[ABANDONED] The Internet Act

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Weapons nullifiers work in the debate chambers. Weapons don't work here. And you know this too, Wallenburg, so stop setting up violent newbies for ridicule.

OOC: Since when did that happen? I thought it was the Bar and the voting chamber, unless otherwise indicated.

OOC: I thought that it's been the entire building since a noob tried to claim that their ambassador had brought in, and detonated, a suitcase nuke...

[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.

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

OOC: Ah, so that's IA behind the mask. Not all that shocking, but I'm still mildly intrigued as to why he thinks he needs a puppet to make his arguments seem more popular or stronger.

As to your planned revisions, author, that is certainly an improvement to the first version. However, claiming that the Internet is essential to free expression is beyond ridiculous, and this idea hardly fits in the FoD category. Human Rights: Mild might be more appropriate.

[Imperium Anglorum]

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

OOC: Ah, so that's IA behind the mask. Not all that shocking, but I'm still mildly intrigued as to why he thinks he needs a puppet to make his arguments seem more popular or stronger.

As to your planned revisions, author, that is certainly an improvement to the first version. However, claiming that the Internet is essential to free expression is beyond ridiculous, and this idea hardly fits in the FoD category. Human Rights: Mild might be more appropriate.

It isn't me behind the mask. I basically don't use puppets for anything but regional diplomacy anymore. I can take whatever heat that comes to this account. Plus, if you actually read the puppet-related information responding to the puppet's original post, you would know who it is. Really big clue in there.

Also, claiming that greater access to the Internet leads to more expression of political freedoms is exactly what Furtherment of Democracy does. It perfectly fits the category. Human Rights: Mild is theoretically possible. It is also much harder to justify.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Ah, so that's IA behind the mask. Not all that shocking, but I'm still mildly intrigued as to why he thinks he needs a puppet to make his arguments seem more popular or stronger.

As to your planned revisions, author, that is certainly an improvement to the first version. However, claiming that the Internet is essential to free expression is beyond ridiculous, and this idea hardly fits in the FoD category. Human Rights: Mild might be more appropriate.

It isn't me behind the mask. I basically don't use puppets for anything but regional diplomacy anymore. I can take whatever heat that comes to this account. Plus, if you actually read the puppet-related information responding to the puppet's original post, you would know who it is. Really big clue in there.

You just happen to be among the only ones in agreement with the puppet, you share the puppet's tendency to ignore the OOC/IC schism, you used the same flag for World Assembly Law Review, and when the puppet's misbehavior is criticized, you are the only one to come to its defense. Alongside that, when have we ever seen IA and WAIF in the same place at the same time? Finally, there is no such "puppet-related information", as far as I can tell, so I can't use that.

Of course, this has fuck all to do with the draft, and we really ought to get back on topic.

My suggestion to the author: reconsider exactly what you want to do here. The Internet is not some holy gift upon humanity, granting us boundless freedoms and transforming us into a prosperous, politically free utopia. It is simply another medium that some nations use to communicate from person to person. Why is it so necessary that as many nations as possible provide internet service to their people?

[Imperium Anglorum]

It isn't me behind the mask. I basically don't use puppets for anything but regional diplomacy anymore. I can take whatever heat that comes to this account. Plus, if you actually read the puppet-related information responding to the puppet's original post, you would know who it is. Really big clue in there.

You just happen to be among the only ones in agreement with the puppet, you share the puppet's tendency to ignore the OOC/IC schism, you used the same flag for World Assembly Law Review, and when the puppet's misbehavior is criticized, you are the only one to come to its defense. Alongside that, when have we ever seen IA and WAIF in the same place at the same time? Finally, there is no such "puppet-related information", as far as I can tell, so I can't use that.

Because I don't use the same flag for the WALR [information removed on second thought]. My god. Here's the post [link removed on second thought, go find it in the improvement thread, page 3] for you.

I will admit that I am friends with the author, that we hold the same political beliefs (for the most part), and are part of the same WA club, but I can assure you that I am not the puppet. And even if I were, it would be much easier to get an inter-regional agreement drafted or passed between IDU, Europeia, TNP, and Osiris to have these issues dealt with. Though, on third thought, TNP and Osiris are pretty rocky now-a-days...

