[ABANDONED] The Internet Act

[World Assembly Improvement Foundation]

"You are more than just a vote!"

[Jarish Inyo]

In a world where internet use in often required to submit job applications, apply to colleges, and turn in high school assignments to a plagiarism checker, yes, internet access is a right, because people have a right to an education and a right to a minimum standard of living.

And we would have to disagree. Access is not anymore a right then access to television, radio or a phone. One can still turn is school assignments and fill out applications to colleges and employment without access to the internet. No one's right to an education and a right to a minimum standard of living is actually being effected. And without access to the internet, a plagiarism checker would not be needed for students. After all, there was no need for a plagiarism checker before the internet was widely available in some nations.

Digital documents are superior to paper documents . almost every way, especially because they allow instant feedback on misspelled words, allow work to be saved in multiple locations, and can have a uniform look and format. In order for these digital documents to have maximum use in ab educational setting, they need to be able to be sent from one device to another (either from school to home and vice versa, or from a student to a teacher, etc). The internet is the most practical way to allow data to be shared between digital devices. Therefore the internet is valuable to education because it facilitates the use of superior digital documents as opposed to paper documents.

You don't have a real argument here. All you state is that the internet is the easiest way to transfer digital documentation. Funny considering that assignments are still required to be printed out and turned in. Digital documents are in no way superior to paper documents.

The internet facilitates communication between distant individuals. A powerful social tool.

Actually, no. One can actually communicate between each other between great distances by something called a telephone or even a letter. The internet is not in any way a powerful social tool. One does not actually socialize with anyone.

The internet is the easiest way to spread a political message to thousands of individuals across a planet, short of simultaneously mind controlling everyone.

And incorrect. People don't actually take part in political discussion. Most don't even know what the originator of a comment or a speech actually said. People get catch phrases of what from individual that promotes and twist the comment or speechto their ideology.

[Llorens]

In a world where internet use in often required to submit job applications, apply to colleges, and turn in high school assignments to a plagiarism checker, yes, internet access is a right, because people have a right to an education and a right to a minimum standard of living.

And we would have to disagree. Access is not anymore a right then access to television, radio or a phone. One can still turn is school assignments and fill out applications to colleges and employment without access to the internet. No one's right to an education and a right to a minimum standard of living is actually being effected. And without access to the internet, a plagiarism checker would not be needed for students.

Digital documents are superior to paper documents . almost every way, especially because they allow instant feedback on misspelled words, allow work to be saved in multiple locations, and can have a uniform look and format. In order for these digital documents to have maximum use in ab educational setting, they need to be able to be sent from one device to another (either from school to home and vice versa, or from a student to a teacher, etc). The internet is the most practical way to allow data to be shared between digital devices. Therefore the internet is valuable to education because it facilitates the use of superior digital documents as opposed to paper documents.

You don't have a real argument here. All you state is that the internet is the easiest way to transfer digital documentation. Funny considering that assignments are still required to be printed out and turned in. Digital documents are in no way superior to paper documents.

The internet facilitates communication between distant individuals. A powerful social tool.

Actually, no. One can actually communicate between each other between great distances by something called a telephone or even a letter. The internet is not in any way a powerful social tool. One does not actually socialize with anyone.

The internet is the easiest way to spread a political message to thousands of individuals across a planet, short of simultaneously mind controlling everyone.

And incorrect. People don't actually take part in political discussion. Most don't even know what the originator of a comment or a speech actually said. People get catch phrases of what from individual that promotes and twist the comment or speechto their ideology.

The vast majority of what you are saying is a lot of I disagree for no apparent reason and making generalisations about people, namely Internet users. The Internet isn't solely comprised of one internet user or one web address. In fact, the NationStates forum is a form of political discussion. Unfortunately, a letter is extremely inefficient and a telephone call doesn't have a transcript which you can look over once you're done. Social interaction is a core element of this very website. Digital documents are clearly superior to paper documents: they allow instant feedback, don't use valuable physical resources, and are a lot cheaper considering that a physical document uses paper and ink. People have the right to access a radio or telephone because of their right to free communication, making your analogy irrelevant.

[World Assembly Improvement Foundation]

"You are more than just a vote!"

[Jarish Inyo]

Social interaction is a core element of this very website.

Incorrect. Social interaction is not a core element of very website. In fact, most websites don't have anything to do with social interaction at all. A core element of every website is money.

Unfortunately, a letter is extremely inefficient and a telephone call doesn't have a transcript which you can look over once you're done.

A letter is not inefficient in the least. On can record a phone call if on really is interested keeping a record.

Digital documents are clearly superior to paper documents: they allow instant feedback, don't use valuable physical resources, and are a lot cheaper considering that a physical document uses paper and ink.

Again, digital documents not superior. They do not allow for instant feed back at all. It still take the same amount of time for the person to read and get back to someone as a physical copy. The resource you are referring to is actually inexpensive then the digital device and programs that one would have to purchase to create the digital copy.

People have the right to access a radio or telephone because of their right to free communication

People do not have a right to access radio or telephone as there is no right to free communication. Nice try though.

World Assembly Improvement Foundation

Ever hear of public broadcasting? Or emergency call boxes? Television and phone access often is publicly provided.

Actually, television and phone access is not publicly provided. Emergency call boxes is something that a government may provide, but they are not free as taxes pay for them and they don't allow one to call just anyone. Public broadcast channels are privately owned and paid for by advertisement. Phone access is provided by a company that charges for the use of a phone. Again access to a television or phone is not a right.

Not in the secondary schools I went to, and not the colleges I applied for, and not roughly 60% of the businesses I applied to work at. I either had to use my own internet access or publicly provided internet access (or terminals located within the business I was applying to work at, which still used the internet).

Funny how they often aren't.

How funny that there are. It's your experience that you didn't need to turn in a physical of your work. I just had kid that just finished his school and still had to turn in physical copies of his reports. And had to fill out physical applications for collage and jobs. Basing the argument RL experiences doesn't show that either argument is incorrect.

Then how would you check for plagiarism? You either need the internet, or you have widespread plagiarism that doesn't get caught, which certainly does not benefit education.

Incorrect. Without the internet, it isn't as easy to plagiarizes others works. So it wasn't as common as it is today.

I also explained why digital documents benefitted education, but you apparently didn't read that.

I read it. And it wasn't an explanation at all. As you all you stated: "In order for these digital documents to have maximum use in ab educational setting, they need to be able to be sent from one device to another (either from school to home and vice versa, or from a student to a teacher, etc). The internet is the most practical way to allow data to be shared between digital devices. Therefore the internet is valuable to education because it facilitates the use of superior digital documents as opposed to paper documents."

This is not an argument for the internet being a valuable educational tool.

Citation needed.

I offered several different facts about digital documents that demonstrate superiority over paper (multiple copies in differing locations prevent loss of important documents, spell check programs offer instant feedback on spelling and grammar errors, uniform formatting and font create a standardized look for documents, improved readability compared to handwritten documents, no jamming compared to typewritten documents... and more). Meanwhile you have not offered any argument for why paper is superior to digital.

Actually, your so called demonstrate digital documents superiority over paper don't actually hold water. You make a great argument for using a word processing program, but not an argument for digital documents superiority. After all, its the word processor that offers an instant feedback on spelling and grammar errors, uniform formatting and font create a standardized look for documents, improved readability compared to handwritten documents. Not the document itself. And I can print out multiple copies and store them in different locations that prevents the from being lost.

Citation needed for you argument.

Letters are inherently slower than light communications. The internet is inherently lightspeed communications.

Letters can easily get lost in transit. Internet packets can be lost, but it is far less likely.

If a letter is destroyed, it can't be recovered.
Electronic communications can be backed up, and resent in the event of a failure.

A letter can only be sent to one address at a time.
Electronic communications can be sent to multiple recipients at once.

In short, internet communications are superior to letters in every way.

Citation needed for you argument.

An email can be destroyed and not recovered and not resent in event of a failure. A letter can be sent to multiple recipients at once. So other then the speed issue, internet communications are not superior to letters in every way.

That's not what a social tool is. Try again.

Incorrect. A social tool enables people to socialize. Something that doesn't actually happen when one is clicking like on a website. They are not interacting with anyone.

Citation needed. I know exactly what the originator of this proposal originally said, thanks to the internet. I also know what those people in General originally said... thanks to the internet.

You know what people have said? Really, even after they have edited their comments and their original post can not be found?

I'm sure one can look at any public figure and find so called scandals because they supposedly said something that they didn't say or was just a small snipe of an entire comment.

[Llorens]

Social interaction is a core element of this very website.

Incorrect. Social interaction is not a core element of very website. In fact, most websites don't have anything to do with social interaction at all. A core element of every website is money.

This website, not every website. Read before you respond. This is also a generalisation.

Unfortunately, a letter is extremely inefficient and a telephone call doesn't have a transcript which you can look over once you're done.

A letter is not inefficient in the least. On can record a phone call if on really is interested keeping a record.

A letter is inefficient, in all circumstances. I'm pretty sure that waiting at least a couple of days for a reply letter isn't as efficient as sending an email or text that is instant. You really can't keep a record of a telephone call, unless you can track down your phone service provider and listen and write it. The fact is that having physical proof of what has been said is a lot more useful when trying to maintain conversations, a key element of social interaction on the Internet.

Digital documents are clearly superior to paper documents: they allow instant feedback, don't use valuable physical resources, and are a lot cheaper considering that a physical document uses paper and ink.

Again, digital documents not superior. They do not allow for instant feed back at all. It still take the same amount of time for the person to read and get back to someone as a physical copy. The resource you are referring to is actually inexpensive then the digital device and programs that one would have to purchase to create the digital copy.

This is wrong in all ways. It is EXTREMELY clear that you CAN in fact get instant feedback, and the point about it taking the same as a physical copy makes no sense. Physical copy = time, online copy = instant. It's very simple. Sure, you have to pay for the device (unless you read my draft in which an individual's device is possibly funded by the government or an individual can use library resources), but in the long-term a device definitely wins in terms of cost.

People have the right to access a radio or telephone because of their right to free communication

People do not have a right to access radio or telephone as there is no right to free communication. Nice try though.

Sure they do, disallowing them from accessing these is completely immoral.

Ever hear of public broadcasting? Or emergency call boxes? Television and phone access often is publicly provided.

Actually, television and phone access is not publicly provided. Emergency call boxes is something that a government may provide, but they are not free as taxes pay for them and they don't allow one to call just anyone. Public broadcast channels are privately owned and paid for by advertisement. Phone access is provided by a company that charges for the use of a phone. Again access to a television or phone is not a right.

Another generalisation - in many cases, these services are publicly provided. Unless you can name every television and phone service provider, and identify that each of them is not publicly provided, then don't both with making such a claim. This whole talk about the funding of these communication services is completely irrelevant to the proposal.

Not in the secondary schools I went to, and not the colleges I applied for, and not roughly 60% of the businesses I applied to work at. I either had to use my own internet access or publicly provided internet access (or terminals located within the business I was applying to work at, which still used the internet).

Funny how they often aren't.

How funny that there are. It's your experience that you didn't need to turn in a physical of your work. I just had kid that just finished his school and still had to turn in physical copies of his reports. And had to fill out physical applications for collage and jobs. Basing the argument RL experiences doesn't show that either argument is incorrect.

You were making the claim that you don't need the internet at all for this, making your argument irrelevant. If WAIF has experience in real life where he has had to apply to jobs and such using the internet, it disproves your claim. On a side note, your spelling is horrible.

Then how would you check for plagiarism? You either need the internet, or you have widespread plagiarism that doesn't get caught, which certainly does not benefit education.

Incorrect. Without the internet, it isn't as easy to plagiarizes others works. So it wasn't as common as it is today.

This is irrelevant. Having other people's works and information is an excellent form of expanding one's knowledge. This plagiarism argument in itself is basically irrelevant to the proposal.

I also explained why digital documents benefitted education, but you apparently didn't read that.

I read it. And it wasn't an explanation at all. As you all you stated: "In order for these digital documents to have maximum use in ab educational setting, they need to be able to be sent from one device to another (either from school to home and vice versa, or from a student to a teacher, etc). The internet is the most practical way to allow data to be shared between digital devices. Therefore the internet is valuable to education because it facilitates the use of superior digital documents as opposed to paper documents."

This is not an argument for the internet being a valuable educational tool.

To restate what I just said, the accessibility of others' works is essential to the expanding of knowledge.

