The Internet should be free of charge.

The Internet should not be free of charge as this principle states. Companies who provide the internet to households, such as Comcast or Time Warner, should be in constant battle over which company provides the best value available. However, if this principle pertains to the idea that websites should provide their services free of charge to users who purchase their internet through legal channels, then I must agree. Individual charges based on how many searches are done or how many websites are visited should never become a part of the structure of the internet as a business.

Creative work posted on the Internet should be under the same copyright umbrella as traditionally published creative materials.

Why should the internet be different? If an owner chooses to first place their written work on the internet, perhaps because of its ease, then it should be held in the same light as works that are published by way of hard copy. As someone who may consider down the road developing my own creative work, I would love to see that it is protected equally whether it is on the internet or in physical form. The misuse of a person’s word should violate copyright laws whether it is physical or digital.

The Internet should not be censored.

The internet doesn’t have to be censored if the owner of the computer has the ability to censor the material himself. Perhaps in the future internet providers will be able to sell internet packages of which no material with a certain rating will be accessible. But if a user wishes to have an uncensored form of the internet, with all the hate speech that can be found along with any other form of questionable material, they should be able to.

Hate speech on the Internet should be restricted.

Because hate speech has the potential to devastate a life, it has no place on a public forum such as the internet. Thus, it should be restricted as much as humanly possible. Due to the belief that the internet must not be controlled by a single group, successfully eliminating hate speech becomes near impossible, but the never-ending pursuit of 0 hate speech on the internet should be an accepted value by all who choose to use it, and all who choose to present to others.

Children under the age of 18 should not be allowed to create a social networking account.

The only negative effect of children under the age of 18 having access to social networking accounts that I can comprise would be the idea that pedophiles may have an easier time pursuing children using such sites. However, if there were some way to verify each and every applicants age prior to accessing the social network, combined with limiting the age to 18 or so, I see no problem in allowing children the ability to use a facebook or myspace account. Considering that those sites are done in good taste for young adults and the like, I see no reason why the same can’t be done for children.

Businesses/companies should not access potential employees' blogs and/or social networking page.

This principle I must disagree with. Because the internet must stay a public place to further improve its globalization, employers having access to their employees’ blogs and social networking places is an unavoidable situation. If a user doesn’t want their employer to know their opinions on subject matter they choose to explain on their public blog, then they should not state them on their public blog. Should an employer find something they deem unacceptable by their employees on a networking site, they should have every right to act on the situation in any way that they choose, thus preserving the reputation of the company.

Privacy settings, company regulations and other information regarding email ought to be simple and easily accessible for users.

This principle I feel is a given. Of course important information regarding email should be easily accessible. If it weren’t, then enforcing such rules and regulations would become more difficult. Informing employees of what is and what is not acceptable is the first step in providing the freedom of email. Containing what users are able to do is simply sensible. A structure must be created that is simple to ensure that no wrongdoing occurs. Making the information easily accessible just creates fewer problems down the road for the governing body.

Sites that allow users to find the location of others without their consent should be eliminated.

I firmly agree with this principle. Mass gathering of information without the consent of the user is un-ethical and immoral. The knowledge of the person that is gained through this tactic, whether it is phone numbers or addresses etc., violates an un-written privacy agreement between business and customer that companies should look to as a serious negative. Individuals who gain knowledge of such private information most of the time will have bad intent, and if the information is needed to catch up with an old friend for instance, the numbers may be found through other means.

All forum and chat room-based websites must require users to provide valid registration information.

Ensuring that these websites require valid registration information simply creates a security umbrella that users can trust. This could potentially eliminate any falsification that may be caused by using incorrect information. If a user uses false information when they sign up to use one of the websites, then there can be no consequences for their actions regarding what they say on the website, creating a form for free reign and the potential for a lot of harm to be caused.

The Internet should encourage responsible government participation.

Responsible government participation in my eyes means having government involvement with the internet as limited as possible. The internet should never become a government controlled entity. Responsible government participation can be construed to mean that if a censoring formula were to take place then the enforcement of it may be government controlled. If this principle is also designed to include responsible government participation regarding candidates and their use of the internet to reach more citizens, then I fully encourage that.

The Internet should not be owned or controlled by any one person or organization.

Should one organization be in control of the internet at any point in its existence, it would provide that group the ability to manipulate it to their liking, a conclusion that must never be reached. Such is a socialist thought. The idea of giving any organization the power to control the vast reaching tool the internet has become, and manipulate those who use it however they see fit is a communist idea. The fall of the Soviet Union is reason enough to not allow that sort of control to occur.

Society should not become one with the computer.

I think this principle is attempting to state that human interaction must not dissipate with the increase in computing abilities. If we as a society were to rarely speak to each other because of the idea that computers could control our every need would mean that we as a people would eventually become more like the machines that are telling us what to do. I would never like to see that happen. However, since computations are much more cost effective than paying a human to perform a duty, perhaps the decrease in human relationships is inevitable.