[ABANDONED] The Internet Act

[Separatist Peoples]

If you don't think this is of international relevance, I'm sure there'd be quite a few passed resolutions that you wouldn't agree with either.

"Which doesn't give us cause to endorse another, ambassador."

[Tinfect]

OOC:
It doesn't belong in Furtherment of Democracy, I can tell you that right off the bat. I'm thinking that it would best fit in Social Justice, or, Human Rights, depending on how you spin it, but you'll have a hard time convincing anyone that this is even slightly of international relevance, myself included.

If you don't think this is of international relevance, I'm sure there'd be quite a few passed resolutions that you wouldn't agree with either.

OOC:
Well of course. Hell, I disagree with the existence of entire categories, let alone the Resolutions I'd like off the books.
Now, as that isn't relevant in the slightest, let's maneuver this into IC because it's easier to argue this point from that standpoint.
IC:

"The Imperium fails to see how this draft holds any international importance. Simply put, Ambassador, it does not affect the Imperium in any form of some foreign civilization wishes to remain in its primitivism, or to allow private interests to restrict access to communication technologies within their borders. Such civilizations likely pose little threat to the Imperium, and have quite little to offer it otherwise.

Further, this legislation may be rather difficult to implement within many Member-States. Specifically, those following particularly extreme forms of market economics, in which private entities will certainly object to the State seizing the assets of their business, and those states which lack certain technological and social advancements, in which even the simple devices that form the basis of any network may yet be undeveloped, and the society unable to support, maintain, or even comprehend such devices. The people of Wallenburg would certainly be infinitely confused by even the most basic of centuries-old Union devices, let alone modern Imperial systems, some of which, are sufficiently advanced to be considered Sapient."

[New Dukaine]

Enter

Against, not an international issue in my opinion

And can someone please tell me why this IS an international issue?

Exit

(muffled voice)

crap! Forgot something!

Enter again

WHAT THE F}*# IS AN INTERNET?

We use the uhhhhhhhhh... what do we call it, Oh! We use the New Dukainese Web connection device!

Exit again

[Llorens]

Unfortunately, I'm not asking for your opinion on whether you believe it is an international issue (myself and many others would think it is), I am rather asking for constructive feedback. If it isn't constructive feedback, please don't.

[Wallenburg]

Unfortunately, I'm not asking for your opinion on whether you believe it is an international issue (myself and many others would think it is), I am rather asking for constructive feedback. If it isn't constructive feedback, please don't.

"Ambassador, you don't get to decide what we say. In any case, a pattern of opposition to the very principle of this proposal indicates that this draft is not a good idea."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Unfortunately, I'm not asking for your opinion on whether you believe it is an international issue (myself and many others would think it is), I am rather asking for constructive feedback. If it isn't constructive feedback, please don't.

OOC: I've tried to stay out of the substance of this thread here. But this crosses the line for me. There is no thread ownership in the General Assembly. That out of the way, I'll address the substance of the thread.

I would welcome a proposal on expanding access to the internet. I recall something or another about net neutrality in RexisQuexis. It was in Education and Creativity: Free Press and was repealed years ago. However it is, this topic is broad enough for you to be able to pick a category into which it fits.

[1] Rules: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... 1#p8133407
[2] Categories: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... 1#p8133611

The topic is interesting. I like it. I would say either: Free Trade: Mild, Furtherment of Democracy: Mild, or Education and Creativity: Free Press are possibilities. It depends on the angle you want to take on it. If you want to focus on the commercial aspect of the internet and how it makes expands markets, increases competition, and lowers consumer prices and how eCommerce is a good thing: Free Trade. If you want to speak about how it expands political freedoms and makes governments more accountable to their people by increasing the visibility and accessibility of regions to the metropole, that is also something you can pursue. It would then either by FoD or EaC. Further category guidance would require an examination of the old resolution's debate thread.

The next question is what policies you would advocate for. I would say that you want to promote internet usage and accessibility. There are various ways of doing thing. Forcing governments to make it free for everyone is probably the worst way of doing it. Laptops and internet connection funding in schools and libraries, subsidies for expansion of internet networks, deregulation of tower construction for mobile phone companies, etc. are ways of achieving that goal.

---

Why should the government pay for peoples online gaming and streaming activities?

This is certainly an issue. I recommend the author to limit directives and account for national sovereignty in these discussions. I, if I were drafting this, would say clear from committees with make nations pay for other nation's problems, issues like what Jarish just posted, direct mandates on the entire populace, etc. Also steer clear from military security issues. Nations hate that.