Citation needed.

I offered several different facts about digital documents that demonstrate superiority over paper (multiple copies in differing locations prevent loss of important documents, spell check programs offer instant feedback on spelling and grammar errors, uniform formatting and font create a standardized look for documents, improved readability compared to handwritten documents, no jamming compared to typewritten documents... and more). Meanwhile you have not offered any argument for why paper is superior to digital.

Actually, your so called demonstrate digital documents superiority over paper don't actually hold water. You make a great argument for using a word processing program, but not an argument for digital documents superiority. After all, its the word processor that offers an instant feedback on spelling and grammar errors, uniform formatting and font create a standardized look for documents, improved readability compared to handwritten documents. Not the document itself. And I can print out multiple copies and store them in different locations that prevents the from being lost.

Citation needed for you argument.

Digital documents are reliable. You can keep plenty of copies of a physical document, but this is an inconvenience and also, still, unreliable.

Letters are inherently slower than light communications. The internet is inherently lightspeed communications.

Letters can easily get lost in transit. Internet packets can be lost, but it is far less likely.

If a letter is destroyed, it can't be recovered.
Electronic communications can be backed up, and resent in the event of a failure.

A letter can only be sent to one address at a time.
Electronic communications can be sent to multiple recipients at once.

In short, internet communications are superior to letters in every way.

Citation needed for you argument.

An email can be destroyed and not recovered and not resent in event of a failure. A letter can be sent to multiple recipients at once. So other then the speed issue, internet communications are not superior to letters in every way.

No citation needed if you can explain common sense facts. I thought you said, "It still take the same amount of time for the person to read and get back to someone as a physical copy." You've basically gone back on what you said earlier in your statement.

That's not what a social tool is. Try again.

Incorrect. A social tool enables people socialize. Something that doesn't actually happen when one is clicking like on a website. They are not interacting with anyone.

ANOTHER generalisation - you can't just assume that no website has ever allowed some form of social interaction between users. Again, THIS VERY WEBSITE is an example of social interaction.

Citation needed. I know exactly what the originator of this proposal originally said, thanks to the internet. I also know what those people in General originally said... thanks to the internet.

You know what people have said? Really, even after they have edited their comments and their original post can not be found?

I'm sure one can look at any public figure and find so called scandals because they supposedly said something that they didn't say or was just a small snipe of an entire comment.

Completely irrelevant. Pretty much the opposite of your fallacious generalisations - here you are being very specific.

[Llorens]

To be honest all this talk has become quite irrelevant. I am aware that I don't own the thread and I can't exactly dictate the discussion that occurs, but I would appreciate if we could stop with the whole 'internet isn't important' argument, because frankly I am going to persist with this Act anyway and it's completely unhelpful. If you feel the need to debate the importance or relevance of this argument, I am no longer going to be involved.

On a side note, if anyone has any ideas for the type of action that can be made in this proposal, it would be greatly appreciated. As previously outlined, the argument has "lost its teeth" as a result of clauses that are too restrictive. I am also aware that identifying a clause of action that will force policy change in WA nations will be difficult. Thanks, in advance, for any help.

[Jarish Inyo]

To Llorens

This website, not every website. Read before you respond. This is also a generalisation.

Actually, even this website. And it's not a generalization. Show me a single website that isn't trying to sale or advertise something.

A letter is inefficient, in all circumstances. I'm pretty sure that waiting at least a couple of days for a reply letter isn't as efficient as sending an email or text that is instant. You really can't keep a record of a telephone call, unless you can track down your phone service provider and listen and write it. The fact is that having physical proof of what has been said is a lot more useful when trying to maintain conversations, a key element of social interaction on the Internet.

Actually, a letter is inefficient in all circumstances. Even emails and text isn't instant. And you can keep a recorded of a phone call and have it available. You don't even have to write it down yourself. Maintaining conversations is not a key element of social interaction on the internet. Again, people are not actually interacting on social media.

This is wrong in all ways. It is EXTREMELY clear that you CAN in fact get instant feedback, and the point about it taking the same as a physical copy makes no sense. Physical copy = time, online copy = instant. It's very simple. Sure, you have to pay for the device (unless you read my draft in which an individual's device is possibly funded by the government or an individual can use library resources), but in the long-term a device definitely wins in terms of cost.

Incorrect. One, you do not get instant feed back. It still takes time for a person to read and respond to it. Both a physical and online copy takes time. And depending on the internet connection, even longer then a physical copy. Your current draft doesn't provide free digital devices to people. And when asked in other versions why the government, you didn't respond. Going to a library and waiting for use of the internet takes time. And in the long run, a device does not win in terms of cost. Cost of device and internet provider far exceeds the cost of paper and pen in a year.

Sure they do, disallowing them from accessing these is completely immoral.

Actually, they do not. Nor is disallowing people access to radio, television or telephone immoral. A person does not need radio, television or telephone to survive.

Another generalisation - in many cases, these services are publicly provided. Unless you can name every television and phone service provider, and identify that each of them is not publicly provided, then don't both with making such a claim. This whole talk about these funding of these communication services is completely irrelevant to the proposal.

Not a generalization at all. Nor are they provided. They are a product and how they are funded is relevant to this proposal. As it stands, this proposal would require the government to seize an internet providers product in order to offer internet access to citizens. And yes, I name every television and phone company and identify which are not publicly owned. Like the BBC, ABC, Fox News, and CBS to name a few. Shall I continue?

You were making the claim that you don't need the internet at all for this, making your argument irrelevant. If WAIF has experience in real life where he has had to apply to jobs and such using the internet, it disproves your claim. On a side note, your spelling is horrible.

I claim that you don't, WAIF experience RL experience doesn't disprove my claim. My experience in this matter in less then a month old. I have a kid who literally done all of this within the last two months and without the need of the internet. Funny that you say my spelling is horrible considering I'm using spell check on my responses.

This is irrelevant. Having other people's works and information is essential to furthering knowledge. This plagiarism argument in itself is basically irrelevant to the proposal.

That may be true, but one does not need the internet to get other people's works and information. That is what libraries are for. As for the plagiarism argument, it was in response to a claim made by WAIF.

Digital documents are reliable. You can keep plenty of copies of a physical document, but this is an inconvenience and also, still, unreliable.

