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

[SkaterTheDJWolf]

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.

Winter got on here.

 

That’s what happened.

 

Conservatives and liberals meeting in the General section does result in Chaos.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Winter got on here.

 

That’s what happened.

 

Conservatives and liberals meeting in the General section does result in Chaos.

True, but the person agreeing with me, Jesse, is a self identifying communist. It's not a typical right/left divide

[SkaterTheDJWolf]

Opposing viewpoints = conflict. It’s not exactly a right and left split, however, two viewpoints that are different lead to discussion.

 

ON another note, does it really matter? If NN stays, we are safe. If NN is done away with, people will realize that they can live without Internet and stop using it, meaning big ISP’s will be begging to restore NN, so we are safe. #morton’sfork

[Phantom Roxas]

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)

 

Again, you're using false equivalences, and acting as if all Amendments just work the same way. The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law, while the Thirteenth Amendment says that slavery shall not exist. The former is actually fairly limited in its phrasing, while the latter is very broad. You're right that you cannot waive your right to be put into slavery, but that does not mean that online sites cannot restrict behavior. Why even have a report button on this site, or moderators who are meant to mitigate harassment, if you believe that freedom of speech should be expanded to the Internet?

 

You seem to be conflating ISPs making you pay to access websites with your ability to say whatever you like without restraint. No need for you to create some boogeyman with an "agenda", but I guess "Hey, maybe don't be rude" is some nefarious liberal agenda.

 

Here's a Notre Dame Law review that covers online terms of service. http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1719&context=ndlr

 

For example, concerning hate speech, Facebook provides that “[w]hile we encourage you to challenge ideas, institutions, events and practices, we do not permit individuals or groups to attack others based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or medical condition.” “Attack” is not defined, so this could turn out to be a broad discretionary reservation. The user would have to argue that the removed content could not reasonably be interpreted as constituting one of these categories. This argument is unlikely to be successful given the fairly broad reservation of removal power and the robust deference to freedom of contract most courts have displayed.

This section in particular is an interesting distinction. You can certainly form a protest, but what if you're just attacking someone? How is that a form of protest? What is the benefit that you hope for with your hate speech?

 

It demonstrates a concerning amount stubbornness if someone is more concerned about their freedom of speech supposedly being violated, but refuse to take any stops to acknowledge how or why their speech could have offended, particular if such freedom of speech is calling for someone else to be stripped of their rights. Instead of complaining about how you're not allowed to be offensive, maybe ask yourself why you're being offensive in the first place?

 

CNN also further elaborates on online forums. http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/27/politics/first-amendment-explainer-trnd/index.html

 

It's a private company, so it's not a First Amendment issue.

 

There's that refrain again: Private companies, like social media sites, can do whatever they want.

 

But regulating conversations and posts online is a delicate balance for social media giants like Facebook.

 

While such sites retain the right to remove content they don't like, they are also protected by the Communications Decency Act, Section 230.

 

"That says, if you are an internet company and you have some way for people to post or leave comments, you are not liable for what they do," Nott says. This covers things like obscenity, violence and threats.

 

The problem is, this protection often butts up against the enforcement of basic community standards.

 

"Facebook is under enormous pressure to take down, not just violent and illegal content, but fake news," Nott says. "And the more it starts to play editor for its own site, the more likely it is to lose that Section 230 protection."

It's not as simple as "Hate Speech = Free Speech"

 

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.

 

Considering how we are holding a debate, I would have thought that things would be less chaotic. After all:

 

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

[Bellringer Angel]

my opinion on this debate is that having no NN will increase internet cost so we should keep NN alive because me and some other people are poor as funk

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

Epic Ajit Pai smackdown on Silicon Valley hypocrisy

 

"This conduct is many things, but it isn't fighting for an open Internet."

 

Point. Game. Set. Match.

[ABC Gun]

 

Epic Ajit Pai smackdown on Silicon Valley hypocrisy

 

"This conduct is many things, but it isn't fighting for an open Internet."

 

Point. Game. Set. Match.

 

True, but I don't want ISPs to do the same or worse, start selling "internet bundles" like they do in Venezuela.

[mido9]

True, but I don't want ISPs to do the same or worse, start selling "internet bundles" like they do in Venezuela.

Why wouldn't you want it, why would you want to pay for websites you don't visit?

[ÆƵ–]

Why wouldn't you want it, why would you want to pay for websites you don't visit?

Because if I ever do need to visit a site not on the package, then I don't have to shell out for it. That's my way of looking at it. 

