States of Glory

[PASSED] Internet Neutrality Act

Recommended Posts

Quote

Internet Neutrality Act

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: draconae__123017t2.pngDraconae

The General Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING that the Internet is a means of communication, collaboration, expression, and business for many;

BELIEVING that access to all lawful content on the Internet is fundamental to both freedom of expression and the growth of small businesses;

DISTURBED that WA nations or Internet Service Providers could arbitrarily restrict access to lawful content or the Internet itself;

HEREBY:

  1. DEFINES

    1. “Internet” as a system of interconnected networks of digital devices used to transfer data between said devices and their networks,

    2. “Internet Service Provider” as an entity that provides the ability to access the Internet to businesses, residents, or other customers such as shops, schools, or libraries, excluding entities who only offer the ability to access the Internet as an additional benefit and not as a primary source of Internet access,

    3. “Bandwidth throttling” as the intentional act of decreasing the speed of a connection below the maximum possible connection speed,

     

  2. PROHIBITS WA Nations from blocking access to or bandwidth throttling the Internet or specific lawful content, directly or indirectly, including content that is critical of the government or of other government interests,

  3. PROHIBITS Internet Service Providers from blocking access to or bandwidth throttling the Internet or specific lawful content, unless allowed by Clause Four,

  4. ALLOWS blocking access or bandwidth throttling by Internet Service Providers to

    1. Allow all digital devices to receive access to the Internet,

    2. Allow all digital devices access to necessary services in extreme situations, such as natural disasters, or

    3. As a result of a published scale of prices for connection speeds and data caps disclosed to all customers of the Internet Service Provider.

Sorry I couldn't get to this earlier; the nuclear apocalypse took up most of my time. I don't see any obvious problems and net neutrality is certainly a worthy cause, so this proposal has my tentative support, though I would recommend going with the majority of residents who post in the offside forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit, it is quite an interesting proposal. Before you immediately state what you plan to do, you offer an introduction. You explain to the reader about the circumstances of the Internet and how it could potentially be restricted. I also like how you took the time to explain some of the words you'll use, showing foresight if the reader doesn't know some things. I admire how you manage to state that there are some exceptions to blocking internet. You allow these exceptions, knowing that there are times when these actions stated by this proposal will not be for the best. All in all, if this was in the GA, I would vote for it without any doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Willania Imperium said:

I must admit, it is quite an interesting proposal. Before you immediately state what you plan to do, you offer an introduction. You explain to the reader about the circumstances of the Internet and how it could potentially be restricted. I also like how you took the time to explain some of the words you'll use, showing foresight if the reader doesn't know some things. I admire how you manage to state that there are some exceptions to blocking internet. You allow these exceptions, knowing that there are times when these actions stated by this proposal will not be for the best. All in all, if this was in the GA, I would vote for it without any doubt.

Um...I'm not the author. I'm just the messenger. It's my job to present these proposals. If you want to discuss with the author directly then either TG them or post in this proposal's thread on the on-site GA sub-forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Internet Neutrality Act: Highly Technical Review

---------

Below is the analysis of the Xeroxian Union World Assembly Committee:

I personally find this proposal to be very interesting for several reasons. I will also state the position of Xerox Prime on this resolution:

1. The proposal both increases personal freedoms of the citizens, while limiting the freedoms of the governments of nations (and those that control them). Allow me to explain. This resolution will prevent governments from limiting the Internet content accessible by their citizens. This, obviously, increases the personal freedoms and economic productivity of individual citizens. However, at the same time, it limits the freedom of governments to dictate the Internet freedoms of their citizens.

2. This resolution will have the greatest effect on the nations most likely to oppose it. This is very interesting. If you are a democracy with no internet restrictions, then this will not affect you in the slightest. It just reinforces already existing laws. Therefore, you are likely to support it. HOWEVER, if you are a psychotic dictatorship with the Internet made illegal, then this resolution will have the greatest effect on you and your laws. You are also likely to be against it.

These factors are what make the resolution particularly interesting. The nations that will not be affected by this (the democracies) are likely to support it, while those nations that actually are (severely) affected (the dictatorships) will be completely against it.

Due to this, your position on this resolution will be entirely personal. 

Those that provide Internet neutrality will not be affected. They will support it.

Those who do not provide Internet neutrality will be affected severely. They will be against it.