So are physical are quite reliable. In some cases even more so as a digital copy can still be lost or corrupted do to a computer virus. And having plenty of physical document is not an inconvenience. And can be more helpful then a digital document.

No citation needed if you can explain common sense facts. I thought you said, "It still take the same amount of time for the person to read and get back to someone as a physical copy." You've basically gone back on what you said earlier in your statement.

Actually, I didn't. When a student hands in a paper to a teacher, it still takes the same amount of time for a teacher to read and grade it. When an employee hands in a report and asks for feed back, it still takes the same amount of time. In fact, it can take longer for someone to read and respond. The claims that instant feedback are not entirely true.

ANOTHER generalisation - you can't just assume that no website has ever allowed some form of social interaction between users. Again, THIS VERY WEBSITE is an example of social interaction.

Not a generalization. Nor did I say that no site has never allowed form for real social interaction.

Completely irrelevant. Pretty much the opposite of your fallacious generalisations - here you are being very specific.

Wrong on all counts. It is irrelevant when claiming the internet "is an essential component to a modern society, as it helps promote increased freedom of expression, more accountable government, more free economic development, and stronger civic societies/institutions." The internet doesn't do any of these things.

I wasn't be very specific. I was making a reply to WAIF's claim that he "know exactly what the originator of this proposal originally said, thanks to the internet. I also know what those people in General originally said... thanks to the internet."

To be honest all this talk has become quite irrelevant. I am aware that I don't own the thread and I can't exactly dictate the discussion that occurs, but I would appreciate if we could stop with the whole 'internet isn't important' argument, because frankly I am going to persist with this Act anyway and it's completely unhelpful. If you feel the need to debate the importance or relevance of this argument, I am no longer going to be involved.

The importance or relevance of the 'internet isn't important' argument" is the heat of the matter. You must be able to convince others that it is of international importance. And refusing to argue that it hurts your case.

[Separatist Peoples]

To be honest all this talk has become quite irrelevant. I am aware that I don't own the thread and I can't exactly dictate the discussion that occurs, but I would appreciate if we could stop with the whole 'internet isn't important' argument, because frankly I am going to persist with this Act anyway and it's completely unhelpful. If you feel the need to debate the importance or relevance of this argument, I am no longer going to be involved.

OOC: the value of the service you are guaranteeing is a central argument for the draft, and needs to be established before being able to hash out the rest of this. Dismissing a challenge to a central pillar of your draft isn't going to do you any favors.

[Araraukar]

Show me a single website that isn't trying to sale or advertise something.

Wiktionary.

[Jarish Inyo]

Here are a few questions you should consider.

First the two most common questions.

1) How is this an international issue?
Try explaining how the lack or limited internet access of country A effects countries B, C, and D.

2) Why governments must pay for digital devices, internet infrastructure facilities and provide internet access?

And now the rest.

3) How does internet access further education over libraries?

4) How does internet access further economic development?

5) How does internet access increased what freedom of expression a nation permits?

6) How does internet access make a government more accountable?

7) How does internet access create stronger civic societies/institutions?

[Oceanias Michael Moore]

We support this.

[Llorens]

Here are a few questions you should consider.

First the two most common questions.

1) How is this an international issue?
Try explaining how the lack or limited internet access of country A effects countries B, C, and D.

2) Why governments must pay for digital devices, internet infrastructure facilities and provide internet access?

And now the rest.

3) How does internet access further education over libraries?

4) How does internet access further economic development?

5) How does internet access increased what freedom of expression a nation permits?

6) How does internet access make a government more accountable?

7) How does internet access create stronger civic societies/institutions?

1) Multiple countries don't have to be involved with each other. In a real life context, the UN created the Declaration of Universal Human Rights. Sure, some of them might involve multiple countries, but many are personal rights. This is still international law. This is your right because it is your right to the best possible education, and if countries have the appropriate means to provide the Internet, and do not, this would be restricting that right.

2) It's their citizens right to the best possible education, and so they must provide these services if possible.

3) The wording is a bit off in this question, but I'll answer it both ways that I am interpreting it:
A. Many people use libraries to contact their families and find welfare programs. I believe WAIF already pointed this out with the Gates Foundation link.
B. I don't know how to answer this if you are asking why the Internet is better than a library, since my proposal suggests the joint usage of these resources. Of course, though we won't agree, digital documents are obviously superior.

4) Businesses can use the Internet as a great tool to spread the word about their services. It can help to get them recognised, or to sell a genius product. It encourages more business interaction.

5) The Internet is also a valuable expressive tool, whether through sharing your ideas (*cough TED talks cough*) or sharing your talents (*cough YouTube cough*). Sure, you could do these without, but the fact that you are recognised more on the Internet allows for greater sharing of your personal expression. For example, you could have a target audience that you would like to share a business idea with, on the other side of the world. For the sake of cost and convenience, you use this fabulous resource called the Internet! By disallowing the Internet, you're limiting freedom of expression, because they are not free to express to all people.

6) Through the media, a valuable informative source, even if often biased. A government can choose to slide a policy that mightn't be so popular, such as a tax increase, under the carpet. Due to the inherently pervasive nature of the media, these things gets reported on, making the government more accountable for their actions.

7) Because it modernises them. Yes, a society can be 'modern' without the Internet (though in today's world, not really), but the Internet is an essential tool to making it the best it can be. It also creates stronger communities, through stronger online interaction. Keep in mind that a community is not just the people you live near to, but are a group of people who share something in common (e.g. the NationStates community). Without the Internet, the ability to communicate from a distance and with multiple people in one conversation is practically impossible.

[Llorens]

Also, a comment on someone's (I don't remember who, but you'll probably know who you are) comment on taking away the first clause of action in Draft #2 that made nations implement Internet access if possible. I have thought about this, and I believe it would be appropriate to reintroduce it into the proposal. The aim of the proposal is to increase internet accessibility to all people where possible. For this reason, I don't see this clause as being too restrictive on the WA nation. I have made a new clause, that I haven't added yet, so that people can scrutinise over its restrictiveness and wording:

Any nation with a sufficient financial surplus to build/maintain a new Internet network or contract a company to do so, or any nation with existing, capable infrastructure, must provide their citizens with appropriate means of accessing the Internet.