 

my opinion on this debate is that having no NN will increase internet cost so we should keep NN alive because me and some other people are poor as funk

Hoping on the back of this, the internet is the most common way to find a job nowadays. If ISPs start charging for site bundles, then it'd just stop the poorest people from getting jobs. No access to jobsites = no jobs. Not a good plan

[VCR_CAT]

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.

 

It doesn't really matter whether you agree with it or not when this was essentially already happening before Net Neutrality was put in place. ISPs have a long, dark history of arbitrarily throttling websites and services unless they paid through the nose. ISPs have also historically directly blocked the services of other companies because they competed with their own. ISPs have done this and more without the strictness of Net Neutrality to keep them in place, and even Verizon has come out and directly said that the only thing keeping them from favoring some content providers over others is... Net Neutrality itself. You can talk about how much infrastructure is needed to run those services, but if companies like Verizon are directly favoring certain providers over others, then it becomes next to impossible for any start-up companies or smaller business to actually compete or do anything, while those bigger services are still paying through the nose to keep their ISPs happy so they can maintain these positions. That's not good for anyone, because it's not a matter of "We need more money to run our equipment"; it's a matter of "We just simply want more money" while also killing competition and forcing customers to pay more for no good reason.

 

What you're talking about sounds fine and dandy, but that's just not how it's worked in the past, and that's definitely not how it would play out if it happened. The elevated costs and blockages for other companies and services don't have to do with costs for "Running the Tubes". The server infrastructure to run these services are owned and maintained by those companies themselves; Netflix will work with their own servers, Google will work with their own servers, etc. Not the ISPs.

 

And no, that's blind optimism that's speaking if you think all that's going to happen is that the people who hardly use the internet don't have to pay as much.

 

 

 

Why wouldn't you want it, why would you want to pay for websites you don't visit?

 

That's NOT AT ALL how it works. Have you signed up for, or paid for, a cable or internet service at all in the past? Even looked at how it works?

 

Because you don't "pay for websites". That's not how ANY of this works. You pay for data plans; how much data per period of time that you upload/download and what speeds you would like to go with it to suit your needs. You're not "Paying for Websites", you're paying to use the internet. When you gas up your car, you're not paying to use all those roads, you're paying to keep your car running for however long and far you need. That's how the system works NOW, and how fairly and well those companies price their services depends on the buyer's own wisdom in what service they choose.

 

But without Net Neutrality with a system where you're paying to use different websites and services, that changes a lot, because now, for no reason, you're not just paying gas. Now you're paying separate tolls to use different roads, and for someone like Grandma who only needs to go to a couple places that may be all fine and dandy, but for the much larger majority who uses the internet to a much greater degree for various personal and business uses, now they have to pay more to use the internet the same as they have before.

 

And no, this isn't being done "Because it costs to run the internet". I mean, it does? But do you honestly think ISPs and cable companies are even close to hurting for money? I mean, we're already paying to use the internet, they don't want Net Neutrality gone because they NEED to charge more, they want it gone because they WANT to charge more, to charge anyone arbitrary costs that wishes to make the internet a platform for their business, to charge anyone who wants to use the internet more money under the false pretense you've bought into that "Now it's cheaper!***". ***Yeah, maybe for the people that hardly use it. Good luck to everyone else.

 

 

I suggest you do more research into how any of this works, because in the case of no-net-neutrality, the only people that win are the ISPs and their fat pockets. Everyone else loses.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Everyone else already loses under mammoth sized site ruled by Silicon Valley

[VCR_CAT]

Everyone else already loses under mammoth sized site ruled by Silicon Valley

 

Except the argument that Net Neutrality kills SV competition were already debunked simply by evidence of how market and business in Silicon Valley has been conducted since Net Neutrality in place, and on top that Ajit Pai and the FCC have already been trying to feed news outlets false information about Net Neutrality to try and push some stupid propaganda.

 

Under Net Neutrality, there's equal opportunity. Take it away for the excuse of arbitrary costs fueled by corporate greed and everyone loses.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You literally did not address Pai's excellent pt about twitter

[VCR_CAT]

You literally did not address Pai's excellent pt about twitter

 

Because I wasn't talking to you before, but I am now.

 

It's hardly a point anything. Like, you don't need to walk very far in Twitter to find users that don't like how the company handles their service. He's really just preaching to a choir when he says "HEY GUYS, TWITTER SUCKS MIRITE?"