Xerox Prime is against it due to these reasons.

The identity of Big Bad Badger will determine whether or not he supports it.

The ones that support the resolution the most will gain nothing from it, while those that are against it will be impacted the most.

This is interesting, and presents a fun little contradiction. The implications should be obvious.

Additionaly, this resolution is very vague and broad.

What if a Department of Education wants to prohibit gaming sites in its computers?

What about parental controls?

My stance can be summarized in the following sentence:

There is a difference between allowing self-expression and forcing people to walk around naked.

Overall, this just provides needless extra policies at no benefit to the nations of the World Assembly (WA).

I will not support it in its current form.

-This highly technical review was brought to you by Xerox Prime.

Xerox Prime is against this resolution.

Edited by Xerox Prime
Revisions Made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Serrus said:

For it because I want all my citizens to be able to watch videos. At once. :sunglasses:

If I may play the devil's advocate here: Why is your nation unable to provide net neutrality to its citizens without this proposal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, States of Glory said:

If I may play the devil's advocate here: Why is your nation unable to provide net neutrality to its citizens without this proposal?

As I wrote previously: This is the interesting thing about this resolution.

If you already provide net neutrality to your citizens, then this basically does not affect you. It will be in line with your own policies, so you will support it. These are the democracies.

If you do not already provide net neutrality to your citizens, then this strongly affects you. It will not be in line with your own policies, so you will oppose it. These are the autocracies.

So, basically: The strongest opposition to this resolution will be from those that it affects the most. Its strongest support will come from those that it does not affect whatsoever. I think that the implications are obvious.

Interesting, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Xerox Prime said:

-snip-

I see your point, except it's possible to have a democracy without net neutrality (think hardline neoliberal Republicans) and it's possible to have an autocracy with net neutrality (though I can't think of RL examples).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, States of Glory said:

I see your point, except it's possible to have a democracy without net neutrality (think hardline neoliberal Republicans) and it's possible to have an autocracy with net neutrality (though I can't think of RL examples).

My main point was not that democracies=net neutrality, while autocracies=no net neutrality, though that is fairly common.

The point that I was trying to make was that the supporters of this resolution will gain nothing from it, as they already provide net neutrality, while the biggest opposition will come from those most affected by it. The only possible effects of this resolution, logically, will be negative, and fall entirely on the opposition to this resolution. The supporters will already provide net neutrality, and so will not be affected, positively OR negatively. It's zero sum. There is no possible benefit for the nations of the World Assembly (WA). The only ones that benefit are the citizens, and the citizens are not represented in this game :).

Edited by Xerox Prime
Revisions Made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, States of Glory said:

Sorry I couldn't get to this earlier; the nuclear apocalypse took up most of my time. I don't see any obvious problems and net neutrality is certainly a worthy cause, so this proposal has my tentative support, though I would recommend going with the majority of residents who post in the offside forum.

i Totally aprove it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Xerox Prime (New York Times Democracy) approves this resolution.

The approval of our delegate, and others, will hinge entirely on whether or not they already provide Internet Neutrality.

Edited by Xerox Prime
Revisions Made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, States of Glory said:

I disapprove of your spelling and grammar. Do I need to play Word Crimes again? :P 

#LiKETotaLlyDO0dWOOPRoLfMAoW zRocksiZASSOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, States of Glory said:

I disapprove of your spelling and grammar. Do I need to play Word Crimes again? :P 

English is not my primary language...a im argentinian :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, States of Glory said:

Aye, the comment was tongue-in-cheek. Seriously, though, Word Crimes by "Weird Al" Yankovic is probably far more useful than any textbook on the English language.

i will just use google translator for this type of things :D:D^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit late for the discussion, but still my two cents:

While I generally like the proposal (and have voted for it), I see a potentially major flaw in the definition in point 1.1. In the introdution the proposal always talks about "the Internet". Yet in the definition it is generally described as a system of interconnected networks etc. This looks a bit unspecific in my opinion, as this definition could be applied to various other networks like early usenet, FidoNet or digital cellular networks (eg GSM and CDMA) which all are or were independent of the Internet.

So it could be argued that the resolution is overly broad and regulates more than it claims to do and I fear that (if it passes) there is an attempt of a repeal based on this on the horizon.

