KCB 201: Internet regulation: an oxymoron?

Internet regulation... oooh, I cringe every time I hear it - internet regulation... eeerrghh. `Internet` - good;`regulation` - sure; `internet regulation` - nggarrhhh h h h.

Our last Virtual Cultures lecture was on internet governance. Wow, what a topic: what a can of worms! Our lecturer, John Banks, all but assured us it would be a boring lecture, but it turned out to be one of the most interesting...

I'd like to provide a few quotes from an essay I wrote at the end of last year where I looked at the Australian Government's efforts to regulate online content and corporate efforts to control online content and contrasted them with internet as a free-speech environment.

• `Regulating online communication is like regulating everyday conversation, or
  regulating what people write to each other in letters or talk about on the
  phone...`
• `The Australian Government has chosen to regulate online communication in a
  similar manner to the way they regulate content on television or radio... this
  form is ineffective`
• `users have the capacity to interact and contribute to the Internet, so
  should they wield the power to regulate it—absent from political
  authority...`

In a previous post, I wrote:

• `Little Timmy may not be exposed to nudity on TV before his bedtime, but technically ofay Timmy knows a quick type of the word `boobies` into Google will provide him with all the nudity he wants.`

I think John Banks was right when he said that internet regulation is going to be one of the hottest topics in the coming years as parents and concerned citizens become more concerned with what free speech is doing to society. There's that whole `won't anyone think about the children` paradigm that emerges every time media content comes under scrutiny.

ACMA have implemented a number of initiatives to maintain a certain standard of online regulation, but the only one with any lasting affect is the anti-spam law. Other than that, online content regulation is dealt with in the same way as broadcast media - consumer doesn't like something, they complain to ACMA, and if they feel like it, ACMA will do something--within their limited power-- about it. What a useless aproach! To treat the internet like any other broadcast media is like thinking mobile phones are only used to call people. There's so much more to consider.

The internet subsists in contrast to existing broadcast media, it's a `sit forward` platform, not a `sit back` medium, and regulation policy should reflect that. At the moment, the Australian Government recognises the changes and progressions in the global media environment but, as yet, has not provided a policy to complement it.

John also raised an interesting debate surrounding the global internet govrnance authority, ICANN. I found a few interesting sites and blogs just by googling ICANN--here, here, and a funny little cartoon here. The major concern about ICANN is that they are basically the largest and most powerful internet governance organisation in the world, and yet it's based in the US. So much for the DECENTRALISED WORLD WIDE WEB.

--

Photo courtesy of LessHost.com