You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] whisky_cat 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago 

As you know I absolutely benefit from privatized Internet. But you have to consider China's nationalized internet and the risks it includes. We're fighting plenty of censorship, propaganda, and neutrality bias at the privatized level. Hand it over to federal regulators and implementation, and we're going to see a much bigger crack down on what is "ok" to share and discuss online.

However I absolutely agree the Internet is a utility, and it was classified as such in 2015.

The "Open Internet Order" passed Thursday will prohibit broadband providers from blocking lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, the FCC said. It also bans "paid prioritization," which would favor some traffic or create paid Internet "fast lanes."

Unfortunately, it is not the Internet Service Providers blocking content, it is the corporate giants of Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter et al. ISPs will sell (or be summoned for) your IP data if you've engaged in illegal content, but if it were nationalized they would hardly need any process at all to acquire your IP data and activities (i.e. warrantless search and guilty until proven innocent)

Amnesty International notes that China "has the largest recorded number of imprisoned journalists and cyber-dissidents in the world,"[5] and Paris-based Reporters Without Borders stated in 2010 and 2012 that "China is the world's biggest prison for netizens."[6][7] The offences of which they are accused include communicating with groups abroad, signing online petitions, and calling for reform and an end to corruption. The escalation of the government's effort to neutralize critical online opinion and organizing comes after a series of large, anti-pollution, anti-corruption protests, and ethnic riots, many of which were organized or publicized using instant messaging services, chat rooms, and text messages.[citation needed] The size of the Chinese Internet police force was reported by the state government to be 2 million in 2013.[8]

Just some thoughts my man. If there was any one entity you would want to be in charge of the Internet, I would vote for the EFF.


[–] RevanProdigalKnight 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I disagree. If you gave the EFF power over the internet, that would be a single point of failure for control. All of a sudden instead of having to bribe all the companies and governments on the internet, you only need to bribe one group to effectively take control of the internet.

What we need is an internet Bill of Rights and a way to enforce it.


[–] whisky_cat 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Fair point, it was a hypothetical thought. But, Do you wish to compare the values of Comcast, At&T and Century Link to that of the EFF? If so, fine. I'm posturing that OP was looking for centralized control - regardless of my opinion - what a valid option could possibly be.


[–] BaldMiscreant 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Perhaps it's time to redefine Internet Service Provider to "any company providing access to content on the internet"