Talk:Internet censorship in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Google "censorship"[edit]

Regarding this material[1] please don't add original research, please do not make accusations against other editors, and do not edit war on the article page. I'll revert in a moment. The discussion is centralized at Talk:Censorship by Google. Wikidemon (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Media biases[edit]

The following comment was added to the overview section of the article on 4 May 2011 by

The most commonly ignored, unrealized, and underestimated phenomena in America directly correlates with the media, and its biases. It's hardcore bias is due to the medias submission to government oversight; moreover, restriction on multimedia suffocates the public's conception of the global world, which leads to false decisions and ideas concerning both domestic and international decisions/relations. The misleading media in the United States can be compared to all the broadcasts, in most countries around the globe. There are many questions that have no answers. The situation that made me add this comment to this website occurred when I was trying to write about the characteristics of Hamas; commonly referred to as a terrorist group. I already knew there were many positive ideals that members of Hamas had that correlate to most religions, most interestingly Christianity. The problem that I faced while searching through Google, and other search primers, was that I could barely find more than one or two positives associated with Hamas. I am no supporter of the group, but there are a lot of individuals that do, so I find it difficult to believe that no accredited articles exist that cover all aspects(including positive and negative ideals) of Hamas. Hopefully someone can help me out. Either way, every argument has two sides and both sides are valid in their own ways.

I've moved the comment here and deleted it from the main article. I'm not sure that the comment belongs in this article, but if it does, it shouldn't be the first thing in the Overview section. It might be better in another article about Media bias in the U.S. In any case, it will need to cite some sources to remain in any Wikipedia article. Jeff Ogden (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

BART protests[edit]

I'm concerned about this recent addition.[2] The notice at the bottom suggests that somethis material from other creative commons sources - is that allowed? The focus and extent of material may be a little off too, as a good part of it is a long quotation. It's probably worth including, though, and the material is relevant to this article, presented neutrally and with good sources. It's probably worth its own article even. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That note about licensed material refers to the article as a whole and is not specifically about the new section on the BART shutdown of cell phone service. There is no CC-BY licensed content in the BART section. But in general the use of CC-BY material is fine. Reuse and sharing is after all what the CC-BY license allows. Jeff Ogden (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
The BART section has two quotes, both from the lead of the Emergency Petition. They aren't really that long, just two sentence fragments, and certainly not long when compared to the petition as a whole. Jeff Ogden (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Library: where is this info coming from?[edit]

"Some libraries may also block access to certain web pages, including pornography, New York Times, advertising, chat, gaming, social networking, and online forum sites" cites "^ "Internet Use in Libraries", Fact Sheet Number 26, American Library Association, July 2010". I looked at the page cited on that source and couldn't find anything about libraries blocking the New York Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- I took out the bit about libraries blocking the New York Times. Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is SOPA listed under Federal Laws[edit]

Why is SOPA listed under Federal Laws instead of Proposed federal legislation that has not become law?

Yes check.svg Done - It appears that someone (not me) moved the SOPA sub-section. Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is PIPA absent from this list altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- I added a sub-section about PIPA in the proposed legislation that has not become law section. Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Editing Intro[edit]

I personally think the intro should include more about how much is censored, and why. Maybe like a percent? I don't know but I think that would make it better Someonerandomer (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)