[Wallenburg]

You just happen to be among the only ones in agreement with the puppet, you share the puppet's tendency to ignore the OOC/IC schism, you used the same flag for World Assembly Law Review, and when the puppet's misbehavior is criticized, you are the only one to come to its defense. Alongside that, when have we ever seen IA and WAIF in the same place at the same time? Finally, there is no such "puppet-related information", as far as I can tell, so I can't use that.

Because I don't use the same flag for the WALR and I've never written a condemnation in my life. My god. Here's the post for you.

Did you not hear me, IA?

Of course, this has fuck all to do with the draft, and we really ought to get back on topic.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Did you not hear me, IA?

Of course, this has fuck all to do with the draft, and we really ought to get back on topic.

You don't own the forum. I'll take marching orders from a moderator, not you.

My suggestion to the author: reconsider exactly what you want to do here. The Internet is not some holy gift upon humanity, granting us boundless freedoms and transforming us into a prosperous, politically free utopia. It is simply another medium that some nations use to communicate from person to person. Why is it so necessary that as many nations as possible provide internet service to their people?

The expansion of internet services is entirely an international issue that the World Assembly should look at given that the World Assembly want to promote international diplomacy, peace, and accountable governance. That is the manner in which the author would have to justify this proposal. I don't agree with it, but that is the standard justification.

[Wallenburg]

Did you not hear me, IA?

You don't own the forum. I'll take marching orders from a moderator, not you.

So you don't care about breaking the rules until moderators have come in and swung their weight, huh? For fucks sake man, I'm just trying to keep this thread on topic. No need to get snarky with me.

My suggestion to the author: reconsider exactly what you want to do here. The Internet is not some holy gift upon humanity, granting us boundless freedoms and transforming us into a prosperous, politically free utopia. It is simply another medium that some nations use to communicate from person to person. Why is it so necessary that as many nations as possible provide internet service to their people?

The expansion of internet services is entirely an international issue that the World Assembly should look at

That post said nothing on whether this is an international issue. Try not to attack arguments that aren't there.

given that the World Assembly want to promote international diplomacy, peace, and accountable governance.

Since when did the Internet inherently promote any of those things? After all, groups like ISIS have used the Internet to act directly against those principles.

That is the manner in which the author would have to justify this proposal. I don't agree with it, but that is the standard justification.

That would be a piss poor justification, and would fall flat on its face were it presented by the author.

[WayNeacTia]

You don't own the forum. I'll take marching orders from a moderator, not you.

So you don't care about breaking the rules until moderators have come in and swung their weight, huh? For fucks sake man, I'm just trying to keep this thread on topic. No need to get snarky with me.

I'm sure your condescending tone, and profanity did nothing to exacerbate the situation.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I don't recall why Net Neutrality was repealed...

OOC: It was a combination of its rather poorly thought-out name with what I characterized at the time as "woolly-headed idealistic right-libertarian claptrap about rational self-interest driving markets."

...apparently I ain't half the rhetorician I used to be.

IC: "The world's people badly need WA action in this area. We look forward to seeing a refined draft on the topic."

[Europe and Oceania]

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

OOC: Ah, so that's IA behind the mask. Not all that shocking, but I'm still mildly intrigued as to why he thinks he needs a puppet to make his arguments seem more popular or stronger.

Is the puppet IA? John Turner/UFoC? NSA? Somebody else? I'm confused now.

The suspense is actually pretty fun lol.

[Wallenburg]

So you don't care about breaking the rules until moderators have come in and swung their weight, huh? For fucks sake man, I'm just trying to keep this thread on topic. No need to get snarky with me.

I'm sure your condescending tone, and profanity did nothing to exacerbate the situation.

My tone was far from condescending. IA's, on the other hand, reeked of snark and hostility, and a desire to have the last laugh.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm sure your condescending tone, and profanity did nothing to exacerbate the situation.

My tone was far from condescending. IA's, on the other hand, reeked of snark and hostility, and a desire to have the last laugh.

On the other hand, you really ought stop accusing me of things I haven't done. If you're going to talk about snark and hostility, then remove all the profanity from your posts. And if you're going to speak about the last laugh, then don't give your retort and then claim threadjacking when anyone responds.

Is the puppet IA? John Turner/UFoC? NSA? Somebody else? I'm confused now.

A post was quoted with the relevant section. If you were around during the WSA debacle, it'll be clear who the puppet is.

[World Assembly Improvement Foundation]

"You are more than just a vote!"

[Llorens]

Refer to the original post for Draft #2.