[Jarish Inyo]

1) Multiple countries don't have to be involved with each other. In a real life context, the UN created the Declaration of Universal Human Rights. Sure, some of them might involve multiple countries, but many are personal rights. This is still international law. This is your right because it is your right to the best possible education, and if countries have the appropriate means to provide the Internet, and do not, this would be restricting that right.

RL examples have no place in the WA. You can not use RL examples. You have to prove that this is an international issue, which means you need to convince nations that this is something that should be a right or international law. Not having access to the internet does not actually restrict a person from getting the best education in any way.

2) It's their citizens right to the best possible education, and so they must provide these services if possible.

This is not true. One can still get an excellent education without access to the internet.

3) The wording is a bit off in this question, but I'll answer it both ways that I am interpreting it:
A. Many people use libraries to contact their families and find welfare programs. I believe WAIF already pointed this out with the Gates Foundation link.
B. I don't know how to answer this if you are asking why the Internet is better than a library, since my proposal suggests the joint usage of these resources. Of course, though we won't agree, digital documents are obviously superior.

Again RL references has no place in WA. You are avoiding answering the question. People can still contact their family and get information without internet access. People did and do so without internet access. Also, your proposal does not suggests the joint usage of these resources. So again how is having access to the internet farther education over using books as a source of information at libraries?

4) Businesses can use the Internet as a great tool to spread the word about their services. It can help to get them recognised, or to sell a genius product. It encourages more business interaction.

Businesses didn't need it before. They were able to get their information and product to customers without the internet. And the internet doiesn't encourage more business interaction.

5) The Internet is also a valuable expressive tool, whether through sharing your ideas (*cough TED talks cough*) or sharing your talents (*cough YouTube cough*). Sure, you could do these without, but the fact that you are recognised more on the Internet allows for greater sharing of your personal expression. For example, you could have a target audience that you would like to share a business idea with, on the other side of the world. For the sake of cost and convenience, you use this fabulous resource called the Internet! By disallowing the Internet, you're limiting freedom of expression, because they are not free to express to all people.

Again, RL examples don't mean shit. You are not limiting freedom of expression because they do not have the internet. Ideas, music, literature, and art has made and still makes it across the world without the internet. One could and still can communicate and do business without the internet.

6) Through the media, a valuable informative source, even if often biased. A government can choose to slide a policy that mightn't be so popular, such as a tax increase, under the carpet. Due to the inherently pervasive nature of the media, these things gets reported on, making the government more accountable for their actions.

SO, you have no actual answer to this? Media is not the internet. Again, how exactly does access to thew internet make a government more accountable then papers and news broadcast?

7) Because it modernises them. Yes, a society can be 'modern' without the Internet (though in today's world, not really), but the Internet is an essential tool to making it the best it can be. It also creates stronger communities, through stronger online interaction. Keep in mind that a community is not just the people you live near to, but are a group of people who share something in common (e.g. the NationStates community). Without the Internet, the ability to communicate from a distance and with multiple people in one conversation is practically impossible.

No, it doesn't. Your comment has nothing to do with civic societies/institutions. Access to the internet doesn't create stronger communities, through stronger online interaction. Keep in mind that civic societies/institutions has everything to do with just the people that live in the town that you live in.

So, your nearly every one of your arguments rest on the ability to contact or becoming an instant celebrity. And as pointed out, one can still communicate long distance, express themselves long distance and take part in international business without access to the internet.

[Llorens]

I seriously don't understand how anyone could put up with up with this non-sense, I'm going to put it up as I have it (in addition to the extra clause I just mentioned). I've explained each of the points on this forum, and some people seem to think that common sense is useless. Honestly, if you're gonna make an argument, please think about it. I would appreciate if any of you guys would vote on it, but at this point I couldn't care less. I have wasted enough time on this.

See ya stupid forum!

[Wallenburg]

I have filed a GHR against this for a category violation. The author may request through their own Get Help Request that the proposal be removed from the queue to rectify this illegality, or even to improve the text.

[World Assembly Improvement Foundation]

Ever hear of public broadcasting? Or emergency call boxes? Television and phone access often is publicly provided.

Actually, television and phone access is not publicly provided.

Really? It is in the United States:

it is in the public interest for the Federal Government to ensure that all citizens of the United States have access to public telecommunications services through all appropriate available telecommunications distribution technologies;

So, can we drop the dishonest arguments?

Emergency call boxes is something that a government may provide, but they are not free as taxes pay for them

They can be used by non-citizens, and individuals who do not have an income, and individuals on a fixed income, none of which pay taxes, and therefore are provided access for free.

Also, this argument is ridiculous, because we weren't talking about whether or not the internet was free, but whether it was a right.

and they don't allow one to call just anyone.

Who cares? I never said they did, I merely said that they were publicly provided. You're moving goalposts.

Public broadcast channels are privately owned and paid for by advertisement.

I strongly suggest you read the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which specifies that Public Broadcasting Act may receive grants from the Federal government in addition to funds already granted to it by appropriation Acts, and additionally:

(i) Report to Congress

The Corporation shall submit an annual report for the preceding fiscal year ending September 30 to the President for transmittal to the Congress on or before the 15th day of May of each year. The report shall include —
a comprehensive and detailed report of the Corporation's operations, activities, financial condition, and accomplishments under this subpart and such recommendations as the Corporation deems appropriate;
a comprehensive and detailed inventory of funds distributed by Federal agencies to public telecommunications entities during the preceding fiscal year;

To claim that public broadcasting is not provided by the government is a lie.

How funny that there are. It's your experience that you didn't need to turn in a physical of your work.

It was also the experience of thousands of students who go to my highschool every year. Just because wherever your kid went to school didn't require internet access to turn things in, doesn't mean it was the case everywhere. You are generalizing.

It is, in some places, absolutely required to get through school and get a job to have internet access.

Then how would you check for plagiarism? You either need the internet, or you have widespread plagiarism that doesn't get caught, which certainly does not benefit education.

Incorrect. Without the internet, it isn't as easy to plagiarizes others works. So it wasn't as common as it is today.

Copying your friend's paper or reusing one that you wrote two years ago for another class at another school is just as easy without internet as with it. Plagiarism is just as easy to do and easier to get away with without the internet.

Actually, your so called demonstrate digital documents superiority over paper don't actually hold water. You make a great argument for using a word processing program, but not an argument for digital documents superiority.

Word processors require digital documents. Tell me, have you ever seen a word processor work on a paper document?

Digital documents can be used with word processors. Paper documents can't. Superior.

After all, its the word processor that offers an instant feedback on spelling and grammar errors,

It offers that feedback only on digital documents. Digital 1, paper 0.

uniform formatting and font create a standardized look for documents,

It formats digital documents. Digital up by 2.

improved readability compared to handwritten documents. Not the document itself.

Digital documents are more readable than handwritten. Printed documents require a digital document. Digital takes the hat trick.

And I can print out multiple copies and store them in different locations that prevents the from being lost.

Which is more expensive and time consuming.

Letters are inherently slower than light communications. The internet is inherently lightspeed communications.

Letters can easily get lost in transit. Internet packets can be lost, but it is far less likely.

If a letter is destroyed, it can't be recovered.
Electronic communications can be backed up, and resent in the event of a failure.

A letter can only be sent to one address at a time.
Electronic communications can be sent to multiple recipients at once.

In short, internet communications are superior to letters in every way.

Citation needed for you argument.

Really? Alright... if this will end this.

According to the USPS, delivery time for a priority mail letter from Beverly Hills, California to anywhere in Oregon will take 2-3 days. The distance between Portland OR and Beverly Hills is 961.7 miles, and light travels about 186000 miles per second. Internet communications use electromagnetic waves, which travel at the speed of light. Thus, while an email from Beverly Hills to Portland can make the trip in less than a second, give or take a few seconds for computer processes, a letter will not be able to make the trip in anywhere near that time. Even with the fastest recorded airspeed record (2193 mph for the SR-71 Blackbird), and assuming no time to load the letter and drop it off, it'd still take more than 20 minutes to deliver that letter. Pathetic showing, letters.

How about the loss of letters? According to the BBC, which reported on Royal Mail failings and was told that not only does Royal Mail receive a complaint for an average of 1 in 13,000, but their minimum standard for delivery of first class mail was 93%, and this was the highest in Europe. In contrast, Signal v. Noise reports a 99.3% delivery rate for their emails, which while above average, is not too far above their reported third party delivery rates of 96.9% to 98.6%. Note that many times an email is never received because it gets marked as spam by the user, and that emails are almost never lost... they merely bounce back or sit on servers waiting to send to an address they can no longer reach.

Multiple addresses? This is surely the case for emails, as I hope I don't have to cite. However, letters are made macroscopic materials, and thus don't exhibit quantum superposition. They can only be in one place at one time.

That's not what a social tool is. Try again.

Incorrect. A social tool enables people to socialize. Something that doesn't actually happen when one is clicking like on a website. They are not interacting with anyone.[/quote]
Still not what a social tool is. According to everyone's favorite encyclopedia, Social Media "are computer-mediated tools that allow people, companies and other organizations to create, share, or exchange information, career interests, ideas, and pictures/videos in virtual communities and networks."

Please, cite me a definition of social tool that requires socializing.

You know what people have said? Really, even after they have edited their comments and their original post can not be found?

Quotes, screen shots, data on the NS servers. Editing the post doesn't erase the evidence.

Also, hundreds of thousands of posts have never been edited.

I'm sure one can look at any public figure and find so called scandals because they supposedly said something that they didn't say or was just a small snipe of an entire comment.

How is this relevant? The internet is used as a political tool. Even those scandal, if created on purpose (likely) were the result of using the internet as a political tool.

[Jarish Inyo]

Really? It is in the United States:

So, can we drop the dishonest arguments?

Actually, its not. Nor has there been any dishonest arguments. You might actually want read the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. While it does state what you quoted, the government does not actually provide for or own any public broadcasting facilities that are broadcast for the American citizens. With the exception of the NOAA Weather Radio Any public broadcasting are either privately owned or part of collages.

And one should point out that the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 encourages the growth and development of public radio and television broadcasting, including the use of such media for instructional, educational, and cultural purposes; encouragement and support of public telecommunications, while matters of importance for private and local development, are also of appropriate and important concern to the Federal Government; to encourage public telecommunications services which will be responsive to the interests of people both in particular localities; encourage the development of programming that involves creative risks and that addresses the needs of unserved and underserved audiences, particularly children and minorities.

It also states a private corporation should be created to facilitate the development of public telecommunications and to afford maximum protection from extraneous interference and control. As you can see, the US Government doesn't actually provide public broadcasting. It's all privately owned.

They can be used by non-citizens, and individuals who do not have an income, and individuals on a fixed income, none of which pay taxes, and therefore are provided access for free.

Also, this argument is ridiculous, because we weren't talking about whether or not the internet was free, but whether it was a right.

Internet is not a right. Nor, using your example, is the access to public telecommunications services a right in the United States.

I strongly suggest you read the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which specifies that Public Broadcasting Act may receive grants from the Federal government in addition to funds already granted to it by appropriation Acts, and additionally:
(i) Report to Congress

The Corporation shall submit an annual report for the preceding fiscal year ending September 30 to the President for transmittal to the Congress on or before the 15th day of May of each year. The report shall include —
a comprehensive and detailed report of the Corporation's operations, activities, financial condition, and accomplishments under this subpart and such recommendations as the Corporation deems appropriate;
a comprehensive and detailed inventory of funds distributed by Federal agencies to public telecommunications entities during the preceding fiscal year;

To claim that public broadcasting is not provided by the government is a lie.

Its not a lie in any form. While the US Government can provide funding, it does not own the actual stations, nor has any say in the what is broadcast on those channels.

It was also the experience of thousands of students who go to my highschool every year. Just because wherever your kid went to school didn't require internet access to turn things in, doesn't mean it was the case everywhere. You are generalizing.

It is, in some places, absolutely required to get through school and get a job to have internet access.

I'm not generalizing. You are. Thousands of kids went to my kids school too. They didn't need internet to complete and turn in assignments. And one doesn't need internet to get through school. Nor is it required. After all, it would put those children that don't have internet at a disadvantage and would discriminate against them.

Copying your friend's paper or reusing one that you wrote two years ago for another class at another school is just as easy without internet as with it. Plagiarism is just as easy to do and easier to get away with without the internet.

Actually, it's not. A class from 2 years ago would not be covering the same subject. And a teachers would pick up on 2 identical papers from two students.

Word processors require digital documents. Tell me, have you ever seen a word processor work on a paper document?

