providing its articles for “free,” Wikipedia will drive traditional, high-quality encyclopaedias out of business by destroying their business model. Indeed the traditional print version of the Encyclopaedia Britannica has already been discontinued with the focus changing to the online version after sales had declined from 120,000 in 1990 to only 8000 in 2010. [1] Wikipedia may make articles available for nothing to those with access to the internet (still only a minority of people in the world), but many of these articles are not worth reading. The cost of a traditional encyclopaedia may be high, but it pays for articles written, checked and edited by experts and professionals. Even on the internet there is no such thing as a free lunch: people have to pay for internet access and computers. If Wikipedia makes it harder for ordinary people to access reliable information, then the world will be a poorer place.
[1] Bosman, Julie, (2012, March 13). After 244 Years, Encyclopaedia Britannica Stops the Presses. Retrieved May 14, 2011, from The New York Times Media Decoder blog.
|
273 |
e2c43e54fb047f45ad6da0dee50eeaf2
|
digital freedoms access information house believes state should provide It would give undue power to the government over access to the internet
Monopoly, or near-monopoly, power over broadband is far too great a tool to give to governments. States have a long history of abusing rules to curtail access to information and to limit freedom of speech. Domination of broadband effectively gives the state complete control of what information citizens can or cannot consume online. ISPs function generally under the principle of Net Neutrality, in which they are expected to allow the free transit of information online. If they are the sole gatekeepers of knowledge, people may well be kept from information deemed against the public interest. It is harder for opponents of government regulations to voice their opinions online when they have no viable alternative to the state-controlled network. The internet is a place of almost limitless expression and it has empowered more people to take action to change their societies. That great tool of the people must be protected from any and all threats, and most particularly the state that could so profit from the curtailment of internet freedom.
|
274 |
3ca47185bb083f8f5937b2b5f8c1275a
|
p ip digital freedoms access knowledge house would condition state As an investor in university research, the state may claim some ownership over the revenues that might arise from that research. But that is not the same as an entitlement to strip all ownership from the originators of the research and throwing it wholesale into the public arena. That is an overbalancing in the extreme that reduces universities ability to benefit from their researches and efforts.
|
275 |
d318092537438476c32ad8a6a415a3ca
|
p ip digital freedoms access knowledge house would condition state These arrangements are so onerous that they will serve as a very real disincentive to universities taking public funding. Universities are rational in their decision-making, and they will be less likely to approve or participate in research projects that end up being of no long term benefit to them. The profit motive, even in the vaunted halls of academia, should be something to harnessed, not fought against. Furthermore, much public funding is used for the purpose of funding teaching hours anyway, and not into profitable research pursuits, which tend to be more amenable to other investors. The state’s role should only to be fund research when the private sector won’t, otherwise its funding should be ensuring the education of the country’s citizens.
|
276 |
7077bfb01f720838cf04224888622aa5
|
p ip digital freedoms access knowledge house would condition state Universities that could build valuable technologies and explore new avenues of academic research and development are faced with a disincentive to accept public funding, and to pursue unprofitable research that might be dependent on state support. Universities are a critical part of a nation’s research infrastructure, and by harnessing the profit motives of those institutions, not spurning them, it can use its money to most effectively promote broader development. It should be remembered that profits made by universities will simply be ploughed back into education and more research, which is all to the benefit of society.
|
277 |
0fdaa73377b3ed821b24fea9d1c351f1
|
p ip digital freedoms access knowledge house would condition state Publicly funded research is not the sole property of researchers, indeed Universities demand to keep the rights not the individual researchers so the individual inventor or researcher is not benefiting at all from any profits. [1] When the state chooses to fund an area of academic work it is doing so for the benefit for all of society, not just for the profit of a single researcher, group, or university organisation. The only way for the state to fully do its duty in providing for its citizens is for it to demand that the products of its funding be made available to the public who pay for its development.