[Wallenburg]

My tone was far from condescending. IA's, on the other hand, reeked of snark and hostility, and a desire to have the last laugh.

On the other hand, you really ought stop accusing me of things I haven't done.

I don't recall doing so.

If you're going to talk about snark and hostility, then remove all the profanity from your posts.

I don't need to censor myself to speak civilly. This is a PG-13 forum. Swearing is allowed, and often used in a non-hostile manner. Me swearing does not equate to snark and hostility. You really ought to know that, and I imagine that you do.

And if you're going to speak about the last laugh, then don't give your retort and then claim threadjacking when anyone responds.

I'm not the one who deliberately posts solely off topic just because I want to stick one at my opponent.

Is the puppet IA? John Turner/UFoC? NSA? Somebody else? I'm confused now.

A post was quoted with the relevant section. If you were around during the WSA debacle, it'll be clear who the puppet is.

It isn't Bitely.

Anyway, to the new draft, which really ought to be put in the OP rather than buried on the fourth page:

1) DEFINES the internet as a global computer network providing a variety of information and communication facilities, consisting of interconnected networks using standardised communication protocols.

The World Assembly is not located on a single world, and so using words such as "global" really make little sense in General Assembly proposals.

2) UNDERSTANDS that the internet provides educational stimulus, more opportunities for growth of the economy and business, and also increases political freedoms.

It does not increase political freedoms, and does not offer educational stimulus. Sure, it can be used for either of those purposes, but its existence does not inherently promote either of those.

3) RECOGNISES that the internet is an essential component to a modern society, as it is key to freedom of expression, accountable government, free economic development, and strong civic societies/institutions

No, it isn't, and the Wallenburgian delegation would take strong offense to such a claim. The Internet in no way is key to free expression or well-knit societies. Everything you have listed here has existed for centuries before the advent of the Internet, and if the Internet were to disappear, I am certain that they would continue to exist.

Therefore, The Internet Act hereby:

This should be "The General Assembly hereby", by well-established construction.

1) DECLARES that all nations with appropriate infrastructure must provide their citizens with access to the internet.

Why? Why must they provide this service? Are citizens totally incapable of providing it to themselves? And if this is meant as a form of social welfare, why is it so important for citizens of these nations to have Internet access?

2) URGES all nations with appropriate infrastructure are urged to implement a program to increase internet-accessible devices in higher education.

Check your sentence structure here, because it is incoherent.

3) ENCOURAGES all nations with appropriate infrastructure to also implement a program to fund new/improved library facilities with internet-accessible resources.

What on Earth do libraries have to do with the Internet?

4) ALLOWS the continuation of internet restriction, but only to sources that are deemed to have no educational, economic, or political purpose

That is a very, very broad brush, but it is acceptable considering existing resolutions protecting free speech.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Llorens, you should add preamble clauses into your proposal. Voters want them, you'll need them to justify category, its the starting place for interpretation, and its the place where you convince the players that your resolution is something they need to vote for. They generally start with 'Believing', 'Considering', or some word ending with -ing (well, 'Concerned' and other words are also widespread usages).

---

1) DEFINES the internet as a global computer network providing a variety of information and communication facilities, consisting of interconnected networks using standardised communication protocols.

The World Assembly is not located on a single world, and so using words such as "global" really make little sense in General Assembly proposals.

Global disarmament. These 36 matches. The use of global is fine.

2) UNDERSTANDS that the internet provides educational stimulus, more opportunities for growth of the economy and business, and also increases political freedoms.

It does not increase political freedoms, and does not offer educational stimulus. Sure, it can be used for either of those purposes, but its existence does not inherently promote either of those.

I agree. Work will need to be done to connect Internet expansion with why this would happen. Something along the lines of expanding accessibility of knowledge in the preamble along with school and library access would go far in doing so.

3) RECOGNISES that the internet is an essential component to a modern society, as it is key to freedom of expression, accountable government, free economic development, and strong civic societies/institutions

No, it isn't, and the Wallenburgian delegation would take strong offense to such a claim. The Internet in no way is key to free expression or well-knit societies. Everything you have listed here has existed for centuries before the advent of the Internet, and if the Internet were to disappear, I am certain that they would continue to exist.

Llorens, you can reword this to 'it helps to promote' instead of 'key'. Also, Internet is a proper noun, OED says it is capitalised.

3) ENCOURAGES all nations with appropriate infrastructure to also implement a program to fund new/improved library facilities with internet-accessible resources.