 

But the ultimate point he's making by saying that taking away an open internet will ultimate do anything about that is, just, stupid? I also can't help but feel that he's more or less saying the same pointless argument you tried to use before about "Net Neutrality Bad Because Nazi's Banned!" I said before and I'll say it again: freedom of speech is neither the driving reason nor the biggest concern regarding the removal of Net Neutrality. It's all about money, about companies that just want to throttle services and charge everyone more money.

 

It's also hardly anything close to being "An Excellent Point". Under any sort of model of internet that involves multiple companies, it's just plain silly to point at like, one website doing something wrong and act as if it speaks for such a swath of companies and services. Under an open internet, you have the freedom to go to other services or start your own if you so please if you don't like how another is doing it. He's not making any sort of good point or argument for what he's trying to do, he's just trying to appeal to a subset of Angery Conservatives by just saying whatever that's going to appeal to their presuppositions.

 

But please, tell me how Twitter banning conservatives is any sort of "Excellent Point" against what I'm talking about regarding throttled business and overcharged customers.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Lol, they cencored a congressman running for senate for having a pro-life ad

 

Your Nazi straw man is a joke. Internet is not free, never was

 

And you're free to get a new ISP or move :)

[VCR_CAT]

Lol, they cencored a congressman running for senate for having a pro-life ad

 

Your Nazi straw man is a joke. Internet is not free, never was

 

And you're free to get a new ISP or move :)

 

It honestly doesn't sound like you either really read what I was saying, or really know what you're talking about. If that's the case, it sounds like you're done here.

[Sunshine Jesse]

Ajit Pai's "point" wasn't even a point lmao
 
It's manipulative, Orwellian language. It implies that censorship from websites (which you can choose to browse and use) is even slightly equivalent to censorship from the internet providers themselves, which you can't choose in many cases. It was clearly designed to tap into a herd mentality and a victim complex.
 
I guess it's to be expected from a group of people who have shown time and time again that they lose the ability to recognize a greater evil when a lesser evil is placed before them.
 
It's w/e though. I'll still fight by your side when they come for your precious conservative "news" outlets because I'm not a petty, contrarian child.
 

And you're free to get a new ISP or move :)

how about you stop using points and arguments you know are complete bullshit for once

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Ajit Pai's "point" wasn't even a point lmao

 

It's manipulative, Orwellian language. It implies that censorship from websites (which you can choose to browse and use) is even slightly equivalent to censorship from the internet providers themselves, which you can't choose in many cases. It was clearly designed to tap into a herd mentality and a victim complex.

 

I guess it's to be expected from a group of people who have shown time and time again that they lose the ability to recognize a greater evil when a lesser evil is placed before them.

 

It's w/e though. I'll still fight by your side when they come for your precious conservative "news" outlets because I'm not a petty, contrarian child.

 

how about you stop using points and arguments you know are complete bullshit for once

It's about as stupid as VCR wanting me to move to a new twitter or facebook clone

 

It's not perfect competition, it's an oligopoly, alternatives can't easily enter the market

Because I wasn't talking to you before, but I am now.

 

It's hardly a point anything. Like, you don't need to walk very far in Twitter to find users that don't like how the company handles their service. He's really just preaching to a choir when he says "HEY GUYS, TWITTER SUCKS MIRITE?"

 

But the ultimate point he's making by saying that taking away an open internet will ultimate do anything about that is, just, stupid? I also can't help but feel that he's more or less saying the same pointless argument you tried to use before about "Net Neutrality Bad Because Nazi's Banned!" I said before and I'll say it again: freedom of speech is neither the driving reason nor the biggest concern regarding the removal of Net Neutrality. It's all about money, about companies that just want to throttle services and charge everyone more money.

 

It's also hardly anything close to being "An Excellent Point". Under any sort of model of internet that involves multiple companies, it's just plain silly to point at like, one website doing something wrong and act as if it speaks for such a swath of companies and services. Under an open internet, you have the freedom to go to other services or start your own if you so please if you don't like how another is doing it. He's not making any sort of good point or argument for what he's trying to do, he's just trying to appeal to a subset of Angery Conservatives by just saying whatever that's going to appeal to their presuppositions.

 

But please, tell me how Twitter banning conservatives is any sort of "Excellent Point" against what I'm talking about regarding throttled business and overcharged customers.

And by throttling, they stifle speech. It's not hard to understand VCR

[VCR_CAT]

It's about as stupid as VCR wanting me to move to a new twitter or facebook clone

 

It's not perfect competition, it's an oligopoly, alternatives can't easily enter the market

And by throttling, they stifle speech. It's not hard to understand VCR

 

 

Yes yes, you're not saying anything new. We've all heard this before. Anyways, since you insist on being a broken record I'll say it again.

 

Freedom of Speech is neither the driving force behind nor the primary concern of the removal of Net Neutrality.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Yes yes, you're not saying anything new. We've all heard this before. Anyways, since you insist on being a broken record I'll say it again.

 

Freedom of Speech is neither the driving force behind nor the primary concern of the removal of Net Neutrality.

That's not what reddit and a lot of people our age seem to think

 

Because again, you cannot separate throttling from deprivation of free speech

[VCR_CAT]

That's not what reddit and a lot of people our age seem to think

 

Irrelevant.

 

 

Because again, you cannot separate throttling from deprivation of free speech

 

Can you read? Did I say "Primary" or did I say "Only"? I'll say it again until you really understand what I'm actually saying here.

 

Freedom of Speech is neither the driving force behind nor the primary concern of the removal of Net Neutrality.

 

I can break this down for you if you really need me to explain what this means.

[Sunshine Jesse]

It's about as stupid as VCR wanting me to move to a new twitter or facebook clone

No the funk it's not. Moving to a new site is entirely free. It's literally one click away. It takes no effort to do so. It takes hundreds of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars to move to another location. The two aren't comparable at all.

 

 

It's not perfect competition, it's an oligopoly, alternatives can't easily enter the market

 

And by throttling, they stifle speech. It's not hard to understand VCR

 

deep inhale

 

You can argue "dems are the real racists" all you want but only one side has a large subsection of people that don't even bother to use coded language to mask their own racism. Only one side says- and a very small section of that side, I must emphasize- that Jews control the media and must be exterminated (shout-outs to shard), and all non-white races are inferior. These people OVERWHELMINGLY support a certain side, ideology, and candidate, to the extent that your favorite subreddit- a beacon of "free speech" (even though you and I both know that's bullshit)- explicitly has to censor them from being able to speak their mind in order to remain on the site.

 

Do you know what this means?

It means they'll throttle your sites.

They'll charge more for people to browse controversial sites because they don't want to imply they condone what's said on it.

You know how I know this?

 

Advertising companies funked up Youtube's revenue because a popular youtuber said "jabroni" on camera once or twice and they don't want to take the risk of associating with people who do that sort of thing.

Twitter removed checkmarks from people who "disagree with them" (aka blatant racists and anti-semites) because they don't want to imply that they agree with those beliefs or approve of them.

 

CORPORATIONS HAVE AN ENDLESS HISTORY OF TAKING CHEAP POTSHOTS AT CONTROVERSY TO PLACATE THE UNEDUCATED MASSES AND YOU ARE GIVING THEM ANOTHER EASY METHOD TO DO SO

THIS METHOD WILL BE VASTLY MORE EFFECTIVE, BURDENSOME, AND DIFFICULT TO OVERCOME THAN ANYTHING THAT YOUTUBE OR TWITTER CAN DO

 

 

You will be the first to go.

You will be the first to have your views censored even further, except instead of censoring what you say they'll kneecap your very ability to say them.

And the "best" part?

 

YOUR OUTRAGE WILL NOT INSPIRE CHANGE, BECAUSE OUR GOVERNMENT IS BOUGHT AND RAN BY THE VERY SAME CORPORATIONS WHO HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN CENSORING -YOU.-

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Name me a equal competitor for Twitter please

 

The point of a monopoly is they can keep business between a few firms and restrict rights at that point

 

Twitter is honestly a kinked demand Oligopoly, same with Fb, Reddit, etc

 

 

Everyone in the market follows the main player, in this case twitter. It's even more oppressive than monopolies cause rubes like you get to parrot "alternatives exist"...no they funking don't, they're puppets that have no control over anything

 

---

 

It can't get worse for people like me. I express my views in the ballot box. Talking online sets the hounds on you. Hard to get worse than being labeled a Nazi for being right of Bernie sanders

 

---

 

Our gov isn't run by them. You should see where Silicon Valley and Wallstreet send their donations to in 2016

 

Today the corporate tax rate went up to 22% (from the 20% it was) to finance child tax credit. There is revolution in the air 

[VCR_CAT]

Name me a equal competitor for Twitter please

 

The point of a monopoly is they can keep business between a few firms and restrict rights at that point

 

Twitter is honestly a kinked demand Oligopoly, same with Fb, Reddit, etc

 

Quit acting like Twitter is the biggest, only, and/or only relevant platform with which to get one's voice heard. You're just starting to embarrass yourself by now.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Same hold with Facebook and Reddit and most sites you normally call social media

 

Similar trend holds with major search engines

 

But I appreciate the goalpost move