Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In 2020 and 2023, the United States Government tried to ban social media app TikTok. The DATA Act would have banned the selling of non-public personal data to third party buyers. [75] The RESTRICT Act would allow the United States Secretary of State to review any attempt of a tech company to "sabotage" the United States.
The Internet should be governed in some form to protect the community from harm. 10,789 82% somewhat or strongly agree, 15% somewhat or strongly disagree, 3% don't know / not applicable Censorship should exist in some form on the Internet. 10,789 71% somewhat or strongly agree, 24% somewhat or strongly disagree, 5% don't know / not applicable
Cuba has the lowest ratio of computers per inhabitant in Latin America, and the lowest internet access ratio of all the Western hemisphere. [17] Citizens have to use government controlled "access points", where their activity is monitored through IP blocking, keyword filtering and browsing history checking.
Nikki Haley on Wednesday partially walked back her proposed requirement that social media companies ban people from posting anonymously online for national security reasons, a stance for which she ...
The TikTok users said they will lose the most powerful mechanism available to make their voices heard unless the high court blocks a federal law requiring TikTok break its ties with the Chinese ...
Project 2025’s more than 900-page policy memo declares that “pornography should be outlawed,” argues that “the people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned” and says ...
Internet tools: e-mail, Internet hosting, search, translation, and Voice-over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services, and censorship or filtering circumvention methods. Due to legal concerns the ONI does not check for filtering of child pornography and because their classifications focus on technical filtering, they do not include other types of ...
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, unanimously ruling that anti-indecency provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. [1]