What on Earth do libraries have to do with the Internet?

Many poor people rely on public computers, many of which are in libraries, to access the Internet so they can do things like search for jobs, get information about welfare programmes, and connect with their families. Promoting an information-sharing network is a much cheaper way of distributing this kind of information than printing out a billion fliers.

---

1) DECLARES that all nations with appropriate infrastructure must provide their citizens with access to the internet.

This section of the proposal should be dropped. Forcing nations to provide Internet services is not a vote winner and an easy repeal hook.

2) URGES all nations with appropriate infrastructure are urged to implement a program to increase internet-accessible devices in higher education.

This could be changed to something along the lines of 'Urges all nations to promote the construction of data networks to increase the accessibility of the Internet's educational resources in educating children and advance collaboration in research'.

4) ALLOWS the continuation of internet restriction, but only to sources that are deemed to have no educational, economic, or political purpose

Mentioning Internet censorship is a sure vote-loser. The people who would vote in favour of this are the kind of people who would probably be opposed to censorship. Explicitly allowing it would lose their votes. The exception carved out is not large enough for the rabid (To borrow SP's phrase, Orcs) and therefore would lose votes. Being silent on the topic is probably the best option.

[Jarish Inyo]

Not every nation is connected to a "global computer network."

And why should a government provide free electronic devices to their populations and Internet connection to people? Who is going to pay for the reguired facilities with free and Internet? Why should governments privatize Internet providers to provide people with free internet?

[Imperium Anglorum]

And why should a government provide free electronic devices to their populations and Internet connection to people? Who is going to pay for the reguired facilities with free and Internet? Why should governments privatize Internet providers to provide people with free internet?

These are good points. The author should address them.

[Llorens]

Not every nation is connected to a "global computer network."

And why should a government provide free electronic devices to their populations and Internet connection to people? Who is going to pay for the reguired facilities with free and Internet? Why should governments privatize Internet providers to provide people with free internet?

In the most recent draft, the free-of-charge clause was dropped. The reason that people should be provided access to the Internet is because it is their right to freedom of expression and it is also a valuable educational, social, and political tool. There is nothing in the draft that suggests Internet providers should be privitised to provide internet access. This is essentially up to the nation on how they want to implement this (e.g. make the internet a public service, contract Internet companies to provide Internet).

[Llorens]

Just completed Draft #3. It can be found on the opening post

[Wallenburg]

Llorens, you should probably put your previous drafts in [spoiler]s, so that visiting critics don't mistake an old draft for the current one.

1) CONCERNED that many nations are limiting their citizens from using the Internet, a valuable resource in the further education and economic development of society.

Strong start to your preamble, although I would iron out a few stylistic shortcomings.

2) BELIEVING that 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.

Again, the Internet is hardly essential to modern society. After all, modern society has existed and did quite well without the Internet.

3) DEFINES the Internet as a global computer network providing a variety of information and communication facilities, consisting of interconnected networks using standardised communication protocols.

Again, the use of "global" is potentially damaging. Not only does it leave room for nations to evade the spirit of the proposal by arguing that they cannot maintain the necessary infrastructure in other countries on their planet, but it also fares badly with a community that has repeatedly demonstrated that there is more than one world in the World Assembly.

4) UNDERSTANDS that the Internet provides educational stimulus, more opportunities for growth of the economy and business, and also increases political freedoms.

Since you seem uninterested in correcting this obvious untruth, I will refrain from repeating my criticism of it.

The General Assembly hereby:
1) URGES all nations to fund the construction of data networks to increase the accessibility of the Internet's educational and collaborative resources.
2) ENCOURAGES all nations to fund new/improved library facilities with internet-accessible resources.
3) I would like to include a third form of action here, but I can't think of one. Suggestions please?

These clauses are agreeable. However, none of them actually demand that member nations do anything, and so this proposal does nothing to change policy within member nations. You have removed all the teeth from your draft. I suggest you find things that you want to mandate with regard to the Internet.

[Llorens]

Llorens, you should probably put your previous drafts in [spoiler]s, so that visiting critics don't mistake an old draft for the current one.

1) CONCERNED that many nations are limiting their citizens from using the Internet, a valuable resource in the further education and economic development of society.

Strong start to your preamble, although I would iron out a few stylistic shortcomings.

2) BELIEVING that 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.

