#internetpolicy

Are you in high school, junior high, or do you work thereabouts? Does your institution use filtering software such as NetNanny or CyberPatrol? I'm curious what your opinions are on the effectiveness of said technology.

The backstory: in my Cyberlaw class today, we discussed the legal framework for protecting children from online obscenity and indecent content, such as pornography. Back in the day, Congress tried to pass a bunch of laws restricting people from posting such content online and making it accessible to minors; these bills were mostly struck down as First Amendment violations.

A key part of the argument they made was, "Why force the websites to filter themselves when you can have parents and schools install filters that will be just as effective, if not more?" 

Here's the thing: when I was in high school and junior high, the filters were TERRIBLE. They worked very poorly: kids would get blocked from all sorts of things they should have been able to access, and vice versa.

But, that was a ZILLION YEARS AGO. Like, seriously, a decade ago. Because I am old. And technology has progressed since then.

So, my question for you, sisters, sisters' friends, teenagers, schoolteachers, and librarians, is how well does this stuff work today?

Would you categorize filtering software as, for the most part "effective" at blocking things the adults want blocked, or "not effective" at blocking the stuff the adults want blocked? (Note that this question is not whether or not it's fair that the adults block Facebook at school. This question is whether or not you're usually blocked from things adults don't want you to see, and whether or not you're rarely accidentally blocked from things it is okay for you to see.)

Have you ever been blocked from something you should have been allowed to see, such as information you were looking up for a report? What happened?

Have you ever accidentally seen something you know should have been blocked? What happened?

Just sayin'. MegaUpload was bad! They profited ($175 million) by deliberately encouraging piracy on their site. They had no intention of taking down infringing content.

MegaUpload deserved to be shut down ...with due process, evidence, and a thorough legal investigation first.

It's frustrating that this happened right when national attention is on SOPA, and while the MPAA, RIAA et al. are trying to categorize anti-SOPA activists as "anti-copyright." In particular, Anonymous' anti-MegaUpload shutdown retaliation is definitely not helping the anti-SOPA case.

Dear Media Industry,

Great job on providing reasonably-priced easily-accessible digital content. I'm really digging this whole Netflix/Amazon Prime/Spotify media-service model. I'm a happy paid subscriber to some services, and I even click on ads for others. I feel like we're finally having a pretty good relationship here. There are still a few kinks to work out but on the whole I think we're on the right track.

Here's something you need to work out right now though: Globalization and the Internet. It's a thing. Your customers are aware of it.

So, Spotify, when you tell me that my Metric album isn't available for streaming in the US, I feel like you're taunting me.

Also, Amazon Video? Downton Abbey Season 2? Don't tell me to "look forward to it" when my UK friends have already seen it.

And, PS - confession time? I'm super tempted to access those things without paying you for them. Because I can get them now rather than later. But I'd rather pay you for them? If you'd let me?