[1] Anon. (28 July 2005) “Guidelines on the Ownership of Data University of Louisville”, University of Lousiville. http://louisville.edu/research/policies-procedures/guidelines-on-the-ownership-of-data-university-of-louisville.html
|
278 |
f821cd6eec1e6b0fe784d8d48cdc3602
|
p ip digital freedoms access knowledge house would condition state The expansion of knowledge that throwing all information generated in universities with state-funded research into the public domain would precipitate a vastly more influential effect on the process of research and development. Far from stifling innovation, more people would be able to examine and build upon research, magnifying the value of the initial work. What is lost from the disincentives of some institutions from taking public funding will be more than made up for by the vast knowledge base of the whole of society that now has the ability to generate derivative works for everyone’s further benefit.
|
279 |
f602439a6051f65f1a36a3dd220b25b8
|
p ip digital freedoms access knowledge house would condition state If universities want to invest in pursuits that will not have any tangible benefit for society then they are welcome to do so. But they should not expect to be able to do that on the government dime. If people want to study the humanities they can pay the tuition fees needed, and universities should be able to prioritize its funding as they prefer. The state acts best when it serves the public interest. By making the research and work of academics who receive state funding available to the public it does its job by freeing people to use vast amounts of information to the betterment of all. If that means a few less books about Marxist-Feminist literary theory, then that is a cost the state should be willing to pay.
|
280 |
fd9ecb4433d01ed0b180e84f14770f3f
|
p ip digital freedoms access knowledge house would condition state Research produced with public funding is too important to be left in the hands of universities alone
The creators and producers of novel work, literary, scientific, other research, etc. enjoy large and sweeping protections due to the intellectual property rights enshrined in law in all developed countries. These laws restrict public use of these researches, which can only occur with the express permission of the owners of these works. But the research that is deemed worthy of state funding must pass a test of importance, and must be of enough social significance to make it worth doling out limited research and development money. Universities, as the important and vibrant centres of learning and research in the world, are a critical part of states’ efforts to remain relevant and competitive in a world of rapid technological change. States fund many universities, in much of Europe accounting for the vast majority of university funding as a whole, across the EU almost 85% of funding is from public sources, [1] and they currently do not get their money’s worth. Even when states gain partial ownership of the products of research and the patents that arise from state funding to university scientists and researchers they do not serve their full duty to the people they represent. Rather, the state should be ensuring that the information produced is made fully available to the people for their use and for the real benefit of all, not just the profit of a few institutions.
Universities are as aggressively protective of their patents and discoveries as much as any profit-seeking private firm, but the state should instead seek to minimize these urges by altering the sorts of arrangements it makes with universities. Research into new theories, medicines, technologies, etc. are all important to society and should be fostered with public funding where necessary. The state best ensures the benefit of society by making sure that when it agrees to fund a research program it guarantees that the information produced will be fully available to all citizens to enjoy and benefit from. More than just attaining a result, the state needs to give its funding maximum exposure so it can be maximally utilized.
[1] Vught, F., et al. (2010) “Funding Higher Education: A View Across Europe”, Ben Jongbloed Center for Higher Education Policy Studies University of Twente. http://www.utwente.nl/mb/cheps/publications/Publications%202010/MODERN_Funding_Report.pdf
|
281 |
ce52aa82a5ad7ac970a33f88d9e9eb0b
|
p ip digital freedoms access knowledge house would condition state The opening up of information to the public encourages further research and development
By making publicly funded academic work freely available to society, the state throws open the door to far more long term progress and invention that has been so long shut by the jealous hoarding of information and research. The arenas of science, literature, critical theory, and all other fields of academic pursuit, benefit most from a proliferation of voices and opinions, this is why the peer review system exists. This is much as how crowdsourcing and openness helps with software development, there are more eyeballs to spot mistakes, as a result research, particularly of large data capture projects is increasingly being crowdsourced itself. [1] By expanding the range of people able to utilize the information produced, more new and interesting things can be developed from it. The state funds important work, work that might never be able to attract private investment but is still important to the public interest. But this funding must then be available so that it may be best used in that public interest. And oftentimes it is only after an unprofitable, academic pursuit is explored with state support that someone else finds a profitable new use for it. That new endeavour can only be realised if academic work is made available to the public. In 2011 universities in the United States earned $1.8 billion in royalties from research. [2] Rather than simply being allowed to profit on their own, the inventions and developments of state-funded academic work should be made freely available to the public.
[1] Dunning, A., (29 July 2011) “Is crowdsourcing dumbing down research?” Guardian Professional. http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/2011/jul/29/crowdsourcing-funding-research-expertise
[2] Blumenstyk, G. (2012) “Universities Report $1.8 Billion in Earnings on Inventions in 2011”. The Chronicle. http://chronicle.com/article/University-Inventions-Earned/133972/
|
282 |
f1fcbfdcf05f9881737231e86ce5e55b
|
p ip digital freedoms access knowledge house would condition state It reduces the ability of universities to be self-sufficient and to fund other less potentially profitable pursuits
Universities often use the revenues from their more profitable researches to fund the less financially valuable intellectual fields. This often takes the forms of patent revenues from science and engineering departments going to pay for philosophy and English departments. While there is always a chance a new development in polymers or chemicals will generate some future profit, this is rarely the case for experts in medieval history. Yet universities, as the centres of learning and knowledge in society, value all avenues of academic exploration. State funding tends to go toward the development of new technology and other “hard” disciplines, as they can be explained to voters as valuable investments in society’s future. It is easy for them to sell investment in engineering projects. It is much harder for a politician to explain the need for funding a study in 19th century feminist critical theory. The result of this policy is to create a serious depletion of universities’ resources for cross-discipline funding, meaning that the study of the humanities and arts becomes less tenable. It is essential that universities retain the freedom to invest in all aspects of human knowledge, not merely those that might provide economic benefits. The quality of the human experience cannot be measured in euros or dollars alone, but must account for the understanding of things like the human condition. Only by allowing universities to keep the well-earned fruits of their researches can society hope to be able to explore all fields of human understanding.
|
283 |
b0ef122d6c868ef11f144fa273ac0ceb
|
p ip digital freedoms access knowledge house would condition state A publicly-funded inventor or researcher still deserves to profit from their efforts
The developer of a new idea, theory, technology, invention, etc. has a fundamental intellectual property right. Academics in universities, through deliberate effort create new things and ideas, and those efforts demand huge amounts of personal sacrifice and invention in order to bear fruit. State funding is often given to pioneering researchers who eschew traditional roads in pursuit of new frontiers. Often there are no obvious profits to be immediately had, and it is only because of the desire of these individuals to expand the canon of human knowledge that these boundaries are ever pushed. It is a matter of principle that these academics be able to benefit from the fruits of their hard-won laurels. [1] The state stripping people of these rights is certainly a kind of theft. Certainly no amount of public funding to an institution can alter the fundamental relationship that exists between creator and the product of their endeavour. The state-funded University of Illinois, for example, has led the way in many technologies, such as fast charging batteries, and has spawned dozens of high-tech start-ups that have profited the university and society generally. [2] The state can easily gain a return on its investments in universities by adopting things like licensing agreements that can provide the state with revenue without taking away the benefits from the developers of research. Furthermore, this policy strips control of researchers’ control over their works’ use. State funding should obviously come with some requirements in terms of some sharing of revenues, etc., but it is also important to consider the extent of the impact work may offer the world. For example, the team that produced the atomic bomb at the University of Chicago became extremely worried after seeing what their invention could wreak, yet the power over their invention was taken over entirely by the state. [3] Certainly that is an extreme example, but it highlights the risks of stripping originators of control over what they produce.
