[Ben]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6968322.stm

"Most of the content on the network is contributed by the users of the internet," he said. "So what we're seeing on the net is a reflection of the society we live in."

"Maybe it is important for us to look at that society and try to do something about what's happening, what we are seeing

He added: "When you have a problem in the mirror you do not fix the mirror, you fix that which is reflected in the mirror.
Anyone know if he's single? I can feel a Civil Partnership coming on ;)

Out of interest, does anyone here think Vint Cerf is wrong? Does anyone think, for example, that there should be stricter controls, beyond what is already illegal, on Internet content?

[Hands0n]

Once we go down the route of control for control's sake we begin the end. While I do agree that there should be some controls of accessibility to content (i.e. Porn, Gambling, Drugs) we should not allow the Internet to be "controlled" any more than we try and control the atmosphere of this planet.

Who is to make the rules under which this control is instigated? What if that person or persons had the same mindset of the burghers of Peterborough who prosecute individuals for wearing T-shirts (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/13/offensive_t_shirt/) "likely to cause offence or civil commotion". Who can we really trust to protect us from ourselves? Why on earth should we trust them? Can anyone truly represent all things to all men?

No, I firmly believe that the Internet should be a global anarchy. It has served us very well to date. People who had no voice before are now able to make themselves heard through websites and blogs. No one can fail to be moved who has read the blog output from places such as Iraq, China and other nation states where the freedoms we enjoy are a strange concept.

I do think that the good that the Internet enables completely outweighs any of the negatives that the doomsayers harp on about. We can already see how control affects the Internet in those nations where it is practised. I, for one, would hate to see control employed on a global scale.

[Ben]

Hear hear.

I particularly value the 'society mirror' effect that the Internet has. Dark, underground happenings have a habit of coming to light on the Internet, out there in public for us all to keep an eye on.

Sure, we don't always like what we see, but is covering it up so we can't see it anymore going to make it go away? No. Keep it out there, keep it observed, learn from it.

As for the protection of children, that's what parents/guardians are for. The Internet is not a toy. If we can succeed in helping parents to stop treating it as such then most of the incentive to censor the Internet is already removed.

[Hands0n]

As for the protection of children, that's what parents/guardians are for. The Internet is not a toy. If we can succeed in helping parents to stop treating it as such then most of the incentive to censor the Internet is already removed.

As a parent myself I wholeheartedly agree. All of my "children" - they're not so young these days, the youngest being 13 - have ready access to the Internet. They have all been coached in its use, encouraged to make use of it to find information that they require, and [when let loose to their own volition] have a clear understanding of the sanctions I'll apply if they abuse the privilege. For privilege is what I think it is - what generation has been able to lay hand on information quite to readily?

I have always monitored their use (gawd bless logfiles) and in the one single instance when one of them didn't heed the warning I removed access for them all. They learned and now discipline themselves to use the facility responsibly.

It wasn't hard or difficult, just necessary to spend [my] time with them and be firm when required. But so many parents seem to use technology as the modern day equivalent of the rubber dummy they used to shove in their kids mouths.

I've always had a serious problem with the notion of applying control to the masses because of the actions of the lowest common denominator (Dangerous Dogs Act, Firearms Act, Road Traffic Law, the list goes on!).