NET NEUTRALITY ALERT! This site and many others are in immediate danger

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

If you're really opposed to having your political views challenged, then just hang out on Breitbart while it's still free.  That's a consistent conservative news source that caters to a specific political climate.  Or try r/TD.

That's not at all what I said 

 

You're strawmanning

 

I'm opposed to having it forced on me, which is what most of the internet monopolies do

[Draconus297]

Hell is this? Again?

 

How many times do we need to tell these people "no" before it gets through their thick skulls? I cannot, will not stand for this nonsense.

 

Thanks for the heads up, ABC. Yes, the current law is flawed, but letting service providers make sweeping blocks on sites they don't like isn't gonna fix anything. Google doing similar is mostly just part of their optimization algorithm (which prioritizes sponsored content), but allowing the providers themselves to do it will just make meeting with people of certain viewpoints unnecessarily difficult.

 

Think of it this way, White: You say that you're already being censored, and honestly I have no reason not to believe you. However, if the service providers are allowed to restrict bandwidth, they can effectively silence you and people like you on the 'net if they so wished. It's the same kind of people, given more power.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Hell is this? Again?

 

How many times do we need to tell these people "no" before it gets through their thick skulls? I cannot, will not stand for this nonsense.

 

Thanks for the heads up, ABC. Yes, the current law is flawed, but letting service providers make sweeping blocks on sites they don't like isn't gonna fix anything. Google doing similar is mostly just part of their optimization algorithm (which prioritizes sponsored content), but allowing the providers themselves to do it will just make meeting with people of certain viewpoints unnecessarily difficult.

 

Think of it this way, White: You say that you're already being censored, and honestly I have no reason not to believe you. However, if the service providers are allowed to restrict bandwidth, they can effectively silence you and people like you on the 'net if they so wished. It's the same kind of people, given more power.

You need to go cold turkey before anyone will fix anything. If more people start living what I do, maybe we'll get a push to re-nationalize the internet

 

I'd rather the gov enforce 1A rights all over the internet and the concept of sites being private property being thrown out. NN doesn't go far enough. It stops ISP from robbing us of 1A, but ignores that fact that many sites are as big as ISPs (google, fb, etc) and those are allowed to discriminate for any reason they want

 

It really can't get worse for people like me. We're already kinda pushed up against the wall with various wrong think rules. Removing that mock freedom for the start of revolution is a worthy cause to give up what little rights I have

[Dad]

You need to go cold turkey before anyone will fix anything. If more people start living what I do, maybe we'll get a push to re-nationalize the internet

 

I'd rather the gov enforce 1A rights all over the internet and the concept of sites being private property being thrown out. NN doesn't go far enough. It stops ISP from robbing us of 1A, but ignores that fact that many sites are as big as ISPs (google, fb, etc) and those are allowed to discriminate for any reason they want

 

It really can't get worse for people like me. We're already kinda pushed up against the wall with various wrong think rules. Removing that mock freedom for the start of revolution is a worthy cause to give up what little rights I have

 

Why do you keep bringing up this "poor me" thing?  Are you incapable of currently choosing what search engine or social media platform you use?  I didn't realize you were so backed into a corner that you couldn't do that.  If that's true like you say it is, then maybe you should try searching the currently free world-wide-web for other search engines, social media platforms, and news outlets.  I'm sure there are many of them out there for you to use that won't tread on you.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Why do you keep bringing up this "poor me" thing?  Are you incapable of currently choosing what search engine or social media platform you use?  I didn't realize you were so backed into a corner that you couldn't do that.  If that's true like you say it is, then maybe you should try searching the currently free world-wide-web for other search engines, social media platforms, and news outlets.  I'm sure there are many of them out there for you to use that won't tread on you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinked_demand

 

Basically 

 

1 big firm and a bunch of tiny ones that can't compete with it on their own

 

Take Youtube for example: http://thehill.com/policy/technology/353213-right-fumes-after-youtube-ad-crackdown

 

So what kinda replacement should I go to?

 

It's not a poor me thing if it's YCM, but if it's facebook, or other giants with billions of users, you basically can't go "elsewhere"

 

Major reason I oppose NN is cause people like you don't get this simple fact and act like everything is A-OK

[Dad]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinked_demand

 

Basically 

 

1 big firm and a bunch of tiny ones that can't compete with it on their own

 

Take Youtube for example: http://thehill.com/policy/technology/353213-right-fumes-after-youtube-ad-crackdown

 

So what kinda replacement should I go to?

 

It's not a poor me thing if it's YCM, but if it's facebook, or other giants with billions of users, you basically can't go "elsewhere"

 

Major reason I oppose NN is cause people like you don't get this simple fact and act like everything is A-OK

 

And you think removing NN will suddenly fix that?

 

Waitwaitwait.  You think giving the net over to big monopolies will replace. . . big monopolies?  

 

And if you mean to tell me Facebook doesn't have tons of conservative news being shared on it regularly, you're a God damn liar.  

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You need to go cold turkey before anyone will fix anything. If more people start living what I do, maybe we'll get a push to re-nationalize the internet

 

I'd rather the gov enforce 1A rights all over the internet and the concept of sites being private property being thrown out. NN doesn't go far enough. It stops ISP from robbing us of 1A, but ignores that fact that many sites are as big as ISPs (google, fb, etc) and those are allowed to discriminate for any reason they want

 

It really can't get worse for people like me. We're already kinda pushed up against the wall with various wrong think rules. Removing that mock freedom for the start of revolution is a worthy cause to give up what little rights I have

I'm convinced you haven't read anything of what I've said now Dad

And you think removing NN will suddenly fix that?

 

Waitwaitwait.  You think giving the net over to big monopolies will replace. . . big monopolies?  

 

And if you mean to tell me Facebook doesn't have tons of conservative news being shared on it regularly, you're a God damn liar.  

Right now big monopolies mainly funk half the country, and reward the other half. Once that dynamic changes, both sides might realize that corporate control is BS 

[Dad]

I'm convinced you just want an echo chamber.

 

NN needs to be taken further, not stripped down completely to "prove a point".  You want everyone to "suffer" because "cold turkey will fix everything".  That's a load of horseshit.  Cold turkey can't even stop smokers, let alone fix a bunch of big ass monopolies controlling the internet.  But since that sheet is already gonna happen, there's gonna be riots on the hands of every representative.  I'm so sorry that not everyone thinks like you so we should just be rid of Net Neutrality so Winter can say I told you so.

 

funk outta here.

[VCR_CAT]

...You guys know what Freedom of Speech actually is, right?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

...You guys know what Freedom of Speech actually is, right?

And if YOU had read what I said, you'd note that I said the internet and all sites on it should be considered public property that can be rented out

 

But feel free to reach for that strawman

[Dad]

I'm going to move this thread and shove it into debates since that's where it shoulda been the first time.  After that I won't be participating.

[Draconus297]

The problem with that kind of logic is that it's the exact same monopolies who'd be given that kind of power, so really . . . only the people already feeling the squeeze would get snuffed out.

 

This isn't a bad idea just because "people who agree with me are gonna be silenced, poor me", it's a bad idea because viewpoints without a profitable edge would effectively be removed from the Internet, because no one would be able to access them.

 

This isn't even "going cold turkey", this is what amounts to shoving more drugs in your system in the misguided belief that that would cure you. Please, White, this isn't a political thing, this is "don't stamp out viewpoints".

[VCR_CAT]

And if YOU had read what I said, you'd note that I said the internet and all sites on it should be considered public property that can be rented out

 

But feel free to reach for that strawman

 

It's not straw manning when you're already acting like the current state of affairs is a violation of 1A.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It's not straw manning when you're already acting like the current state of affairs is a violation of 1A.

No I'm not, I'm saying that the internet SHOULD be public forum, in which case the current state would be a violation of 1A. If you say NN is protecting 1A as I do, then that would logically also put fault on the current quo as violating 1A

 

Edit: This is in debates, I will no longer post in this thread

[Sunshine Jesse]

I agree with Winter about the idea that the internet should be nationalized and 1A (as well as a lot of other things) should be applied to it, wholesale. I disagree with some of his reasons for coming to that conclusion (the idea that conservative views as a whole are censored is actually retarded) but corporate tyranny is most definitely a thing on the internet in a lot of ways that people don't even notice. The internet is one of the many things that a profit incentive has done nothing but negatively impact, and the "innovations" that free-market drones go on about in the context of just about every industry have done nothing but make your browsing experience less enjoyable.

 

I don't think that removing NN would lead to that happening, though. If anything, it'd be the opposite. Things with widespread approval are rarely actually passed in a timely manner, and things with widespread disapproval are. The government is bought by corporations and nothing that doesn't inspire borderline revolutionary outrage actually truly inspires the people to take action beyond checking a yes/no box on a survey. Anything that steps on the toes of corporations is spun into some awful, freedom-annihilating thing by Republicans and corporate Democrats and uneducated people eat that sheet up. The internet, as important as it is to our lives, will still remain functional after NN is done away with. It'll be worse, but it'll still work, and that's more than enough.

 

NN needs to stay because removing it will not actually make things bad enough for enough people to spur change.

[VCR_CAT]

I agree with Winter about the idea that the internet should be nationalized and 1A (as well as a lot of other things) should be applied to it, wholesale.

 

How, though? The internet isn't one thing, it's a medium for which things can be posted. If anything, you can make a website for whatever content you wish, there's reddits, there's a lot of stuff, there are so many avenues to explore free speech. Winter isn't arguing for "THE INTERNET" to be made for 1A, it's just a demand for popular/mainstream social media sites to not be allowed to dill out punishments for what a person says or does with its platform.

 

Which is, frankly, stupid? The internet, as a whole, IS public space for people to make what they want on it, and what people make on it becomes their private space, and some sites will be bigger than others. There's nothing stopping people from making what they want on the internet (bar the breaking of laws), and ESPECIALLY with popular sites such as Youtube and so on there needs to be content enforcement and a degree of censorship because it's a website a lot of children use freely, and there's already a pretty big problem with people taking advantage of the search algorithms so they can make disturbing or inappropriate content come up first for common searches that children will do. Something like that doesn't need to be made worse.

 

Think about it, why in the world does the statement of "Man I really wish the government directly intervened with what commercial or personal websites can or cannot do outside of issues of legality" instill any amount of confidence? Just sounds like one step closer to a dystopian future to me.

 

Oh, and not to mention, how the hell is this going to be enforced? The internet's a global platform, what about sites and services not based in the USA? Do they fall under the law? Is there going to need to be restrictions placed on what websites a North American can or cannot visit? Where is the line drawn, how does this work?! 

 

Neither the current state of the internet is a violation of 1A, nor would the elimination of Net Neutrality actually do anything, because...

 

 

That doesn't do anything. The Free Speech flag, honestly, just feels like something blown out of proportion because it's not the primary issue with the elimination of Net Neutrality. Actually, the elimination of Net Neutrality is a complete opposite step in this silly ideal that all sites on the Internet become public space (which makes less sense the more you think of it, why is the Internet suddenly so much more different as a medium than the Radio or Television? Do all channels on that need to be public space for anyone to do whatever?). The elimination of Net Neutrality actually puts more control in the hands of private corporations in terms of the state of affairs on the internet, which if Free Speech is your concern, is bad no matter which side of the political spectrum you're on. It doesn't mean that it's a free platform for anyone to say whatever they want, it means there's a strong possibility that companies pick and choose what they want to see accessed on the internet and they cater their packages accordingly. Getting into a deal with an ISP doesn't mean you suddenly get access to all aspects of the internet, it just means you get access to what the companies want you to get access to.

 

But, as I said before, Free Speech isn't even the primary issue with Net Neutrality because that's all a big what-if scenario, it depends entirely on what the companies do with it (and seriously nobody should be putting more trust in those companies than they can throw them) and there's no guarantee of it happening to that degree. What DOES happen, and what DOES affect a lot of people, is that it means the companies get an excuse to charge people an arbitrary amount of extra money just to access the internet and use like they used to, and it means that anyone who wants to make their livelihood off of the internet suddenly has to pay extra to get the bandwidth and traffic support they need.

 

This is bad for EVERYONE except the Cable Companies. It means the consumer that uses it to a decent degree has to pay more for no good reason, and it means that it's harder for people to make a living off what they do. Streamers and Youtube Entertainers, for example, who would need good, fast internet to either stream or upload the content they want at regular intervals, have to pay more just to do what they do; it's an added expense for no good reason. A very small percentage of those actually make a very good amount of money where this wouldn't matter, and for the many that this would, it just adds a big strain on what would be their job, or they would need to stop doing it entirely. Basically, it begins to hurt jobs, and that's just the independent entertainers/content creators; there are many other sorts of work and businesses online (comics, storefronts, crafts, services, etc.) that are hurt or affected by this.

 

And there's seriously no good reason for it. It's a move that just feeds to corporate greed and monopolies and hurts everyone but the big corporate fat-cats. NN absolutely needs to stay.

 

 

If you do want the internet to practically be a public space, you should be supporting Net Neutrality, because that's what it's doing. Eliminating it is basically doing the complete opposite of what you want.

[SkaterTheDJWolf]

Wait a minute.

 

WHAT SORT OF UTTER NONSENSE IS THIS?

 

This is paying for no good reason. If corporates do stuff, thne the Internet is screwed over. Corporates buy out everything and steal freedom for money. Why exactly should we give them MORE incentive to do so?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You can rent a public park (sites on the internet) but you cannot silence protests ("wrong think" views)

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

You can rent a public park (sites on the internet) but you cannot silence protests ("wrong think" views)

Yeah and you have to reserve it several months in advance to rent it for a temporary amount of time. This from what I gather would be paying a toll to enter a public park.

And you sure as hell can silence protests I think we've proven that quite well.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Yeah and you have to reserve it several months in advance to rent it for a temporary amount of time. This from what I gather would be paying a toll to enter a public park.

And you sure as hell can silence protests I think we've proven that quite well.

You can, but the government is legally obligated to protect them there

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal)

[Phantom Roxas]

You can rent a public park (sites on the internet) but you cannot silence protests ("wrong think" views)

 

Those are both false equivalences.

 

You wouldn't be able to access sites on the Internet without paying a fee to ISP's, so Cow's analogy of paying a toll to access a public park is fairly accurate. Or to keep with it, the worst case scenario is that the sites on the Internet can be considered part of a service package, like buying cable so you can watch certain channels on TV.

 

Expressing views that people find offensive is not on the same level of silencing protesters. Whenever you post on here, this forum is effectively "owned" by an individual, and while that individual is scarcely here, he has allowed the moderation team to uphold a certain code of conduct here. It's closer to being a student on a school campus.

 

https://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2009/09/free-speech-in-online-communities-the-delusion-of-entitlement/

 

This article may be a worthwhile read, but in short, being online does not entitle you to the unlimited free speech that you desire, nor are certain websites necessarily obligated to. I imagine that people don't particularly to read the Terms of Service, but said Terms of Service - which you are usually required to accept when you join a website - actually do lay out that code of conduct.

 

As Steve Pavlina explains in the above article, "While it may seem that you’re entitled to free speech just the same as you would in a public forum, in actuality you waived that right when you joined the service. That was a condition of your registration."

 

Being on this site, or any other form of social media, is different from walking up to someone on the stream and hurling insults at them. You are expected to follow a certain standard, and you agreed to it. If you want to use legal analogies, this is like signing a contract when you're sitting face to face with someone, and then you complain to that person when you feel that a situation has wronged you, despite that contract explicitly informing about very situation. You may not have bothered to read it, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there.

 

If you are told that certain views are objectionable, that is not infringing on your freedom of speech, nor is anyone trying to silence your protest. They're just upholding the standards that you yourself legally agreed to.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm aware of that Roxas...but you cannot make a TOS (afaik) that will, for example, put someone into slavery...you cannot waive away your 13A rights, I don't see why you should legally be able to waive away your 1A rights. Likewise I don't think NDAs with exceptions for National Security should be Legal. SCOTUS just hasn't been probed on these little intricacies yet. 

 

I'm saying that "owning" a part of the internet is a problem. You can use it for a period of time from the Gov if you agree to certain criteria 

 

But digging a little more into my first point, your blog dutifully notes that the legal complication with the "catch all phrase" may be more complicated than he is aware of. On this I concur. 

 

The internet has become much like a modern day newspaper. "Free Speech" is regularly published on it. I don't see why it should be treated a public-private hybrid at that point

 

NN hinges on this idea

 

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/why-government-cant-be-allowed-make-you-pay-free-speech

 

That you cannot be made to pay for free speech, which ISPs can make you do. But that doesn't explain why our due diligence to the first amendment should end there. If the internet is indeed a vehicle of speech, drawing artificial bounders where it stops doesn't make a ton of sense beyond an agenda. 

 

The only way you'd be right is if freedom of the press meant printing press and nothing else

 

---

 

"Expressing views that people find offensive is not on the same level of silencing protesters"

 

It Kinda is:

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf

 

9-0 Hate Speech is Free Speech (2017)

[mido9]

What DOES happen, and what DOES affect a lot of people, is that it means the companies get an excuse to charge people an arbitrary amount of extra money just to access the internet and use like they used to, and it means that anyone who wants to make their livelihood off of the internet suddenly has to pay extra to get the bandwidth and traffic support they need.

 

This is bad for EVERYONE except the Cable Companies. It means the consumer that uses it to a decent degree has to pay more for no good reason, and it means that it's harder for people to make a living off what they do. Streamers and Youtube Entertainers, for example, who would need good, fast internet to either stream or upload the content they want at regular intervals, have to pay more just to do what they do; it's an added expense for no good reason. A very small percentage of those actually make a very good amount of money where this wouldn't matter, and for the many that this would, it just adds a big strain on what would be their job, or they would need to stop doing it entirely. Basically, it begins to hurt jobs, and that's just the independent entertainers/content creators; there are many other sorts of work and businesses online (comics, storefronts, crafts, services, etc.) that are hurt or affected by this.

 

And there's seriously no good reason for it. It's a move that just feeds to corporate greed and monopolies and hurts everyone but the big corporate fat-cats. NN absolutely needs to stay.

I don't agree with this, they can't raise the prices more than they can currently are right now for the same packages or else they would've raised them currently, there's still a basic requirement of quality/speed/cost, so they can only shuffle around the costs. Also, yes it would be more expensive to run youtube just because some people will opt out of it/get smaller packages, but low internet users like some random grandma who only uses facebook and google get to save like 90% of their bill just because they aren't paying for the infrastructure to run Youtube which is a big benefit to those people, and the money gets used to buy other things(maybe even the same services) so it doesn't hurt jobs.

 

All that's going to happen is that grandma doesn't subsidize big internet companies and users, generally.

[ABC Gun]

What did I do, what madness and chaos have I unleashed!? I just wanted to let people know about what the FCC was doing and how to contact them not actually hold a debate about it.