Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Internet censorship in the United States

Google "censorship"

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)[reply]

Media biases

The following comment was added to the overview section of the article on 4 May 2011 by 69.207.54.164:

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)[reply]

BART protests

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Library: where is this info coming from?

"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 75.97.112.151 (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why is SOPA listed under Federal Laws

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

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

Why is PIPA absent from this list altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.230.77.3 (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 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)[reply]

Editing Intro

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)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Internet censorship in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Internet censorship in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"...the U.S. government has censored sites in the past, and they are increasing in number to this day".

"These protections extend to the Internet; however, the U.S. government has censored sites in the past, and they are increasing in number to this day."

The final clause in that statement is not supported anywhere in the ensuing article. The sentence (like much of the article) is clearly argumentative rather than informative. It also depends upon amorphous definitions of the verb censor, which becomes more and more obvious as one continues reading. The reader who expects to find anywhere in the article a list of these "increasing" instances of "censorship" by the U.S. government will be disappointed. In fact, the majority of the article details the failure of attempts by various governmental bodies to constrain expression on the internet.

I have seldom seen an entry that so egregiously flouts the principles on which Wikipedia is founded. It is clearly a vehicle for advocacy of a particular belief, and it plays fast and loose with the facts in that advocacy. When I have time, I will rewrite portions to present an accurate portrait of the current state of "censorship" of the internet in the U.S.

Adambrower (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the sentence described in the header does not illustrate reality; accordingly, I have removed it. If someone can provide a citation, then I guess it could be added back, but the statement "this is the conclusion from the body of the article" smacks of synthesis. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 23:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you name any websites that have been banned in the past and are now un-banned? Some new bans occcur. So the total number of websites ever banned increases. 194.207.86.26 (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TikTok

The US is banning TikTok ostensibly because it is Chinese owned, actually because TikTok Teens Tank Trump Rally in Tulsa. Similarly any Chinese owned website that has analytics would be banned for the same reasons. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45713 194.207.86.26 (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Fake News

Criticalstudies.org sounds pretty important, right? Wrong: USA says it’s an Iranian fake news front 194.207.86.26 (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kremlin.ru vanishes

According to Aletho News [3] the Russian government website https://kremlin.ru has been blocked in the U.S. Archive.org has been unable to archive it since about noon on Sunday, February 27. I can't get it either. This should probably go into the article in some form. More information would be helpful. Anybody know what's going on? -- Communpedia Tribal (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article in The Independent about it [4] Communpedia Tribal (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sites

US government blocks Iran-affiliated news websites

English-language channel, Press TV.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-seizes-websites-used-iranian-islamic-radio-and-television-union-and-kata-ib

United States Seizes Websites Used by the Iranian Islamic Radio and Television Union and Kata’ib Hizballah

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/23/us-seizes-three-dozen-websites-used-for-iranian-disinformation

US seizes three dozen websites used for ‘Iranian disinformation’

Seized sites include Press TV and Houthi and Palestinian outlets. Move comes amid tense efforts to revive nuclear deal.

2A00:1370:8172:4F3:9475:A5A9:BA15:4733 (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of websites blocked in Russia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.138.130.26 (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EARNIT Act addition.

Considering that the EARNIT (Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies) Bill of 2022 would effectively put a halt to end-to-end encryption and allow the government to have more view over private emails and messaging services, I think it would be very fitting to put this bill in the "Proposed federal legislation that has not become law" section of the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maerenneburg (talk • contribs) 12:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom House

I hope I'm not touching on anything that's already been discussed but is it reasonable to use Freedom House (an organization that receives over 80% of its' funding from the US Department of State, that was created intentionally to mirror totalitarian propaganda centres, and that has undeniably political rather than journalistic origins[1]) to introduce the degree to which the internet of the US is free? It seems as though Freedom House would prioritize an overwhelmingly positive portrayal of the US above an accurate depiction and using such a source would create a false impression. I'm not trying to claim that Freedom House is propagandist per se but it's important that the motivations of a source are taken into account to ensure that a fringe stance isn't being portrayed as more reliable than it is. Freedom House, and similar sources, should only be used with great caution when it comes to matters that they may have a strong bias for or against, such as censorship by the state that funds them. I'd probably recommend removing it if that's okay with y'all. If it shouldn't be removed for whatever reason, then clarifying its' bias and using additional, more reliable sources could be another option. I'm gonna mark it as an 'unreliable source' for the time being. AethyrX (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Emily A. Zerndt (August 2016). "The House that Propaganda Built: Historicizing the Democracy Promotion Efforts and Measurement Tools of Freedom House". ScholarWorks at WMU. Archived from the original on May 3, 2021. Retrieved November 29, 2023.

Wiki Education assignment: Senior Seminar

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 10 June 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anselellie (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Anselellie (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Websites blocked by the United States

Draft talk:List of websites blocked in the United States

Ironcurtain2 (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent censorship

Many states are banning pornography Coolcraftnet18 (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Internet_censorship_in_the_United_States