[1] Sellenthin, M. (2004). “Who Should Own University Research?”. Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies. http://www.innovation.lv/ino2/publications/A2004_013.pdf
[2] Blumenstyk, G. (2012) “Universities Report $1.8 Billion in Earnings on Inventions in 2011”. The Chronicle. http://chronicle.com/article/University-Inventions-Earned/133972/
[3] Rosen, R. (2011). “’I’ve Created a Monster!’ On the Regrets of Inventors”. The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/11/ive-created-a-monster-on-the-regrets-of-inventors/249044/
|
284 |
ff805dea42937230ff811c4f038f7925
|
p ip digital freedoms access knowledge house would condition state The disincentive to take public funding will stifle advancement in valuable fields that rely on the university infrastructure
Research and development relies on the profit motive to spur it on, even in the hallowed halls of academia. Without the guarantee of ownership over the products of state-funded research the desire to engage in such activities is significantly blunted. This is a major blow to the intellectual development of society because it serves as a breaker between two institutions that work best when their interests are aligned, the state and the university. Universities are the great bastions of learning, institutions that bring together the best and brightest to dedicate themselves to the furtherance of human understanding. The state has the resources of a nation to deploy in the public interest. By funding academic research in universities, the state can get more valuable information more cheaply it can through setting up its own research institutions. The universities have the expertise and the basic infrastructure that the state is best served not duplicating unnecessarily. But partnerships between universities and the state are only possible when the universities and their researchers are guaranteed the protections necessary to merit their own investment and attention to the state-funded project. Thus the best system is one that harnesses the brain power and financial incentives of the universities and channels their efforts to the public interest.
While Universities and the State cooperate on most research the State is often unwilling to fully fund research with for example many federal agencies in the United States demanding cost sharing when sponsoring projects. [1] This means that the university still needs to find funding either from foundations or other private sources. These third parties, particularly if they are institutions that desire profits, will strongly object to not being able to realise any profit from the research and are therefore much less likely to engage in joining such research. When universities retain full ownership rights while the information they create may not be freely available, at least it comes into existence in the first place and can then be put to profitable and socially valuable work by the universities.
[1] Anon. (November 2010), “Research & Sponsored Projects”, University of Michigan. http://orsp.umich.edu/funding/costsharing/cost_sharing_questions.html
|
285 |
0824b1a74723cd29e0ed83fd312fffbc
|
p ip digital freedoms access knowledge house would condition state Academic work produced by means of public funds belongs to the public
Everyone benefits from the public spreading of knowledge and information. Universities are central loci of the pursuit of knowledge and exploration of science, technology, history, the arts, and all many and varied forms of intellectual enquiry. When the state opts to fund research and development in the university setting, it becomes a part-owner of the ideas and creation that springs forth from that funding, just as it belongs to the researchers who directly produce it. State funding is given to universities not simply to further the bounds of human discovery for its own sake, but so that those boundaries can be pushed for the benefit of the citizens of the polity. This is because the state is fundamentally a servant of the people, using the people’s money to further the society’s aims, such as better health and a more productive workforce. Ultimately the purpose of the state in all its functions is to provide safety and services so that people can all avail of what they consider to be the good life. In order to serve this obligation to the people, the state ensures that the research it funds is publicly available. By conditioning all of its research funding to universities on their agreeing to make all of their work publicly available the state can effectively serve the people and guarantee that the citizenry gets the full benefit of their money spent on those researches. This obligation of states has been echoed in new laws passed in Australia, Canada, and other countries that now seek to expand public access to state funded research, particularly academic research produced in universities and other dedicated research organizations. [1] The ultimate purpose of the state is to serve the public interest, and it is remiss in that duty when it fails to have the products of its monetary investments serve benefit the public. Universities are the great repositories and breeding grounds of knowledge, and the state must ensure that that knowledge, when it is produced because of the state’s largesse, is available for all to enjoy and benefit from.
[1] Anon. (2006). “Worldwide Momentum for Public Access to Publicly Funded Research” Alliance for Taxpayer Access. http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/issues/access/access_resources/worldwide-momentum-for-public-access-to-publ~print.shtml
|
286 |
7fe7e8ad0813664d07a6a214878c7716
|
warpeace digital freedoms intellectual property house would use targeted Sanctions require international agreement to be effective
When is it legitimate to use sanctions in response to an action? Any individual state (or group of states) can use sanctions against any other state. However for these sanctions to be effective they need to have broad based support. Sanctions by an individual country are unlikely to change the behaviour of an aggressor as they will be able to get around the sanctions. Moreover for any country that is a member of the WTO imposing sanctions may be considered illegal allowing the other country to counter them with similar measures.