Digital documents can be used with word processors. Paper documents can't. Superior.

Incorrect. Digital documents require a word processor. Not the other way around. And yes, I have seen word processors work with paper documents. So, no not superior at all.

It offers that feedback only on digital documents. Digital 1, paper 0.

Not at all. One can still get feed back on paper documents.

It formats digital documents. Digital up by 2.

Incorrect. You have to remember that those formats were developed for use on paper before there was digital documents. SO claiming that paper can not have an uniform formatting and font is false.

Digital documents are more readable than handwritten. Printed documents require a digital document. Digital takes the hat trick

Again, incorrect, Printed documents do not require a digital document at all. And it can be debatable if digital documents are more readable than handwritten. it depends on the persons handwriting.

And I can print out multiple copies and store them in different locations that prevents the from being lost.

Which is more expensive and time consuming.

Actually, no its not. Printers can produce a document rather quickly and inexpensive. Nor is storing multiple copies expensive or time consuming.

[quoteI]ncorrect. A social tool enables people to socialize. Something that doesn't actually happen when one is clicking like on a website. They are not interacting with anyone.[/quote]
Still not what a social tool is. According to everyone's favorite encyclopedia, Social Media "are computer-mediated tools that allow people, companies and other organizations to create, share, or exchange information, career interests, ideas, and pictures/videos in virtual communities and networks."

Please, cite me a definition of social tool that requires socializing.][/quote]

Considering that you didn't cite me a definition of social tool, I'll cite you other definitions.

Dictionary.com
websites and other online means of communication that are used by large groups of people to share information and to develop social and professional contacts.

Anvil Media
An umbrella term that defines the various activities that integrate technology, social interaction, and the construction of words and pictures

Bottle PR
Software tools that allow groups to generate content and engage in peer-to-peer conversations and exchange of content.

Notice terms like social contacts, social interaction, and peer-to-peer?

Quotes, screen shots, data on the NS servers. Editing the post doesn't erase the evidence.

Also, hundreds of thousands of posts have never been edited.

You took screen shots of every post? You have access to the NS servers? Editing changes what is seen, Not everything is in quotes. So you don't actually know what is said. And for hundreds of thousands of posts have never been edited, there is equal amount of post that have been.

[Araraukar]

Just an observation on the "internet advances businesses since they can get visibility for their products/services" thing - that assumes that any given nation allows advertizing. (OOC: I know in RL all countries do, but this is NS. In RL also most people use AdBlocker or similar to avoid said advertizing.)

Also, on Internet being a tool for socializing, while it allows you to contact many people easily, it erodes your actual social skills. (OOC: There have been studies made on this, but as I read about it in a Finnish science magazine, I'm afraid I can't quote it off the top of my head.)

As for education, Internet is often not allowed to be used as anything but a tool to find the books that are then allowed as a source. Without net access, things are not so easily copied and quoted. And additionally, Internet access without healthily suspicious media reading skills is detrimental to education, as you're more likely to just repeat false information.

So none of these three points are inherently dependant or improved with Internet access. And that's not even touching the issue of who should be providing the service itself, or at what price.

I also agree with it being a category violation as written. Its active clauses do nothing to further democracy.

[World Assembly Improvement Foundation]

Really? It is in the United States:

So, can we drop the dishonest arguments?

Actually, its not.

Yes, it is. You said broadcasting was not publicly provided. It is. Regardless of where the money comes from, it is publicly provided. Claiming otherwise is a lie.

Nor has there been any dishonest arguments. You might actually want read the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.

I did. I even quoted whole sections to you.

While it does state what you quoted, the government does not actually provide for or own any public broadcasting facilities that are broadcast for the American citizens.

Yes, actually, the US government does provide grants and other funds for public broadcasting facilities. It's in the Act.

With the exception of the NOAA Weather Radio Any public broadcasting are either privately owned or part of collages.

How is this relevant? The US government can still provide privately owned stations with funds.

And one should point out that the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 encourages the growth and development of public radio and television broadcasting, including the use of such media for instructional, educational, and cultural purposes; encouragement and support of public telecommunications, while matters of importance for private and local development, are also of appropriate and important concern to the Federal Government; to encourage public telecommunications services which will be responsive to the interests of people both in particular localities; encourage the development of programming that involves creative risks and that addresses the needs of unserved and underserved audiences, particularly children and minorities.

Yes. This proposal encourages the growth and development of internet access, including the use of such media for instructional, educational and cultural purposes; encouragement and support of the internet, etc.

What are you trying to prove here?

It also states a private corporation should be created to facilitate the development of public telecommunications and to afford maximum protection from extraneous interference and control. As you can see, the US Government doesn't actually provide public broadcasting. It's all privately owned.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting was created by the US government, is funded partially by the US government, has a board that is selected by the US government, has salaries dictated by the US government, and must submit fiscal reports to the US government annually.

Tell me, how has the government not provided public broadcasting? Without the government, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting literally wouldn't exist.

Internet is not a right. Nor, using your example, is the access to public telecommunications services a right in the United States.

But it is. The government has taken significant steps to ensure that the public has access to tell communications services.

Its not a lie in any form. While the US Government can provide funding, it does not own the actual stations, nor has any say in the what is broadcast on those channels.

You are moving goalposts again. You forst claimed that broadcasting was not publicly provided. I pointed out that it was. You then claimed that it wasn't government funded. I pointed out that it was. Now you claim that it isn't owned by the government... and it isn't, but who cares? The government doesn't have to own it to provide the public broadcasting.

I'm not generalizing. You are. Thousands of kids went to my kids school too. They didn't need internet to complete and turn in assignments.

I'm not generalizing, because unlike you, I'm not projecting my experience on everyone everywhere. I'm sure your kid didn't need the internet. But I did, and thousands of others. You can't dispute that. In some areas, internet access is required to receive an education.

And one doesn't need internet to get through school. Nor is it required.

Ah, look, you are generalizing by projecting your own experience onto everyone everywhere. My experience was that internet is required.

After all, it would put those children that don't have internet at a disadvantage and would discriminate against them.

Not if the internet is publicly provided, and it was.

Actually, it's not. A class from 2 years ago would not be covering the same subject.

