Shining a Spotlight on Shadow Regulation of the Internet: 2016 in Review
From The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Over the past few years, Internet users have found their voice in the halls of power. Through legal challenges, speaking to legislators, and effective online organizing, we've beat back many attempts to create mechanisms of censorship and strip speakers of their privacy. We defeated the SOPA/PIPA Internet blacklist bills, and the ACTA and TPP agreements, and stood up for net neutrality as a free speech principle. But these victories had a side effect: corporate and government interests who seek to edit the Internet and regulate others' speech have turned to private agreements. These agreements can create restrictions that are as effective as any law, but without the need for approval by a court or parliament. Sometimes they are even initiated by government officials, who offer companies the Hobson's choice of coming up with a "voluntary" solution or submitting to government regulation.Read more here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/shining-spotlight-shadow-regulation-internetThis year, we've begun to shine a spotlight on these Shadow Regulations, and hold them to the same high standards as we do for laws.
Many of the Shadow Regulations we've looked at involve copyright enforcement. Since the defeat of SOPA/PIPA in 2012, major music and movie distributors have been trying to achieve the goal of those bills—making so-called "rogue websites" disappear from the Internet at the request of major entertainment companies—through private agreements with payment processors, advertising networks, and DNS companies. Whether it happens through law or private agreement, copyright enforcement needs to be based on valid rules and employ fair processes and accountability, and users must have a voice in the design of these rules and processes.
...
Make sure to follow this profile @contentjunkie to stay up to date on more great posts like this one.
This post has been ranked within the top 50 most undervalued posts in the first half of Jan 02. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $6.65 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Jan 02 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.