The problem then is that there is no international response to hacking and it is unlikely there will be agreement on such a response. When countries like China deny that hacking comes from them are they likely to support the use of sanctions against such actions? Sanctions for much worse actions are often bogged down when they are attempted at the international level such as China and Russia vetoing sanctions against Syria in response to the violence there. [1]
[1] United Nations Security Council, ‘Security Council fails to adopt draft resolution on Syria that would have threatened sanctions, due to negative votes of China, Russian Federation’, un.org, SC/10714, 19 July 2012, https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/sc10714.doc.htm
|
287 |
f485fd2e50f24d0f4ebfc272238c1cb6
|
ital freedoms access knowledge house believes wikipedia force good Wikipedia models, in an accessible form, the process of knowledge creation through writing.
hrough the process by which its articles are constructed, Wikipedia supports “notions of revision, collaboration, and authority” that many academics value and helps to make visible the knowledge-making process. [1] With its Discussion and History pages, Wikipedia illustrates the peer review process academic writing goes through as well as the iterative, recursive nature of public writing. Thus, it can disabuse students of the notion that good writing happens in isolation in one sitting. Therefore, Wikipedia can be an excellent teaching tool. [2] [3]
[1] Purdy, J. P. (2009). When the tenets of composition go public: A study of writing in Wikipedia.” College Composition and Communication 61(2), W351-W373. Retrieved May 9, 2012.
[2] Wilson, M. A. (2008, April 1). Professors should embrace Wikipedia. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from Inside Higher Ed.
[3] Lundin, R. W. (2008). Teaching with wikis: Toward a networked pedagogy. Computers and Composition 25(4) (2008) 432–448.
|
288 |
cdd6b88454121cd3f56fbecfcdb0435d
|
economic policy economy general philosophy political philosophy house would The free market doesn’t invest in fundamental research this is research to understand fundamental principles as it does not have a commercial purpose and may never result in a commercial product, ultimately, fundamental research is the key enabler of innovation. Private companies don’t invest in fundamental research, because by its nature it is open ended and very expensive and as a result may never pay back the investment.
One example is the invention of the laser: the foundations were laid by theoretical physicists like Albert Einstein. This theoretical work wasn’t done with the purpose to invent something like a laser, but to probe deeper into the fundamentals of reality. The first actual existing lasers emerged only 40 years later, and only then did corporations begin to be interested. More examples are Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a military research lab, and CERN, the operator of the world’s largest particle accelerator. Between them, they serendipitously invented the key technologies of the internet, something that no one could have foreseen.
Governments have both the resources and the patience to invest in open-ended and long-term projects like this, whereas for corporations, this would have been too risky to be a sensible business decision.
|
289 |
d876310dae934c615e491aec3a4aabbf
|
economic policy economy general philosophy political philosophy house would The procedural justice of free exchange is important, but is presumes that humans are born with equal talents and in equally enabling environments. This is obviously not true: people can be born to parents with high or low socio-economic status and the talents they are born with, like IQ, are normally distributed.
Suppose you’re born with high talents but to parents with a low socio-economic status. That means your parents do not have enough income to spend on your education: their money is all spent on the basic necessities like food and housing. Since you don’t get the education you need to further develop your talents, you will also likely remain stuck in the same socio-economic class, as will your children, and their children. At the same time, the children of rich parents get more opportunities: even when they’re moderately talented, their parents can invest in maximally developing their talents or even give them a large endowment to live from.