On the other hand the resolution leaves plenty of wiggle room for governments that aren't very keen on Internet freedom. The prohibitions in point 2 and 3 explicitly talk about lawful content. Unlawful content can easily be blocked. Any dictatorship worth its salt has at least a few broad laws in the books that can easily be applied in many different cases. Think of the lèse majesté in Thailand (quite elegant with the king only being in a representative role and not in the government) or Article 301 of the Turkish penal code, especially its old form ("insult of Turkishness").

In the end this will mostly affect already pretty open nations where it will prevent ISPs from erecting toll booths on every other corner.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what comes of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Arotania said:

A bit late for the discussion, but still my two cents:

While I generally like the proposal (and have voted for it), I see a potentially major flaw in the definition in point 1.1. In the introdution the proposal always talks about "the Internet". Yet in the definition it is generally described as a system of interconnected networks etc. This looks a bit unspecific in my opinion, as this definition could be applied to various other networks like early usenet, FidoNet or digital cellular networks (eg GSM and CDMA) which all are or were independent of the Internet.

So it could be argued that the resolution is overly broad and regulates more than it claims to do and I fear that (if it passes) there is an attempt of a repeal based on this on the horizon.

On the other hand the resolution leaves plenty of wiggle room for governments that aren't very keen on Internet freedom. The prohibitions in point 2 and 3 explicitly talk about lawful content. Unlawful content can easily be blocked. Any dictatorship worth its salt has at least a few broad laws in the books that can easily be applied in many different cases. Think of the lèse majesté in Thailand (quite elegant with the king only being in a representative role and not in the government) or Article 301 of the Turkish penal code, especially its old form ("insult of Turkishness").

In the end this will mostly affect already pretty open nations where it will prevent ISPs from erecting toll booths on every other corner.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what comes of this.

The main issue with the wording, as you said, is that the wording is very broad. There are obvious issues with banning all internet restrictions (education systems restricting access to computer games on their computers).

My personal issue with this is that there's just no benefit. The nations that support this likely already provide Internet neutrality, and so would not benefit from this. The nations opposing this likely do not provide Internet neutrality, and so would only have more policies imposed on them by the WA. There's no benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Arotania said:

Any dictatorship worth its salt has at least a few broad laws in the books that can easily be applied in many different cases. Think of the lèse majesté in Thailand (quite elegant with the king only being in a representative role and not in the government) or Article 301 of the Turkish penal code, especially its old form ("insult of Turkishness").

GA #30 a.k.a Freedom of Expression already puts an end to such laws.

 

4 hours ago, Xerox Prime said:

The nations opposing this likely do not provide Internet neutrality, and so would only have more policies imposed on them by the WA. There's no benefit.

You've just contradicted yourself here, unless you believe that net neutrality is not a benefit. 

It's all moot, anyway, as Badger had voted 'For'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, States of Glory said:

You've just contradicted yourself here, unless you believe that net neutrality is not a benefit. 

It's all moot, anyway, as Badger had voted 'For'.

The issue with "net neutrality" is that, in the way in which the resolution outlines it, it is very, very vague and broad. What if a department of education wants to block certain websites on its computers? What about parental controls?

At its core, Nationstates is a government / nation simulator, and not a people simulator. Those nations that already provide Net Neutrality will gain absolutely nothing, as this resolution only repeats existing laws (or lack thereof). What this does, is it forces corporations, governments, etc. to provide access to *everything*, including sensitive information. This is incredibly broad and vague. It's like trying to promote free expression by forcing everyone to walk around naked.

You're completely right about Badger. Our votes can't compete with his 500+. And he seems to have already decided his position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Xerox Prime said:

The issue with "net neutrality" is that, in the way in which the resolution outlines it, it is very, very vague and broad. What if a department of education wants to block certain websites on its computers? What about parental controls?

Schools, according to this proposal, are customers, not to mention that Internet access is offered as an additional benefit. Therefore, schools are not ISP's.

Also, in the case of parental controls, it's the device that blocks the content, not the ISP itself.

 

6 minutes ago, Xerox Prime said:

What this does, is it forces corporations, governments, etc. to provide access to *everything*, including sensitive information.

If a nation's government is stupid enough to make accessing sensitive information lawful then yes, this proposal forces that government to allow everyone to access sensitive information online. Reasonable governments, however, will already have made accessing sensitive information illegal, so this proposal's mandates don't apply in those cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.