[Tinfect]

Unfortunately, I'm not asking for your opinion on whether you believe it is an international issue (myself and many others would think it is), I am rather asking for constructive feedback. If it isn't constructive feedback, please don't.

OOC:
Okay, first of all, demanding that feedback be 'constructive', which in almost all cases, is used as an excuse to dismiss all but mindless praise, is a good way to lose any credibility you had with me.

Second, whether or not it is an international issue is relevant. Just because one guy and his three buddies think the GA should ban ownership of any Pet Rocks that measure between 1.3 and 2.49 centimeters on their longest axis doesn't mean the rest of us do. If you think it's an International Issue, why don't you try to convince me? If you'd tried that instead of telling your opposition to piss off, you might have gained support.

[World Assembly Improvement Foundation]

"You are more than just a vote!"

[Wallenburg]

Or it indicates a pattern of people asking rhetorical questions they know the new player can't answer, waiting for the draft to die, only to have to repeat the whole cycle again in a few days. I don't recall why Net Neutrality was repealed, but I stand with IA in that this is an idea of some merit, and there should be an internet access proposal.

...

You think that there is merit in demanding that nations without internet technology provide internet to everyone?

[World Assembly Improvement Foundation]

Or it indicates a pattern of people asking rhetorical questions they know the new player can't answer, waiting for the draft to die, only to have to repeat the whole cycle again in a few days. I don't recall why Net Neutrality was repealed, but I stand with IA in that this is an idea of some merit, and there should be an internet access proposal.

...

You think that there is merit in demanding that nations without internet technology provide internet to everyone?

No, I think there is merit in demanding that nations which possess internet technology provide public access to the internet. Only a few people took issue with the proposal demanding non-internet nations provide internet (you and Dukaine, and then Tinfect) and that wasn't what the author was saying in the post you responded to. The author was talking about the "not an international issue" claim, which frankly is getting old and isn't very convincing here.

[Wallenburg]

...

You think that there is merit in demanding that nations without internet technology provide internet to everyone?

No, I think there is merit in demanding that nations which possess internet technology provide public access to the internet. Only a few people took issue with the proposal demanding non-internet nations provide internet (you and Dukaine, and then Tinfect) and that wasn't what the author was saying in the post you responded to. The author was talking about the "not an international issue" claim, which frankly is getting old and isn't very convincing here.

The claim the author was most recently talking about is entirely irrelevant to this new discussion.

[Normlpeople]

OOC: This hiding behind a puppet and a semi-official looking flag and name is very much not endearing yourself. Considering what happened last time one did this... you probably should out yourself.

As to the category, its generally the best idea to pick a category and write the resolution to fit it, rather than try to hamfist it into one after the fact. This isn't that far off a couple of them.
IC: "Internet is something that comes up occasionally. In our case, its not an international issue since our 'internet' is actually domestic." A returning Clover said. "That said, a few issues."

1. Every WA nation must give their citizens access to the internet, as this will clearly boost their connection to all nations and encourage the growth of knowledge and education.

"Giving citizens access and allowing them access are two different things, especially with the issues of clause 3. I would also leave your opinion to the preamble."

2. A nation may still choose to block certain content, as long as this does not infringe on their citizen's necessity of human rights (i.e. their education and social interconnectedness).

"This is...really.... er... sloppily written" Clover said. "Materials related to, say, bomb making could be played up as educational, and materials related to extremism and terrorism could be spun as social interconnection. I would replace it with a general statement such as 'Members may block content provided they have a practical and compelling reason to do so'. Let the reasonable nation theory do its work."

3. All access provided to the internet must be free of charge, so as to not be counterproductive and push the poorer further away from society.

"Others have picked up on this, so i'll not say much, other than ask you to remember that some nations do not provide anything 'free'. Entitlements are a slippery slope. If you are concerned about cost being an issue, then your best bet is an encouragement clause allowing for some sort of cheap access or subsidization."

"You will also have to get a clear definition of 'Internet' that will encompass all levels of technology within the WA. Your posting here for assistance was a good first step. Welcome"

[World Assembly Improvement Foundation]

"You are more than just a vote!"

[Razgriskm]

Please provide any feedback on my General Assembly proposal, the Internet Act:
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vie ... 1466813455

If you can't access the link, or you're not bothered:

1. RECOGNISES that the internet is a valuable and essential resource to the further development of society.
2. NOTES that many individuals and groups may be restricted from the internet and, therefore, the human right to be able to use this resource for educational and social purposes.
3. UNDERSTANDS that the positives (i.e. educational and social benefits) clearly outweigh the negatives (i.e. cost) of internet usage.
4. REALISES that a world without the internet would further divide and primitivize nations, as the internet is a key component in a quickly changing modern society.