An example of this lack of ‘social mobility’ is the United States, where parental income is an important predictor of a child’s future (Upper Bound, 2010). This is not just a gross and unfair inequality: it is also an infringement upon the liberty of the individual, who, in a free market, is effectively and structurally constrained to develop his or her own talents.
|
290 |
0415ae70bedd850db926da39592b4f07
|
economic policy economy general philosophy political philosophy house would It might be that under theoretical conditions, free markets match up supply and demand in the long run, but as the famous economist John Maynard Keynes said: “in the long run we are all dead”. Even if a stable equilibrium is theoretically possible, in practice, it almost never happens, with high fluctuations in price, shortages and excesses as a consequence (A Tract on Monetary Reform, 2000).
An example of a market never reaching equilibrium is the so-called, empirically observed, ‘Pork Cycle’. When prices for pork meat are high, producers flock to the market. Since it takes a while, anywhere from months to over a year, to raise pigs before slaughter, prices will continue to rise and producers continue to join – until suddenly, the new supply reaches maturity and there is a sudden excess of pork meat on the market. This excess will then last for a longer period, since many producers are ‘locked in’, waiting for their pigs to mature. The same dynamics operate in the market for skilled labour, since getting the required vocational training also takes time.
Even if equilibrium is reached, the outcome isn’t necessarily fair. An example is the Irish Great Famine: due to circumstance and bad policy, potato supply in Ireland dropped dramatically. This caused prices to rise beyond the budget of the average Irish citizen, but England could still pay the higher price. The perverse result was that even during the Great Famine, Ireland was actually still a net exporter of food (The Great Irish Famine, 1996).
|
291 |
4702f32c607d4d78b6cac386ac80a2d6
|
economic policy economy general philosophy political philosophy house would It’s not true that all markets naturally lead to a concentration of power. Whenever concentration of market power, even leading up to a monopoly, does happen, this is caused by the underlying cost structure of the industry, whereby a company experiences increasing returns to scale and relatively high fixed costs. This means it is most efficient for the first entrant in a market to become as big as possible, as fast as possible. An example of such a natural monopoly used to be the markets for utilities: when the distributing networks for water or energy weren’t built yet, the first company to expand would gain a natural monopoly.
Given that a natural monopoly is a consequence of the underlying cost structure of the industry, there is not much one can do to change it. Basically, one can choose between a private unregulated monopoly, private monopoly regulated by the state, and government monopoly (Capitalism and Freedom, 2002). Of these, the private monopoly is best. A government monopoly would not just be a monopoly, but would also have the force of law to back it – the result would be the most direct form of regulatory capture, where the business interest takes over the public interest of the government agency.
|
292 |
d3d34e426e9e70ee779b0589c8475187
|
economic policy economy general philosophy political philosophy house would The notion that labour alienates might have looked true in Marx’s days, but nowadays, employers have learnt that if they want to get the most from their workforce, they need to make their jobs meaningful. Employers can do this by offering work that fits an employee’s ‘intrinsic motivation’ (Intrinsic motivation at work, 2009), and by designing the work process in such a way that it facilitates ‘flow’ (Beyond boredom and anxiety, 2000). Interestingly, these days, companies actually compete for labour by making their work environment more meaningful, as for example Google’s ‘Life at Google’-page shows (Life at Google).
As to the idea of allowing a market in organs: if people willingly and knowingly choose to sell their organs, what is wrong with it?
Also, consider the status quo: demand is still there, but the prohibition effectively lowers supply, leading to a significant number of deaths every year for lack of donor organs. Why is that morally more justifiable?
|
293 |
aadf8ac6ac6f5de3c635dd7a5af4897e
|
economic policy economy general philosophy political philosophy house would A free market can only operate when some basic conditions have been met. One of these is the condition that exchange of private property is possible. It’s important to realize that private property is both a normative concept but also a legal reality: in everyday life, private property exists because there are contracts and title deeds that prove that something is my private property.
This legal dimension of private property is key to realizing how the government can make free markets work even for common and public goods. The key is to create private property rights that are rivalrous and excludable, and enforce them accordingly. It is these private property rights that are traded, not necessarily the good itself (The Private Production of Public Goods, 1970).
