MYSPACE:Trojan Horse of Internet Censorship?

[Norsemaiden]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/160306myspace.htm

On Alex Jones' site, link above, he says some devastating things about plans by the establishment to impose censorship on the internet.

MySpace is, apparantly, going to be used as a tool in this. MySpace was bought by media mogul Rupert Murdoch in 2005. It is now 8th most visited site on the web. "Rupert Murdoch's battle axe for shaping a future internet environment whereby electronic dissent, whether it be against corporations or government, will not be tolerated and freedom of e-speech will cease to exist."

MySpace shuts down blogs critical of itself and of Murdoch owned companies. Murdoch recognises that conventional forms of media are outdated - can't compete with the internet. He "stressed the need to regain control of these outlets in order to prevent the establishment media empire from crumbling."

"MySpace is Rupert Murdoch's trojan horse for destroying free speech on the internet. It is a foundational keystone of the first wave of the state's backlash to the damage that a free and open internet has done to their organs of propaganda. By firstly making it cool, trendy and culturally elite for millions to flock to establishment controlled internet backbones like MySpace, Murdoch is preparing the groundwork for the day when it will stop being voluntary and become mandatory to use government and corporation monopoly controlled internet hubs."

Another stage of this is to repeatedly cause deliberate crashes of the internet, to make it seem undesirable, and to price people out of the regualar internet and into "Internet 2, a state regulated hub where permission will need to be obtained directly from an FCC or government bureau to set up a website."

 

[Hubster]

From a technical standpoint, theres nothing to stop anyone from building a new network if the public internet of today fails as a gateway of free speech.

I also believe that complete control of the internet isnt very possible, unless you're like China or Korea who practically run their versions of the internet as a gigantic VPN (Virtual Private Network).

There is always room for new networks: all you need is a bunch of uni students to write new network protocols which arent used by todays internet, wait for the network to grow from a P2P network to something far larger and thats it (thats how the much of the stuff we use today was developed).

PS - thanks for the mention of the article though, very interesting. I've hated MySpace since it started, I miss the internet of 10 years ago!

 

[derek]

I'm not a fan of myspace, either.

Although you are correct. Unless countires FORCE users into one particular ISP, that is heavily censored then different networks will always arise, thankfully.

 

[unknown]

I'd like to know where he got his information from...specifically regarding this Internet 2 thing

 

[MURAI]

My Space has become so popular with anybody being able to create a profile web page without any knowledge of html. The result is a croc of shit with everybody showing off pictures of themselves.

It isnt surprising to see mass media giants pulling off stunts like My Space. I dont think the internet has always been completely "free" with trackers and advertisements and what not.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I'd like to know where he got his information from...specifically regarding this Internet 2 thing

Internet 2 is easily searchable and it does exist, but it doesn't admit to any sinister sounding goals (unsurprisingly) and is just supposed to be an improvement on the regular internet.

 

[Cynical]

If censorship is the goal, it would be far easier to de-neutralize the internet and let the ISPs act as content providers than it would be to create an "internet 2" and get every person and ISP to switch over to it.

In short- the conspiracy theory makes no sense.

 

[Silver Incubus]

I use it for band stuff only. Its good for networking with other local bands.

 

[infoterror]

Owned by Viacom now, isn't it? You really trust big media?

I would not trust this one either:
http://www.faceparty.com/

 

[infoterror]

If censorship is the goal

Censorship isn't needed. Democracy does enough to obliterate meaning. Get everyone on the internet shouting at once and meaning is dead.

Victory achieved.

 

[derek]

Meaning becomes difficult to find, but its not dead.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Censorship isn't needed. Democracy does enough to obliterate meaning. Get everyone on the internet shouting at once and meaning is dead.

Victory achieved.

No they censor people's opinions on that site already. Some profiles of people were deleted when they were saying bad things about certain companies.
But its their site and they can do what they want. I just think people should be aware of what is going on though, although most people don't care.

 

[Norsemaiden]

If censorship is the goal, it would be far easier to de-neutralize the internet and let the ISPs act as content providers than it would be to create an "internet 2" and get every person and ISP to switch over to it.

In short- the conspiracy theory makes no sense.

Maybe it would be easier to do what you said, but this Internet 2 idea sounds like it could generate big bucks which is a huge added bonus, plus it may be that the censorship will be subtle, because the main internet will still be available and free but it will be generally shunned and crash a lot (deliberately) so its power will be neutralised. With Internet 2, broadband is not necessary as you will get fast speeds on dialup (that's what they are trying to organise). So people will hardly bother with the main internet.

Is it beginning to seem more plausable?