Again, the Internet is hardly essential to modern society. After all, modern society has existed and did quite well without the Internet.

3) DEFINES the Internet as a global computer network providing a variety of information and communication facilities, consisting of interconnected networks using standardised communication protocols.

Again, the use of "global" is potentially damaging. Not only does it leave room for nations to evade the spirit of the proposal by arguing that they cannot maintain the necessary infrastructure in other countries on their planet, but it also fares badly with a community that has repeatedly demonstrated that there is more than one world in the World Assembly.

4) UNDERSTANDS that the Internet provides educational stimulus, more opportunities for growth of the economy and business, and also increases political freedoms.

Since you seem uninterested in correcting this obvious untruth, I will refrain from repeating my criticism of it.

The General Assembly hereby:
1) URGES all nations to fund the construction of data networks to increase the accessibility of the Internet's educational and collaborative resources.
2) ENCOURAGES all nations to fund new/improved library facilities with internet-accessible resources.
3) I would like to include a third form of action here, but I can't think of one. Suggestions please?

These clauses are agreeable. However, none of them actually demand that member nations do anything, and so this proposal does nothing to change policy within member nations. You have removed all the teeth from your draft. I suggest you find things that you want to mandate with regard to the Internet.

Modern societies may have functioned well without the internet, but I'm not saying they haven't. I'm simply stating that they could be 'stronger'. I corrected the global thing since you were pestering about it so much, and it's so miniscule that I'd rather not dwell on it. I've seen strong arguments suggesting that the Internet does improve political freedoms, so I'm going to stick with what I have. I've been thinking about things that would force nations to change their policies, but I can't quite think of any. Any help on this last point would be greatly appreciated.

[Wallenburg]

Llorens, you should probably put your previous drafts in [spoiler]s, so that visiting critics don't mistake an old draft for the current one.

Strong start to your preamble, although I would iron out a few stylistic shortcomings.

Again, the Internet is hardly essential to modern society. After all, modern society has existed and did quite well without the Internet.

Again, the use of "global" is potentially damaging. Not only does it leave room for nations to evade the spirit of the proposal by arguing that they cannot maintain the necessary infrastructure in other countries on their planet, but it also fares badly with a community that has repeatedly demonstrated that there is more than one world in the World Assembly.


Since you seem uninterested in correcting this obvious untruth, I will refrain from repeating my criticism of it.

These clauses are agreeable. However, none of them actually demand that member nations do anything, and so this proposal does nothing to change policy within member nations. You have removed all the teeth from your draft. I suggest you find things that you want to mandate with regard to the Internet.

Modern societies may have functioned well without the internet, but I'm not saying they haven't. I'm simply stating that they could be 'stronger'.

Untrue.

2) BELIEVING that the Internet is an essential component to a modern society

I corrected the global thing since you were pestering about it so much, and it's so miniscule that I'd rather not dwell on it. I've seen strong arguments suggesting that the Internet does improve political freedoms, so I'm going to stick with what I have.

Could you direct me to those arguments?

I've been thinking about things that would force nations to change their policies, but I can't quite think of any. Any help on this last point would be greatly appreciated.

The issue there is that I don't see any way that you can establish meaningful one-size-fits-all mandates on this subject, particularly because of the wide range of technological advancement in the World Assembly. If, however, you manage to do so, I will be very pleasantly surprised.

[Jarish Inyo]

Not every nation is connected to a "global computer network."

And why should a government provide free electronic devices to their populations and Internet connection to people? Who is going to pay for the reguired facilities with free and Internet? Why should governments privatize Internet providers to provide people with free internet?

In the most recent draft, the free-of-charge clause was dropped. The reason that people should be provided access to the Internet is because it is their right to freedom of expression and it is also a valuable educational, social, and political tool. There is nothing in the draft that suggests Internet providers should be privitised to provide internet access. This is essentially up to the nation on how they want to implement this (e.g. make the internet a public service, contract Internet companies to provide Internet).

I disagree. Access to the internet is not a a right. It has nothing to do with their freedom of expression. Even in modern society, on doe not need the internet to exercise what freedom of expression a government allows them. Nor is it a valuable educational, social or political tool. Normally it's the opposite of that.

Social media doesn't actually promote social and political interaction. It doesn't promote any form of expression. Unless you count people bitching about how their lives are not going the way they want it to. Students are not learning any useful skills by using the internet.

So again, why should governments provide internet and encourage antisocial tendencies?