Therefore, The Internet Act hereby declares that:
1. Every WA nation must give their citizens access to the internet, as this will clearly boost their connection to all nations and encourage the growth of knowledge and education.
2. A nation may still choose to block certain content, as long as this does not infringe on their citizen's necessity of human rights (i.e. their education and social interconnectedness).
3. All access provided to the internet must be free of charge, so as to not be counterproductive and push the poorer further away from society.

..."Is this forcing the internet into being considered a public utility provided by the government? What? Never heard of competitive rates from private sector providers? This assembly never fails to inspire deep seated disgust in me."

[Llorens]

I'm going to try and write up a new draft for the proposal tomorrow morning, considering that the original one wasn't successful (what a surprise). Feel free to respond with more ideas, and also keep in mind that all the following have been suggestions in this forum in someway or another.

Description:
a) Put it under the category of Furtherment of Democracy (mild)
b) Define internet
c) Identify that governments with the appropriate infrastructure be required to provide access to the internet
d) Identify that the internet provides educational stimulus, more opportunities for growth of the economy and business, and also increases political freedoms
e) Demonstrate that the internet is essential because it is key to freedom of expression

Action:
a) State that the Government may still choose to block certain content that (?? - I don't really know what to put here)
b) Urge all governments with appropriate infrastructure to fund internet-usage programs in higher education, with focus on device/internet accessibility
c) Urge all governments with appropriate infrastructure to fund new/improved libraries with internet-accessible computers
d) Abolish the free-of-charge clause

[Imperium Anglorum]

Listed above are more reasonable approaches towards this issue. There is a somewhat (yes, Ara, somewhat) standardised formatting convention regarding proposals. You may want to consult that standard. Many examples can be found in the Passed Resolution thread.

[New Dukaine]

Enter

Against, not an international issue in my opinion

OOC:
And pesticide use is?

And regardless of your argument about why pesticides in New Dukaine could affect the ecosystems of planets behind Tinfect's completely closed (and I mean, literally sealed off in space and time) borders, surely you don't think abortion is an international issue?

And can someone please tell me why this IS an international issue?

The same reason freedom of expression is.

WHAT THE F}*# IS AN INTERNET?

Something between the nets. Like international is between nations.

We use the uhhhhhhhhh... what do we call it, Oh! We use the New Dukainese Web connection device!
Exit again

Contrary to popular belief, the internet and the Web are not the same thing.

OOC:
It doesn't belong in Furtherment of Democracy, I can tell you that right off the bat.

It increases political freedom by allowing access to a medium known for being able to rapidly spread political messages anonymously. I mean, just look at this website and tell me that being able to access NS doesn't expand your ability to learn about different ideologies and promote your own.

If you don't think this is of international relevance, I'm sure there'd be quite a few passed resolutions that you wouldn't agree with either.

Ambassador Markhov doesn't. In fact, he has argued against the entire category of Furtherment of Democracy and pretty much all of Free Trade, too, in addition to Preventing Animal Abuse (which is about to be repealed) and many others besides (having personally repealed World Space Administration).

"Ambassador, you don't get to decide what we say. In any case, a pattern of opposition to the very principle of this proposal indicates that this draft is not a good idea."

Or it indicates a pattern of people asking rhetorical questions they know the new player can't answer, waiting for the draft to die, only to have to repeat the whole cycle again in a few days. I don't recall why Net Neutrality was repealed, but I stand with IA in that this is an idea of some merit, and there should be an internet access proposal.

Let me give you my responses OOCly because I am on mobile rn

1. Pesticide use is an international issue. I have a very good job for you! Go to page 5 of the PR thread in the archives and read Seperatist People's response. Boom. And abortion is an international issue. It wouldn't be if there weren't like FIVE WA RESOLUTIONS ON IT

2. I was just curious and I did not need to get a snarky response from you.

3. I know. I am a human that lives in the US.

4. I roleplay that, and in my nation that I roleplay, way different. So can you please just shut the fuck up about me and talk about the proposal?

Edited to remove excessive use of profanity

[Imperium Anglorum]

1. Pesticide use is an international issue. I have a very good job for you! Go to page 5 of the PR thread in the archives and read Seperatist People's response. Boom. And fucking abortion is an international issue. It wouldn't be if there weren't like FIVE WA RESOLUTIONS ON IT

Pesticide use is not an international issue. Pesticides crossing borders, however, is by definition an international issue. I have a pretty clear standard on what is and is not an international issue. If multiple nations must cooperate to solve it, it is. There are also different elements, such as human rights and the general specification of how life ought be lived. Those are different matters, which this would fall into.

