Talk:Free Internet Act

New Privacy Subsection
Article VII Section B of the the Act states that “Everything a user does with their computer is considered private.” Any actions a user takes to protect their privacy, such as using proxies, cannot be assumed to be used for illegal actions. The Act classifies the following as private data: all data that can personally identify the owner, harm the owner in any way, data that has not been explicitly agreed to be public, and all encrypted data is considered to be private. Additionally, data collected for judicial proceedings must be able to be used as evidence. According to the act: “Any data absorbed during the search for evidence must be returned to its owner within 15 business days. Any copies of data not used as evidence must be permanently deleted and removed from any kind of storage.” However, content that a user knows is illegal to upload in a given region is not considered private data (for example, child pornography). Users who download such data and who neglect to report it are also liable for the data.  BhanuVC (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)BhanuVC

This does a great job of summing up privacy in the Act. Maybe consider using bullet points for some of the lists you have in your section. Jineshshah36 (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Jineshshah36 Good job, maybe just break it up a bit since it is a really long paragraph. But good sources and info ccgearig Looks good, but a one or two of the colons should be changed into commas. Ben0mega (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Free Speech

 * I think the first sentence is redundant, considering it simply rehashes the fact that there exists a Free Speech portion in the act. Other than that, all edits are valid. BhanuVC (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I deleted the first sentence. Mljursek (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Mljursek

By prohibiting censorship of the internet, the FIA would carry this most basic American right on to the internet. In the most recent draft of the act, it states that the “FIA will allow internet users to browse freely without any means of censorship, users have the right to free speech and to free knowledge; we govern the content of the internet, governments don’t.” With no legal government presiding over online content, one would be able to freely post, share, and say whatever one desired on the internet. Mljursek (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Mljursek BhanuVC (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

New Copyright Section
Kevin Lincoln, a writer for Business Insider, argued that the Act is extremely weak in protecting copyright because under the act, content that may infringe on copyright can only be policed after it is uploaded. Only the uploader, not the website hosting possibly illegal content, would be penalized. To prove that someone violated copyright, the accuser must prove that the uploader knew they were uploading illegal content and they didn’t know they were uploading it for Fair Use. The accused person must be notified 30 days before the content is taken down so they have adequate time to fight the claim. Monitoring of content being downloaded, uploaded or edited would not be allowed without legal permission, and to try to remove content without a court order would be considered against the freedom of speech and the perpetrator would be subject to legal penalty. Ccgearig (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

New Criticisms Section
Techspot published an article that questioned whether the Reddit community effort would be able to produce a successful bill. A Business Insider article alleges that the proposed bill "is so weak in protecting copyright that it would likely revert the Internet back to a Wild West-type situation where more or less anything goes." The article concludes that the bill would make violation of copyright widespread and copyright litigation difficult due to increased burdens of proof and increased immunity for hosting.  Inside of Reddit, community members have voiced concern about both the direction of the bill and language used in it, suggesting that the use of the community contributions instead of a professional group to draft the bill will decrease the quality of the bill.  Ben0mega (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Jineshshah36 (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Jineshshah36

should create a criticism section for this article Mljursek (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)mljursek

Update: acquire sources besides the actual act BhanuVC (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)BhanuV

Censorship
The Act proposes that all sovereign Federal and State Governments cannot censor any kind of material on the Internet other than child pornography and financial scams, and in order to censor those topics, it must be done after they are uploaded because it would be illegal to monitor any data while it is being uploaded. Additionally, only the creator or uploader can be held responsible for illegal material, and any time material is removed, the uploader must be notified.  Jineshshah36 (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC) jineshshah36

Good description of the censorship in the Act, Jinesh. Is there any information about what the punishment is for uploading illegal material? Overall very good. I didn't see any grammatical/spelling errors and I like the content of your paragraph. Mljursek (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Mljursek

Midigi94 (talk) Mokun (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed revisions
Overview of Planned Edits: We will be expanding on the points of discussion sections:
 * Privacy
 * Censorship
 * Free Speech
 * Copyright
 * Also, we will be adding a criticisms section about the bill.

Peer Review
This Wikipedia group’s page edit, in all, was very well done. While I did see more cons then pros while referring to the “Evaluating Wikipedia” article. Some of the pros of this article are the amount of footnotes (18) for how relatively sized the article actually is. Another positive is the face that the talk page is not a hostile environment, and it is all constructive criticism that allowed the group to make their article better. A final positive note I will say about this article is that the structure is very clear and all the subcategories under the “points of discussion” section are all very well balanced.