For the public good of roads, the private property right the government can create is the right to operate a toll booth on that road. For the common good of fisheries, the government can create conditional exploitation rights to private actors, and for carbon dioxide emitting industries, the government can create limited, tradable emissions rights. The most well-known example of government created private property rights is intellectual property: even though listening to music is non-rivalrous and with the internet, relatively non-excludable, the government’s enforcement of intellectual property allows a business like iTunes to survive and thrive.
|
294 |
611dbce562370259e8d56f797ce7f544
|
economic policy economy general philosophy political philosophy house would The free market is morally superior because it operates on liberty
Liberty is one of the highest values human beings strive for. Liberty means that individuals ‘own’ themselves: individuals only decide for themselves what to do with their minds and bodies during their lifetime. Private property is an extension of this, because private property comes about by undertaking an activity with one’s own body or mind: when I pluck apples from a wild apple tree, they become my property through me using my own body to do the plucking. Similarly, free exchange is an extension of this, because it only comes about if both parties perceive the exchange to be beneficial to them: I will only sell the apples I plucked if I get more value in exchange than the value that continued possession of the apples gives me.
Free markets are the only system of allocating goods and wealth in society that relies on these basic notions of liberty to operate. If someone becomes rich in a free market, then that came about through free exchange: this person has provided so many goods and services of value to other people, that they gave him or her great wealth in return.
Compare this to the government redistributing wealth: that would require the government appropriating part of someone’s income via taxes. That income is private property. Appropriating private property, not voluntary exchange, amounts to theft, which means that taxes are a form of theft and therefore a significant harm to individual liberty. Free markets don’t harm liberty like this, which is why they are morally superior.
|
295 |
2b230a9a121478035c69696734d6f3cc
|
economic policy economy general philosophy political philosophy house would The free market is the most efficient way to match supply and demand
In a free market, goods are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged solely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. The aggregate ‘market price’ is the result of all individual transactions and contains important information for both buyers and sellers. When there is more demand than supply, prices rise (because buyers have to ‘outbid’ each other), making it attractive for new producers to enter the market and thus adding supply. When there is more supply than demand, prices fall, causing some sellers to leave the market since their production costs are higher than the price at which they can sell. Thus, in the long run, markets settle on an ‘equilibrium price’ where demand and supply are exactly equal.
Examples of the free market actually working are all around us: take the supply of the pen and paper used to take notes on. If the price is too high at one store, anyone would move to another store where it’s cheaper. Therefore, sellers have an incentive to provide the best quality at the lowest price. [1]
Central planning can never be as efficient as myriads of individually planning buyers and sellers in reaching this equilibrium. For example, a central planner who sets a price floor will likely create excess supply in that specific market. This has happened in the European Union, where the EU set a price floor on dairy products. The result were the well-known ‘butter mountains’ and ‘milk lakes’.
[1] It is of course slightly more complicated as there are multiple layers of supply and demand. There is a free market in the sale of pen and paper from stores to consumers. The stores themselves are also in a free market when it comes to sourcing the pen and paper from wholesellers or the producers. The producers are then also in a free market to source the materials to make the pens. The price at the retailer therefore has a floor below which someone will make a loss due to the cost of the production.
|
296 |
058cc6e4455678f264c13f8d1fff3b6e
|
economic policy economy general philosophy political philosophy house would The free market fails in providing public and common goods
A ‘common good’ is a resource which has finite but replenishable supply but which is by its nature ‘non-excludable’ (meaning it’s hard to exclude individuals from using the resource). One example is the stock of fish in the sea. If all fishermen would refrain from overfishing, the fish population would have time to restore itself. But each individual fisherman has an incentive to capture and sell as much as possible. Since in a free market, there is no government coordinating supply and demand, each fisherman acts on their individual incentives. The result is rapid, irreversible depletion of the common good (Tragedy of the commons, 1968).
