Online prisons with sentences to program versus free download of information.

"First of all is there no argument in statement?" If there was, the rest didn't follow through. "The scare of modernist net is a mainstream understanding of aquired information. Many scientists today assume internet will be very personal in a while." 'Many Scientists' indicates nothing of worth - and still goes nowhere to explaining what a personal internet is. "Personal threads linking to relevant information." About what? Themselves? These already exist in the form of Myspace etc. "However the issue in this case is weather someone attends information to control its relevancy?" How can one control its relevancy, relevancy being a property of those seeking, acquiring the information - with relatedness only at an individual level? "I've heard of China and other nations filtering and adjusting information to better serve the interest of society." Society in that regards doesn't exist - being composed of individuals. Sounds like you are talking about censorship in any event - 'adjusting' is another word for lying in this context. Arguments against the morality of the Chinese government are many; they also own the big guns. "Currently our nation ratified a law concerning the internet where they claim rights to confiscate domains sharing illicit information. My question then is where do deleted files go? In a part of a democratic environment we shouldn't loose our modest ways regarding information treasureable? The law might be an attempt to further value information." This doesn't even begin to make sense. Illicit in what regards? Child pornography? Music? As for the content- seizure of the domain names will result in the content being removed - the perceived seriousness of the infringement can lead to the seizure of hardware, the data of which is removed. Police usually sell seized goods later at auction - reselling illegal content would be counter to the purpose of the initial seizure. Since we know such sales exist, we can reasonably infer competent data wipes are performed prior to sale. "I would say commercialist acclaimed internet is less considerate in relevancy and sincerity of information; in other words: How much of internet contains reliable and trusted information?" Information by itself cannot be self checking, self assured of veracity. That is the role of those who consume the information. "I consider certain market interests using political means in an internet flooded by commercial brokers and bankers attempt to consider it some sort of land-ownery." People buy domain names? Yes they do. Some try/tried to make a business out of it by reselling them later. "Further on. As no information may be considered trusted if not carrying weight of either reliability in source or personal knowledge internet provides little or no such statement and is certainly not meant to be bound by national, local or otherwise administered borders." No information can by itself. Those that receive the information had best use the mental facilities available to them in ascertaining its truth value. It's not a unique problem to the internet, it exists in all mediums where statements are made. "And it needs to be regulated in an attempt to better serve market interests." Contradiction. Regulation is not in any market interest unless you are in the market for dictatorships. In any event regulating 'truth' content is absurdly unwieldy, especially the medium we are talking about. Which is why China restricts *access* to other sources of information. "Should we make this frontier an harbor for criminals spreading false and vicious information or a privilege for an elite journalist fraction maintaining no political opinions?" False Dichotomy. There is clearly a willing market for falsity; seen in any number of places purporting to tell the truth with high readership, hosting contradicting evidence to other statements with high readership. Not to mention those who enjoy falsity for the amusement of its absurdity value - publications of big foot, UFO babies etc., are the classic type of this information which also includes those who see truth in such absurdities; such as the Pope having a black magic practicing boyfriend. In any event, it is the role of those consuming the information to rationalise its claims of truth - a prerequisite anyway if you wanted to enforce it - an unnecessary hand holding. If the information is fraudulent, and used to commit fraud, that's different and laws already exist to that effect. "My conclusion as follows: Some sort of state appointed governors of information may not succeed in an attempt to confine folk for making speeches or potentially dangerous speculative information an interest of the public good alone. Consider merging law into what is acceptable to say in any communicative domain? Law should not be the proprietor of information." There is no such thing as 'public good,' there is good for individuals. The law is there to protect rights of its citizens. If information is used as fraud, then law has a purpose in the control of content. However it is up to each individual consumer of information to ascertain any truth from statements accessed across the internet. Your profile indicates you are from Norway, I have no reason to suspect you are not; indeed your grammar indicates non-English native, I don't however take it as fact that you are Norwegian.