While the group edits were well done, I did notice some things they might’ve done better at. First off, the quote in the lead section is a good quote, but the length of the quote is just as long as the rest of the lead section. This long length of a quote in the lead section will turn readers off. While the group did have a healthy amount of footnotes, in some of their sections there are only one footnote which is not substantial enough evidence for an entire subsection. A final problem I noticed was in the lengthy “criticism” section. This section looks as it is over a third of all the other sections combined, and this can turn readers off because they may believe the group is biased. Brettfriedman99 (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Overall I believe that this group's Wikipedia page was very well done. It is apparent by the number of sources acquired and used, that this group went through a lot of extensive research in order to edit and construct their Wikipedia page. This shows that the group did not simply settle with the first four hits on google, but they put in the work to seek out credible information from a great variety of sources. That fact that this group worked well as a unit was also clear through the discussions on their talk page. A lot of constructive criticism was used instead of blatantly putting down other people's ideas in their group. Their article also very clearly displays the topics of discussion involved in the Free Internet Act. However, I do think that the group could have made the individual topics a little more specific. I found it difficult to grasp the main idea of each topic because they information presented seemed too factual instead of being informative. Overall, this group did a very good job on their Wikipedia project. For the most part, the information presented was clear and concise, and it is obvious they worked well and hard on the project. rvandage (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Jineshshah36 (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Jineshshah36

I thought the article was very informative and gave a readers a very good idea as to what the Free Internet Act was about. There were many different headings for the topic which made it very easy to learn. The about of information added was the right amount to understand the topic but not too much as to defeat the overall purpose of a Wikipedia article. There were many references added which adds to the validity and integrity of the page. I liked how there was a decent description in the introduction of the topic because many times that is all most people skim through to learn. One thing that could be improved about the article is that there are too many quotes from sources. I think it would be better if you paraphrased these quotes for a quicker read. I think that it also would have been good to add more descriptions into the introduction section. It also would have been nice to know the timeline for when this act was being implemented. Also, the history of it and how it came about would have been nice. Overall, the articles had a good layout and had enough information to be a legitimate Wikipedia article. Tyfrey (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review: I also believe that this article is very enlightening on the topic of the Free Internet Act for anyone who had no previous knowledge of the topic. Many characteristics regarding this article give me reason to argue that it is a quality Wikipedia page. For instance, many headers are used that add to the structure of the page. Also, there is no bias used when presenting the topic of the free internet act which gives more credibility to the author. There are a few things the authors of this page could improve on. First, there are many spelling errors and misplaced words in the lead section paragraph, especially in the quote from Alexis Ohanian. This can cause readers to lose trust in what their reading, along with interest. Another thing that would have added a lot of value to this page is a more chronological history of the Free Internet Act. Just upon first read, I am not sure when the creation of this legislation started and where it currently stands as of now. Other than that, this has the makings of a solid Wikipediawas page.Harrison88152 (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review: The first thing that stuck me when I read this article was how well organized all the information was and easy to find. By breaking the article from large clumps into the categories of privacy/censorship/ free speech/ copyright, the article become easier to read and specific facts much easier to find. The article is also greatly enhanced by the direct quote from Reddit but it is too long and could easily be cut own to the most relevant information. There are a few grammatical and spelling errors, notably right off the bat in the first sentence the wrong form of "its" was used which significantly puts the credibility of the piece into question. The article did uphold Wikipedia's value of preserving neutrality with the criticism section that made the piece much more objective. There was also a notable lack of hyperlinks in most of the article (they were concentrated in the introduction and completely absent from the rest of the piece). Overall, the piece was easy to read, informative, and drew from a variety of legitimate refernces. -Edviberz

After reading the group's article, I was overall very impressed. They did deep research and produced numerous reliable sources. The group's article did a good job of introducing the topic to the me as the reader--one who has never really understood the topic at hand. The group appropriately divided the article into effective sub sections which helped to strengthen the flow of article. However, I do feel that the quote added in the opening introduction was too long and distracted from the overall message. The quote made the introduction too long and tipped the balance of the article. The sub sections were great for the organization of the article, but they could of been a bit longer providing more insight into each respective topic. When reading, I did come across some syntactical errors that may have slightly damaged the flow and harmed the readability of the article. I thought that the group provided a good description of why some people were opposed to the act and thought that it wouldn't work; however, the article could have benefited from a more elaborate discussion from the other side saying why we need the act and why it will work. Gouryan (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)