A ‘public good’ is a resource which is also ‘non-excludable’ but is also ‘non-rivalrous’, that is a good whose consumption by one consumer still allows simultaneous consumption by other consumers. One example of this is the air we breathe: every breath I take does not prevent you from taking a breath, nor can I feasibly exclude you from breathing. Other examples of public goods are schools, roads and national defense. Public goods suffer from the ‘free rider’ problem: once the good is produced, no one has an incentive to pay for the good. Since the good is non-excludable, no one can prevent someone from using it. This also leads to what economists call ‘negative externalities’: industries can freely pollute the air we breathe and not bear the costs for it. The issues of climate change are a direct example of this: corporations aren’t forced to pay for the negative externality of emitting greenhouse gases, and so continue doing it.
|
297 |
0d80e232077b66210459ca141521a490
|
economic policy economy general philosophy political philosophy house would The free market naturally leads to concentration of power in the hands of corporations
Many global markets are dominated by a few big firms: look, for example, to the markets in fast food, dominated by McDonald’s, or the market for drilling and selling oil, dominated by Exxon, Shell and BP. This concentration of market power is natural outcome of free markets, this is because of economies of scale – a production line can produce each individual unit faster and more cheaply than if products were made individually. Also partly because the transaction costs of markets are too high (i.e. the costs of negotiating, monitoring and managing all the exchange relations necessary for production and distribution of the good or service involved), corporations have an incentive to structurally organize themselves into large firms (The Nature of the Firm, 1937). This also creates barriers to entry; while an individual may be able to manufacture an individual unit it is much more difficult to set up a whole factory from scratch in order to compete, there is then little possibility of competitors entering the market as a result of price rises.
Being so large gives them an unfair advantage towards both their suppliers and their consumers. Large firms can collude to form oligopolies. This generates more profit for the firms involved, but raises prices above the market clearing price for consumers as the firms agree not to undercut each other, this may also be informal simply raising prices by reducing the amount of choice or supply.
Vis-à-vis their suppliers, these firms gain an equally unfair bargaining advantage. A prime example is the market for (low skilled) labour: with a surplus of (low skilled) labour, each individual worker either has to accept a very low wage or be replaced by someone who does want to work for that low wage. This unequal bargaining power keeps the price for labour very low, so low that workers have no surplus budget to invest in themselves to be able gain skills, negotiate better jobs and thereby lift themselves out of poverty.
|
298 |
6e2c3e8332ff98f0e8607b3c30accd6b
|
economic policy economy general philosophy political philosophy house would The free market degrades human dignity
The free market views the human body and the human mind as a mere instrument: the only value an individual being has is the value it can sell its labour (whether it be manual or mental work) for on the market. Workers don’t work because they want to produce something they themselves find inherently valuable; they work to earn a living. And given that most people are not entrepreneurs or business owners, this means that most people will spend the most of their waking day labouring for goals set to them by others, in partial processes subdivided and defined for them by others, all to create products and services which are only valuable to others, not to themselves (Alienation, 1977).
This commodification of the human body and mind can go so far that humans actually start selling themselves: free market proponents propose to legalize the selling of one’s own organs. When humans start selling themselves, they perceive no value in themselves anymore – all they see in themselves is an instrument to satisfy other people’s desires, a product to be packaged and sold.
This becomes even more pronounced when we take into account that the free market exacerbates inequality: if someone is born into a poor family and can’t get out of it, it might seem the only way to get out of it, is to sell oneself. Thus, the proposal to legalize the selling of one’s own organs amounts to an ‘unconscionable choice’: a choice which is, given the circumstances, unreasonable to ask of someone.
|
299 |
9a654af4ce506dbeffe5e0e2029f5c8a
|
economic policy international asia global house would stop sending development The geography of poverty has changed; in 1990 94% of those in poverty lived in ‘low income countries’ today that is down to 28%. The rest live in ‘middle income countries’ that are often fast growing and able to provide much of their own poverty reduction funding. [1] Should all money go to those few countries that are still classed as ‘low income’? Instead it must be recognised that the impact of aid is on individuals not the nation as a whole. Aid that builds a school and provides for teachers will have little impact on the whole of the nation but a large impact on those who are able to attend school where they would not have had the chance before.
[1] Ravillion, Martin, ‘Should we care equally about poor people wherever they may live?’, 8 November 2012
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.