 

[Cynical]

You will never see faster speeds on dial up than you do on DSL now. Anyone with a basic knowledge of networking would know this. Add to that the fact that dial up ties up a phone line, and that's hardly an incentive to switch. Add to that the fact that it would cost tons of money to create "internet 2" and there's no way it'd be profitable.

 

[Norsemaiden]

You will never see faster speeds on dial up than you do on DSL now. Anyone with a basic knowledge of networking would know this. Add to that the fact that dial up ties up a phone line, and that's hardly an incentive to switch. Add to that the fact that it would cost tons of money to create "internet 2" and there's no way it'd be profitable.

I'm obviously no expert on these things, but I got the information about faster dial up from a CNN article about Internet2 http:www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/03/11/internet2/index.html

"US led effort to build cyberspace all over again, this time better." "It's really focused on tens of millions of dial-up users".

"Well the current Internet is not designed for the next generation of applications" says Ted Hanss, Director of Internet2.

 

[Cynical]

The "focused on dial-up users" quote is in reference to the current internet.

There is room for improvement in the TCP-IP protocol, but 56K will always be too slow to make downloading anything more than a few megs practical, too slow for streaming, etc.

 

[Norsemaiden]

What you said makes sense. I'm not sure if when you get connected to internet2 you don't have access through the internet2 fibreoptic connection to also access the normal internet. It looks like they are trying to replace it completely and make the public lose interest in the main internet.

This site http://www.utexas.edu/its/news/features/102003/internet2_10102003.html says how the internet speeds are getting too slow from overload and that this is why Internet2 will be so much better. It says "Internet2 comprises a number of network nodes, all connected by high-speed fibre optic media". The speed is 11000 times faster than dial up and considerably faster than all the other possible internet connections.

 

[Cynical]

With an OC-12 line (which is what UT is using in that article), you can easily access the "old" internet. From the links you've provided, it looks like this "internet 2" is simply an improvement to the infrastructure of the current one, without changning either the client or server ends.

Translation for the non computer saavy- it has nothing to do with content.

 

[Hubster]

Well well! Look what I just found at the Sydney Morning Heralds website (www.smh.com.au):

MySpace culls thousands of profiles
By Louisa Hearn
April 3, 2006 - 1:40PM

MySpace.com, the social networking website that has proved a hit with the youth market, is reported to have removed 200,000 profiles deemed "objectionable" in a bid to reassure parents and advertisers about the safety of the site.

The website was bought last year by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, but has recently attracted criticism over fears that online predators might be interacting with young people using the site.

Ross Levinsohn, head of News Corp's internet division, told attendees at a New York conference some of the material taken down had contained hate speech or risque content.

The Financial Times reported Mr Levinsohn as saying: "It's a problem that's endemic to the internet - not just MySpace. The site, in the last two months, I think has become safer."

A number of US schools have already banned the website in order to protect students against the threat of online predators, but some students have also found themselves on the wrong side of the law for content they have posted.

Last month, a 17-year-old high school student in NSW was charged with publishing threats to kill two teachers and a 14-year-old girl on MySpace.

This week, The Buffalo News reported that a New York school student had been expelled for posting a comment on the site that contained a threat to burn down the principal's house.

The site mainly attracts the youthful 18 to 30 demographic, courted heavily by advertisers, and now boasts more female than male subscribers, said Forbes magazine.

But many teenage girls are attaching provocative images to their profiles, and providing details of their home town and school, making them easy to track down.

Although MySpace does not accept subscribers under the age of 14, teachers and parents remain concerned that the public nature of members' profiles could put teens in contact with online predators.

An additional concern for MySpace as a business is to attract advertisers to its site, and to do that it it must be able to provide assurances that an advertiser's reputation will not be sullied by objectionable content.

Marketing website AdAge recently said that, while social networking sites could offer a "potential eyeball windfall", offering the reach only dreamt about by advertisers, reports that they were attracting sexual predators left many marketers in fear of the associated negative publicity.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Thanks for that information Hubster. What I have just found out should may be have a thread all of its own because it is really serious.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1101.htm
THE PENTAGON'S WAR ON THE WEB
"The Pentagon has developed a comprehensive strategy for taking over the internet and controlling the free flow of information. The plan appears in a recently declassified document, 'The Information Operations Roadmap', which was provided under the FOIA, (Freedom of Information Act) and revealed in an article by the BBC."

BBC article: "US plans to 'fight the net' revealed". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm

Also see article from The Sunday Herald http://www.sundayherald.com/54975
"Imagine a world where wars are fought over the internet; where TV broadcasts and newspaper reports are designed by the military to confuse the population;and where a foreign armed power can shut down your computer, phone, radio or TV at will". "In 2006 we are just about to enter such a world."