Internet and politics are now more interconnected than ever. Certain aspects of it jump up in the everyday life of millions of people. Twitteris without doubt one of those – but until a certain point. Generally, people who consider themselves with a fair amount of digital technical skills, and to good reason, see apparently no use in getting a Twitter account. For instance in Italy despite smartphones and facebook and youtube and ipads, even though it is in the media it is not widely adopted in the population(no statistics provided just asking around, do you know what twitter is? Try to ask beyond the 'social network' answer).

That said, teenagers in school post status updates and check themselves in jail while being in classroom to symbolize the pseudo coercing / bonding high school period.

Tagging of pictures keeps the stream flowing and people traverse their timeline endlessly in vortex of sharing online. Meeting on Skype is a common activity during winter for long hours in a surreal setting presenting the personification of the computer as an extension of human senses. We live the majority part of the day online, we are the nation of internet users replicating the principle of the web – the flow of information.

The umbrella corporations of conservative censorship are on a rising tide considering the medium range time. The SOPA PIPA ACTA tryptic is just the basis for something stronger. When you start making exceptions on the assertion “we are the good guys and we can do it because of XYZ while they are the bad guys and they are doing it for the wrong reasons.” So all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. This situation might not be too Orwellian but if we really are a country based on the flow of information and to protect the interests of a powerful minority this flow is interrupted not by sporadic activities but by the development of dedicated machines automatically screening content, flagging, removing, suspending and blocking access to it. The difference here is not in the promulgation of laws not directly voted, both in modern democracies and dictatorship this happens, the difference is in the response that we as citizens - both of our own state and the web - can put in practice. If in China you are arrested for blogging about censorship, in Europe we have the right to flood into streets and voice our concerns, and we should, to stop governments forcing ISPto spy on their citizens/users.

Its important to discuss the reasons why Twitter decided to allow filtering some messages in specific countries(ie censor them), you don't need to have HIV to know that it is vital to fight it. Twitter is being more open about it and according to its policy, filtering out contents in a specific country will be balanced by marking that content as censored in the rest of the world and easily accessing the institution asking for it to be removed with the reason for removal.  From a tool for freedom, Twitter will become just a tool, like Gheddafi cutting water supplies to (luckily once) revolting cities. Still, we must not let our guard down and denounce any activity of spreading the "I don't hear, I don't see, I don't talk" attitude embracing service providers around the world.

Multiple online services from Twitter to Filesonic have been shaken by the uncontested and unconstitutional seizure of Megavideo - despite the wrong doing and lascivious life of its founders, there was a total lack of due process or selection of illegal content, everything will be removed, copyright infringing or not. And this is the "good guys" doing it. If the web has no physical or elected ambassadors to remove from a country breaking its flow, we the people must stand up and speak in defence of our love for Wikipedia, our positive feelings nurtured by Youtube, the cosiness and security of a Skype conversation, the amplification and accessibility of our opinions on Twitter, the assurance of our Facebook inboxes kept private and the availability of all other online services, albeit not major ones but still essential in our every day life. Only by proving our presence in a common cause to protect the internet, educating friends and sensibilizing our elected representatives can we disentangle our liberties in the jungle of web diplomacy.

In the politics of programming Google needs to have a relationship with China, Facebook with Pakistan, Twitter if it really has to. But compromises is what degrades and makes possible politics. This online nation has billions of citizens, all unique but expressing that uniqueness with similar if not the same tools. So at 18 you can post away on Facebook, when you are an ex-pat you meet your friends in international conference calls, if your machine has collapsed because of a virus despite the fact that you were behind firewall tomorrow you will install Linux, it is only logical that we are going to be more dependant on the web in the future. We should sensibilise and excite – we might not need to assert our liberty to protest but it is rather important standing up for an nondeterministic and thriving online life.

We must take the responsibility on ourselves and the people around us to talk about protecting the internet, the neutrality and importance of an open web on social networks, in bars, at pubs, during lunches, in cinemas, in stadiums, at home with your friends - whatever you say, say a lot!

Full article is here: http://www.studentsforfreeculture.eu/blog/2012/01/on-what-is-twitter-censoring-how-to-reject-that-censorship-what-we-love-online-and-why-we-should-protest-sopa-pipa-and-acta/

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss

Adi Kamdar <adikamdar <at> gmail.com> writes:
>Yeah, context is key—there aren't any hard lines or numbers. There
>also seems to be some deference to the nature of the performance—if
>it's commercial, if it's in an educational context, etc.
>
>for example:
>
>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/110.html

Remember: if you don't have to ask a lawyer, then the law isn't doing
its job .

-K

>On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Rob Myers <rob <at> robmyers.org> wrote:
>
>    On 10/02/12 19:20, andrea fassina wrote:
>    >
>    > maybe someone knows the answer, but how many viewers need to be
>    in a
>    > room before the show is considered a public performance?
>
>
>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_rights
>
>    "Performances are considered "public" if they take place in a
>    public
>    place and the audience is outside of a normal circle of friends
>    and
>    family, including concerts, nightclubs, restaurants etc. Public
>    performance also includes broadcast and cable television, radio,
>    and any
>    other transmitted performance of a live song."
>
>    So I think its more context than number, and so I'd guess one *if*
>    it's
>    not your friend or family and it's not your apartment. But maybe
>    there's
>    some useful case law on the subject.
>
>    - Rob.
>
>
>    _______________________________________________
>    Discuss mailing list
>    Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>    http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>    FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss <at> freeculture.org
>http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss <at> freeculture.org
http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss