Main Menu

Sponsors:

Poll :Internet

Started by Ron Wenrich, October 09, 2005, 09:11:07 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ron Wenrich

Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

beenthere

Voted "Don't know" because I am not sure what 'regulated' means.  I think it is regulated now, to some extent by some basic procedural rules and policies.
If regulated means like the Forestry Forum is regulated, I would say 'no'.  The whole internet might then be regulated in a way we don't fit, and would be regulated out (for example, if we type the word 'prayer' and the regulators have decided that it will be removed for pc reasons. Or we suggest cutting a tree down, and the huggers in control of regulation have decided we can't suggest cutting a tree down). 
I don't know what 'regulated' means, so answer would be 'don't know'.

Are there things on the internet I think should be 'regulated'? -- for sure, 'yes' but don't know how that could work.
south central Wisconsin
It may be that my sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others

Dan_Shade

the less the government has to do with anything productive, the better off we all are...

it's only a matter of time before it's taxed as bad as phones are.
Woodmizer LT40HDG25 / Stihl 066 alaskan
lots of dull bands and chains

There's a fine line between turning firewood into beautiful things and beautiful things into firewood.

farmerdoug

I voted no.

They do not control the mail so why the internet?  There are things that are illegal with both already and they can take a look sees with a court order(or not), but they cannot tell you what you should do and that is the way it should stay.   :P

Farmerdoug
Doug
Truck Farmer/Greenhouse grower
2001 LT40HDD42 Super with Command Control and AccuSet, 42 hp Kubota diesel
Fargo, MI

Jeff

I am going to say yes, for this reason. Our peice of the internet. The Forestry Forum is regulated to keep it the type of place we need it to be. Other places can be regulated by those that create them. If not for the ability to regulate the Forestry Forum, others would dictate what it is.  Lots of ways to answer this question as Ron does not state "Governmental Regulation"  So who is "They?" In the case of this chunk of the internet, "we" are "they". :)
Just call me the midget doctor.
Forestry Forum Founder and Chief Cook and Bottle Washer.

Commercial circle sawmill sawyer in a past life for 25yrs.
Ezekiel 22:30

Frickman

I voted no also. The reason the internet has grown so much and is such a great tool is the government hasn't gotten its tentacles in it yet. If it had, it wouldn't be a tenth what it is today, if it even existed at all. Plus, the internet is a global thing, crossing international lines. Who, and how would they regulate that?
If you're not broke down once in a while, you're not working hard enough

I'm not a hillbilly. I'm an "Appalachian American"

Retired  Conventional hand-felling logging operation with cable skidder and forwarder, Frick 01 handset sawmill

Pretend farmer when I have the time

DanG

I voted "limited control" in deference to Jeff's reasoning.  I like the way the ForestryForum is regulated, because it makes me feel comfortable here.  I wouldn't be offended by an unregulated setting, but would feel uncomfortable if I knew that others would.  The controls that individual site owners impose are right and just, in my opinion, and I'm thankful that these sites exist.  I wouldn't want to see an attempt at governmental control, or the establishment of the "Internet PC police", however.
"I don't feel like an old man.  I feel like a young man who has something wrong with him."  Dick Cavett
"Beat not thy sword into a plowshare, rather beat the sword of thine enemy into a plowshare."

Jeff

My question is why does regulation automatically mean government to so many?  I refuse to let the government make that my mind set.
Just call me the midget doctor.
Forestry Forum Founder and Chief Cook and Bottle Washer.

Commercial circle sawmill sawyer in a past life for 25yrs.
Ezekiel 22:30

Ernie

I voted No.  Two reasons, as Jeff has already said, there are many self-regulating sites and that makes "official" regulation redundant. and Secondly I heard on one our morning newscasts that the United Nations wants to take control over the internet and I can think of few things worse than UN involvement in anything.
A very wise man once told me . Grand children are great, we should have had them first

Rockn H

I voted no, until I read Jeff's comments.  Yes Jeff, I automatically thought government regulation.  I suppose because I'm so against it.  As for as the owners or creators of the individual sites regulating themselves, I am fine with that.  So other than I voted no, well DanG I agree with Dang. ::)

Roxie

I voted no.  I believe that you have the same control over your computer and where it goes on the internet that you have on your TV.  If it's not for you, change the channel....click the mouse.  I hang out here for a reason.  This is my kind of place, where I learn something new every day, and laugh along with some of the best wit you can find.   :)
Say when

OneWithWood

Ron, the question needs some clarification.  As it stands it is just too broad.
One With Wood
LT40HDG25, Woodmizer DH4000 Kiln

thedeeredude

I voted limited control, because I think they(FCC?) need to have control over child pornography, but as for everything else like this forum, let it be.

