America's Youth vs. Big Government

Not exactly breaking news, but WorldNetDaily (wnd.com) reported this past spring that a 15 year old Xbox Live gamer logged online only to find a message from Microsoft demanding that he change his controversial gamertag, “mpeach obama21.”

When contacted, a Microsoft rep pointed to this clause in their terms of service, which was supposedly violated:

Don’t create a gamertag, profile content, or in-game content that references controversial religious topics, notorious people, organizations, or sensitive current or historical events that may also be considered inappropriate.

“This name is actually, it’s not likeable,” a Microsoft Xbox LIVE spokesman identifying himself as Jordan said. “If you were Obama, what would you feel if you saw this?”

Boo-freaking-hoo.  One can’t help but see this newest example of censorship as political bias.  Take this portion of their terms of service, for example:

Don’t create a gamertag, profile content, or in-game content that other users may be offended by, this includes comments that look, sound like, stand for, hint at, abbreviate, or insinuate any of the following: profane words/phrases, topics or content of a sexual nature, hate speech (including but not limited to racial, ethnic, or religious slurs), illegal drugs / controlled substances, or illegal activities.

There are countless gamertags, which violate this vulgarity policy, that are allowed to be used with seemingly no peep from Microsoft; ghetto_diarhea, azzwort, Floppydonkeydic, FuhQMsft, urmotherslover, sweaty pubes, URGranniesPantys, ilovedix, and probably the most offensive, JesusIsMyCumRag. (all are actual gamertags)

How Microsoft can offer a statement sticking up for the anti-Obama gamertag ban while the tags listed above are allowed to be used certainly raises some eyebrows.  Surely, we are all for freedom of speech, but we do understand that a privately run company can censor their customers as they see fit. When this censorship, however, seems unfairly balanced, it is only right that companies like Microsoft receive criticism.

Microsoft is no stranger to this world of double standard censorship, as Bill Gates recently said that China’s web censorship is fine with him.  In our book, America’s Youth vs. Big Government, we cover the dangers of internet censorship and Net Neutrality in detail; highlighting the chilling effect both can have on our First Amendment freedom of speech.

In keeping with their Xbox Live censorship policy, Microsoft is in full support of greater restrictions for people who utilize the internet.  Taken from our book:

Craig Mundie, chief research and strategy officer for Microsoft, agrees that there is a growing necessity for policing of the internet.  To prevent fraud, espionage, and viruses, Mundie claims that “we need a kind of World Health Organization for the Internet.”  Let us not forget how efficient the WHO was in declaring swine flu a “pandemic,” despite the fact that fewer people died from swine flu than from the common flu.²⁸

To even suggest that the government or an international internet control group could prevent viruses and scammers is ludicrous; not even multi-million dollar companies whose sole focus is security can stop all frauds and hackers.  What is needed is more education on how to use the internet properly, not removal of our speech and consciousness.  Telling people that the government has them protected will most likely lead to false security and even worse fraud.  Feeling protected by the government would result in more reckless usage of identification sensitive information (social security numbers) as well as negation of updating or even using anti-virus software.

Sadly, Microsoft’s position on internet regulation gets even more radical:

Mundie also believes that internet users should be issued a “driver’s license” to use the internet.  “If you want to drive a car you have to have a license to say that you are capable of driving a car, the car has to pass a test to say it is fit to drive and you have to have insurance.” ³⁰

Mundie must not clearly understand the implications of what he is saying.  People use the internet to disseminate information, which use is a fundamental liberty guaranteed in a free society, while driving a car is a traveling privilege granted to those who have proven that they can capably operate a 3500 pound piece of steel at speeds up to 70 miles per  hour.  Limiting access to the internet does not make us any safer; in fact, it only erodes truth from the fabric of society.

It is no wonder why we see the largest technology companies in the world, such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, and Yahoo, all unanimously support internet restriction policies such as Net Neutrality and internet control groups because Big Tech stands to directly benefit financially when government steps in.  New regulations only serve to set up barriers preventing smaller competition from entering the marketplace, safeguarding those few companies big enough to financially support the new restrictions (staffs of lawyers, lobbyists, administrators) under government created monopolies.

Young people of today need to be wary of these Big Tech companies that we hold in such high regard.  They may provide us with entertainment, but we should not let their intentions to restrict speech and internet usage go unnoticed.  They will spin their efforts as better for the consumer; that Net Neutrality and internet “drivers” licenses will only make the internet safer and more available.  You know, however, that there is always an ulterior motive when Big Business goes to bed with Big Government.  Profits and control.