I don't buy that abortion is an international issue from the appeal to tradition of two resolutions on it. Provide arguments to why you believe it to be an international issue.

---

More honestly, I am unsure why everyone sees fit to dogpile this thread with opposition messages. Is it because all the cool kids™ are doing it? There is merit to this proposal here and it could go far (or, rather, it could go FoD).

[Araraukar]

Against, not an international issue in my opinion

OOC: And pesticide use is?

OOC: If you're using that account to bully new authors, I'm going to out your puppet master. Obviously the WA as a whole bought it being an international issue, so you don't get to bully my co-author about it, ok?

surely you don't think abortion is an international issue?

IC: Human rights in general aren't an international issue, nor are political freedoms, but the majority of the WA nations seem to think they are, for some reason. You need to work with what you're given, not what you think would be perfect.

Something between the nets. Like international is between nations.

OOC: To be fair, that existed before Internet.

It increases political freedom by allowing access to a medium known for being able to rapidly spread political messages anonymously.

OOC: You know as well as anyone else here that it all depends on how it's written. You could write something called "The Internet Act" to fit IS as well as SJ. It's all in the wording.

Or it indicates a pattern of people asking rhetorical questions they know the new player can't answer, waiting for the draft to die, only to have to repeat the whole cycle again in a few days.

OOC: You know bloody well that was an IC reply by Ogenbond. Post on your damn main and reply to IC in IC.

OOC: This hiding behind a puppet and a semi-official looking flag and name is very much not endearing yourself.

You aren't my target audience, and this has nothing to do with this thread.

OOC: So you think it's good to set up that account as something/someone that antagonizes people and bullies them just because they don't agree with your definitions on how things should be run, and threatens with mod action when there is no thread ownership in GA?

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: And pesticide use is?

OOC: If you're using that account to bully new authors, I'm going to out your puppet master. Obviously the WA as a whole bought it being an international issue, so you don't get to bully my co-author about it, ok?

Please explain to me how responding calmly as done here with clear and logical responses somehow constitutes bullying. The most objectionable responses in this thread are the responses which were given in response to this post, which I feel went over the line.

[Separatist Peoples]

1. Pesticide use is an international issue. I have a very good job for you! Go to page 5 of the PR thread in the archives and read Seperatist People's response. Boom. And fucking abortion is an international issue. It wouldn't be if there weren't like FIVE WA RESOLUTIONS ON IT

Pesticide use is not an international issue. Pesticides crossing borders, however, is by definition an international issue. I have a pretty clear standard on what is and is not an international issue. If multiple nations must cooperate to solve it, it is. There are also different elements, such as human rights and the general specification of how life ought be lived. Those are different matters, which this would fall into.

I don't buy that abortion is an international issue from the appeal to tradition of two resolutions on it. Provide arguments to why you believe it to be an international issue.

---

More honestly, I am unsure why everyone sees fit to dogpile this thread with opposition messages. Is it because all the cool kids™ are doing it? There is merit to this proposal here and it could go far (or, rather, it could go FoD).

ooc: Not to get us set on a thread derailment, but domestic pesticide use on a large enough scale or done inappropriately has international impacts. As with basically all environmental issues, a domestic act often has international repercussions, and we know the old saw about an ounce of prevention.

Tying this into this proposal, internet access may have an international impact, as it affects the ability of individuals to engage in the free market of ideas globally and engage in the international market more readily. That said, its a bit of a stretch as an actual issue.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Tying this into this proposal, internet access may have an international impact, as it affects the ability of individuals to engage in the free market of ideas globally and engage in the international market more readily. That said, its a bit of a stretch as an actual issue.

Why should we not support more accountable government, freer economic development, and stronger civic societies and institutions?

[Araraukar]

Please explain to me how responding calmly as done here with clear and logical responses somehow constitutes bullying.

OOC: Because they're hiding behind an official-looking puppet to poke at an off-topic subject in a way that's designed to rouse ire from their target.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Please explain to me how responding calmly as done here with clear and logical responses somehow constitutes bullying.

OOC: Because they're hiding behind an official-looking puppet to poke at an off-topic subject in a way that's designed to rouse ire from their target.

Because a player believes that a player is picking on the proposer of the new proposal via drowning out countervailing arguments in a manner entirely consistent with logical analysis of the situation. Then, the other player collapses faster than the High Sparrow's Sept explodes more violently than the Sept of Baelor.

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: If the player behind WAIF had posted on their main, I wouldn't have complained about it.