WeeksvilleWoodWorx

I voted no.

This site is not the internet, the internet is the path to get to this site. FF is a private entity owned and operated by the Big Guy, to run as he sees fit.  Child pornagraphy is already illegal, doesn't matter if it is bought at the newsstand or over the internet still illegal.

my .029.

Brian
Brian - 2004 LT40HDG28 owner.

old3dogg

I voted no. I dont have a problem with someone controlling thier own net site but I feel the net is like tv. Dont like whats on then just change the channel. The last thing I want is someone trying to protect me from myself.

Arthur

There is a need for limited control of the internet.  If the Internet is allowed to run totally free this will just give the governments a reason to totally control it.

There are plenty of things that are already controlled without the internet users knowing.

Most Internet traffic is monitored by the various governments and will be controlled if you give them any opportunities.

Although global the structure is still very much country based.  You may find that even now there are internet sites that you just cannot get to because they are already blocked in your country but can be looked at when in another country.  Just because you are on the internet does not mean that you can connect to everything that is there.  How many times do you try to get a page that appears to not be there.  That link may have been deleted or restricted you will never know.

When networking in IT we regularly segment areas to prevent users from going there.  The user thinks thay have total access.  So easy to do.

arthur

L. Wakefield

   I haven't voted yet :-[  but my pet peeve is those ***G***D***posters who keep offering me sleaze of one sort or another.  lw
L. Wakefield, owner and operator of the beastly truck Heretik, that refuses to stay between the lines when parking

DonE911

I voted no... but like many others I immediately thought "uncle sam"

Jeff

Without regulation of some sort, everything becomes O.K.  There are certainly two things I can think of right away that need to be regulated right off of the internet. Hackers and spammers. 
Just call me the midget doctor.
Forestry Forum Founder and Chief Cook and Bottle Washer.

Commercial circle sawmill sawyer in a past life for 25yrs.
Ezekiel 22:30

Patty

It is already illegal to hack into someone's computer. My son's job is to catch these guys and see that they go to jail for a long time. Same with child porn, this is illegal no matter what form it is in..print or internet. As far as spam, wasn't there some antispam legislature passed awhile back? I view spam as junk mail....just throw it away.

I voted no. Too much regulation is a bad thing. They already are trying to tax all internet sales; this would be a logistical nightmare for retailers who sell online.  >:(
Women are Angels.
And when someone breaks our wings....
We simply continue to fly ........
on a broomstick.....
We are flexible like that.

tnlogger

well now i voted no. For one reason freedom of speech comes to mind. another is that some countrys have a lock on their Internet so the people are restricted on what they can access.
Now as Jeff has said hackers and Spam need to be controlled. I agree but those are a crime and are controlled as such. We our selves have the control on what we let ourselves see or download and that of our children. Now this goes back to our morality and also what we have taught our children.
But also think of this if you were a victim of say a rape,or child abuse and tryed to find infomation on a subject. and their were restaints in place when you try to seach there would be no knowalge.
Well I'll get off the stump now  ;D
gene

Percy

I voted "NO" as well. Decent places like this one are already regulated. We need better enforcement of laws that already apply to the internet. The thing that makes the internet so valuble is also its weakness...IMHO anyways ::)
GOLDEN RULE : The guy with the gold, makes the rules.

Woodcarver

I voted no for the reason that Ernie mentioned: the push by the EU and others to transfer control of the internet from the U.S. to the United Nations.
Just an old dog learning new tricks.......Woodcarver

Roxie

It would only seem fair to put this question to Al Gore, since he invented the internet.   ::)
Say when

DanG

I ain't so sure he invented the Internet, after all.  The only thing I know that he REALLY invented, was the Bush Administration. ;D :D :D :D :D
"I don't feel like an old man.  I feel like a young man who has something wrong with him."  Dick Cavett
"Beat not thy sword into a plowshare, rather beat the sword of thine enemy into a plowshare."