Yes, they would. Both my parents are highschool teachers in the US. They can create their own curricula, sure, but they have two limitations: First, they must use the textbooks provided, and thus they pretty much have to cover the same things every year. Second, they have to meet the state standards, which are pretty detailed. The same thing is taught every year, pretty much. Trust me, I sat through the same Pre-calculus class two years in a row and it was exactly the same.

And a teachers would pick up on 2 identical papers from two students.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the average departmentalized highschool class in California has 30.0 students. Given an average of 5 classes, that's 150 students each semester. Over a period of four years, that's over thousand students submitting thousands of papers. Do you seriously think it is reasonable for a teacher to pick up on two similar papers in that flood of papers?
(FunFact: I once submitted a paper with three nearly identical paragraphs, with just minor word changes. I got an A on that paper, and the teacher never said anything, so I assume it went uncaught.)

Word processors require digital documents. Tell me, have you ever seen a word processor work on a paper document?

Digital documents can be used with word processors. Paper documents can't. Superior.

Incorrect. Digital documents require a word processor. Not the other way around.

No, digital documents do not require a word processor. They can be created and stored entirely as binary information, with no word processor involved. In fact, most digital documents are not even compatible with word processors, for example, video files.

And yes, I have seen word processors work with paper documents. So, no not superior at all.

Bulls***. Prove it.

It offers that feedback only on digital documents. Digital 1, paper 0.

Not at all. One can still get feed back on paper documents.

Not instantaneous, and not with a word processor. When you write on a piece of paper, the paper doesn't automatically underline your misspelled words in red.

It formats digital documents. Digital up by 2.

Incorrect. You have to remember that those formats were developed for use on paper before there was digital documents. SO claiming that paper can not have an uniform formatting and font is false.

It can with a typewriter, sure. But surely you don't want to start debating the merits of typewriters versus digital devices?

Digital documents are more readable than handwritten. Printed documents require a digital document. Digital takes the hat trick

Again, incorrect, Printed documents do not require a digital document at all.

With modern printers, yes they do. Unless you want to use an entire printing press, and let's be reasonable here: the average student can't afford to own one of those.

And it can be debatable if digital documents are more readable than handwritten. it depends on the persons handwriting.

I've never heard anyone claim they could read any handwriting better than Calibri or Times New Roman or Arial. The most common complaint is font size, but on a digital document you can zoom in. Paper, you'd need a lens to do that.

And I can print out multiple copies and store them in different locations that prevents the from being lost.

Which is more expensive and time consuming.

Actually, no its not. Printers can produce a document rather quickly and inexpensive. Nor is storing multiple copies expensive or time consuming.

Printers... that require a digital copy of the document. And storing a copy in Portland Oregon so that if the Next Big Quake destroys all my copies in Beverly Hills is going to take a long time... at least 40 minutes round trip if I assumed I teleported into a full-speed SR-71 going straight to Portland and back with no adverse wind conditions. Sending a copy of my digital document to a server in Portland? Seconds. Once again, paper is more time consuming.

(I find it interesting that you dropped the whole thing on letters... perhaps you couldn't defend your arguments in the face of facts?)

Still not what a social tool is. According to everyone's favorite encyclopedia, Social Media "are computer-mediated tools that allow people, companies and other organizations to create, share, or exchange information, career interests, ideas, and pictures/videos in virtual communities and networks."

Please, cite me a definition of social tool that requires socializing.

Considering that you didn't cite me a definition of social tool, I'll cite you other definitions.

I couldn't find one. Neither could you. So instead, I used a definition of social media that included the word tool.

Dictionary.com
websites and other online means of communication that are used by large groups of people to share information and to develop social and professional contacts.

Anvil Media
An umbrella term that defines the various activities that integrate technology, social interaction, and the construction of words and pictures

Bottle PR
Software tools that allow groups to generate content and engage in peer-to-peer conversations and exchange of content.

Notice terms like social contacts, social interaction, and peer-to-peer?

First, those are all definitions of social media.

Second, notice terms like "websites", "online means of communications", "technology" and "software tools"? The internet is indeed used as a tool for "social contacts, social interaction, and peer-to-peer conversations". The internet is a social tool.

You took screen shots of every post?

Not every post. Just the ones I feel are important.

You have access to the NS servers?

Yes. And so do you.

Editing changes what is seen, Not everything is in quotes.

But what you've said here is.

So you don't actually know what is said.

Yes I do.

And for hundreds of thousands of posts have never been edited, there is equal amount of post that have been.

That's still hundreds of thousands of posts where I know what was originally said. Your argument is false.

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: I don't think Jarish was saying digital things (writing stuff on computers) weren't a good thing to have or use, or that you necessarily needed to do it manually (typewriters? c'mon, pens have been invented too), but that you don't need the Internet to do it. Non-connected computers still exist, you know.

[Imperium Anglorum]

*snip*

OOC: I don't think Jarish was saying digital things (writing stuff on computers) weren't a good thing to have or use, or that you necessarily needed to do it manually (typewriters? c'mon, pens have been invented too), but that you don't need the Internet to do it. Non-connected computers still exist, you know.

Parsons: (hearing this because of MI-5) I remember back when the Foreign Office had not typewriters. It was horrific. Couldn't read anything, and if you wrote well enough that other people could, then your hand would fall off by the end of the day.

[Araraukar]

Parsons: (hearing this because of MI-5) I remember back when the Foreign Office had not typewriters. It was horrific. Couldn't read anything, and if you wrote well enough that other people could, then your hand would fall off by the end of the day.

OOC: Some fun facts about me: when I have to write fast, I default for using capital letters; when writing something official, I use the... I think it's called "print"? the form of writing that mimics Arial font; but when I'm writing unhurried notes for myself, cursive all the way.

And yes, I do write a lot by hand for my various stories. Pen and paper don't depend on anything but light to work.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons: (hearing this because of MI-5) I remember back when the Foreign Office had not typewriters. It was horrific. Couldn't read anything, and if you wrote well enough that other people could, then your hand would fall off by the end of the day.

OOC: Some fun facts about me: when I have to write fast, I default for using capital letters; when writing something official, I use the... I think it's called "print"? the form of writing that mimics Arial font; but when I'm writing unhurried notes for myself, cursive all the way.

And yes, I do write a lot by hand for my various stories. Pen and paper don't depend on anything but light to work.

OOC: Cursive, or joined-up writing, is the only correct way to write. Hehehehehehe.