Social media is both a hell and a haven. Social
media increases awareness, connectivity and diversity. On the other hand, social
networking sites can potentially expose children to sociopaths, increase
vulnerability to computer viruses, lower attention spans, and since social
media has a culture all of its own, short-hand typing has found its way in
academia – much to the dismay of educators.Nevertheless, this cultural shift is imperative to understand and should be regulated.
According to Internet Regulation Laws | eHow.com, "illegal activities on the Internet are expanding, and the Internet regulation laws continue to expand with them. Scams are numerous, including the exchange of money through bank accounts and under the guise of customer service representatives or accounting representatives. A criminal conviction for a person who is employed in either of these situations could result in fines, repayment of the money and possible imprisonment. It does not matter that the employee is not the creator of this scam."
Infringement of intellectual property as described above will end in huge fines and a ban on conducting further business in some cases. It depends on the case and what the content of the problem really is. The Federal Trade Commission has several publications that outline past cases and how they were settled.http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202560843256&The_FDA_and_the_Regulation_of_Social_Media
Not providing the users to websites adequate information about the use of the website may cause legal actions such as a lawsuit, criminal charges and/or civil actions. Fines may be imposed as well as jail time. Again it depends on the severity of the charges. If it is a lawsuit you will be liable for attorney fees and the fines. Making false claims will incur fines and possible damages to the user of the information or product.
Here is a video with a weird url but it is from Robert Todd an attorney who goes into further explanations. Regulation is definitely needed but how is the question.
Tiesa,
ReplyDeleteThe subject you chose to speak about regarding social media is one that not many people think of when utilizing and social media platform. I know that you mention regulations but when young people see someting new they tend to just go with the flow of it and not think that it could possibly harm you or others. In this case, the youth are a target for predators to prey on and for the elder to be robbed of their life earnings. I think that your video helps with the explanation of the regulations but I wouold like to see a video of the harm that social media can cause.
You highlight a number of interesting issues here, Tiesa, and it's confounding to consider the plethora of legal quandaries that social media and the Internet at-large has prompted. The video you chose serves as an excellent primer to understanding the difficulties of regulating a digital space, when law has scarcely had to address something so abstract in the past. I do wonder, however, if lawmakers are doing enough to protect the rights/privileges of the end-user—not just the corporations that provide the service or product.
ReplyDeleteBoth the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA), which caused a tremendous amount of controversy earlier this year, are concerned exclusively with protecting the intellectual property of major corporations—arguably at great expense to the end-user. While protecting the rights of digital content holders is absolutely, I would argue that preserving the civil liberties of digital citizens is of greater importance. In other words, laws defining the rights of the online user should precede laws limiting those rights.
The United States, despite being the spiritual home of the Internet, has been relatively slow in establishing legal precedents to protect the end-user. Although a bit of a tangent, it's worth considering how the debate has played out in the UK, where certain social media platforms are more widely used. Twitter, of example, is enormously popular in the country, and has consequently led to several fascinating cases.
In July of this year, a case known as the "Twitter Joke Trial" finally concluded after nearly three years of proceedings. It began in January of 2010, when disgruntled airline passenger Paul Chambers tweeted: "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!" Chambers was convicted of sending a "public electronic message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character contrary to the Communications Act 2003." The charges were almost universally viewed by the public to have been unfair or unmerited, and Chambers proceeded to appeal the charges to the High Court of London. The resulting legal precedent expanded free speech in the digital sphere, but only at the discretion of a court or magistrate. It would be, however, a logistical impossibility for the judicial system to be held responsible for determining the intent, motive, and tone of every controversial message posted to a digital space.
Is there a solution, then? Is it time for a digital bill of rights, elucidating the freedoms to be exercised by the Internet user? There isn't a simple answer, but one would hope that lawmakers are working preserve digital rights, rather than just limit them.
I think one issue that will make regulation even more difficult is the perception that the internet is free, and everything on the internet should be free. Further complicating this is the fact that we are behind the curve in terms of figuring out how our current laws apply to the internet.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that the word on SOPA would have gotten out fast enough without SM so that people could voice their opinion before legislation was passed?
Great point. No, I don't think the awareness would have been sent at such a fast rate. I think my position is more or less to bloggers who many, many, many times are not factual and there is no reprecussion. Then you have people who borrow ideas and do not cite, there has to be some sort of guidelines in place. I agree with your assetion, it is very complicated. We are the land of the free home of the brave and free speech allows for such freedoms. Although, our consitution, as in the First Amendment, protects that right and we do not as a nation have the right to infringe on others.
Delete