2
29

[–] chaoticsandwich 2 points 29 points (+31|-2) ago  (edited ago)

NN has nothing to do with the govt looking at your shit. The creation of the internet required a scalable communications algorithm, so one that facilitated an idea called "The end to end princple" was selected. Without the end to end principle, the internet could not have grown as it did because everyone who attached a device to the internet would have to worry about all the infrastructure between them and anyone their device communicated with. So everyone agreed to this and worked on the net. Now that the internet has reached the size it has, the companies that participated in the rollout of the backbone want a bigger cut and rent seekers are pushing hard against NN.

It's amazing that people are able to bill this as regulation, when in fact destroying NN is going to facilitate and massively increase regulation. The reason for this apparent contradiction is that the infrastructure is being regulated in NN. If NN is preserved the wires are regulated, but the data that goes over the wires is unregulated. Whereas if NN is lost then the data that is transmitted over those wires becomes vulnerable to any manipulations that a carrier and by extension the government wishes to implement.

Look at it this way, under the current scheme breitbart transmits at the same speed as any other website. If NN dies and some of our conservative brothers are correct, then breitbart simply pays a fee and is on the same speed as CNN. However, imagine that a few years from now some liberals protest against the carrier taking money from breitbart? suddenly they have all the tools and infrastructure (that was built because it's now profitable to manage data without the end to end principle) to completely cut off breitbart.

Not only does revoking NN not remove government censorship, it actively encourages creating the tools needed to create more censorship.

1
5

[–] para_monk 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Old school republicans have subverted the Trump movement. This is their doing, and when they're finished with Trump they will throw him under the bus and announce themselves as heroes for saving us from his madness.

0
10

[–] rwbj 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Anybody opposed to net neutrality should think twice given the site they're posting on.

Removing net neutrality will enable carriers to arbitrarily cap, throttle, or even completely block sites. When Voat was first trying to get setup there was a coordinated attack on it. The media was attacking Voat, there was a denial of service, and malicious users were uploading illegal content and then reporting the site to various organizations for having illegal content. The site's PayPal was seized, the domain was cut, hosting was cut, etc. Fun times.

In an era of net neutrality agitators could simply have gone straight to the ISPs and had them simply not allow Americans to access it. Or to throttle it to the point that it'd feel like you were on a 2400 baud modem trying to connect to it - which would perhaps deter people even more. This would be completely legal. This would massively empower the ISPs to effectively extort sites for money or to carry out anti-competitive behavior on behalf of other companies. Establishment companies would be able to pay to take competing smaller companies off the internet and it would all be legal.

0
5

[–] logos_ethos 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

"If you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet."

If you want better ISPs, support "dig once" laws. You will get more choices, faster speeds, cheaper prices, more competition, and ISPs will have to serve you a little better.

0
0

[–] 9298115? 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

what is a dig once law?

0
6

[–] dallasmuseum 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

If the US adopts a "dig once" policy, construction workers would install conduits just about any time they build new roads and sidewalks or upgrade existing ones. These conduits are plastic pipes that can house fiber cables. The conduits might be empty when installed, but their presence makes it a lot cheaper and easier to install fiber later, after the road construction is finished.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/03/nationwide-fiber-proposed-law-could-add-broadband-to-road-projects/

Basically, new companies wouldn't have to get near as many permits nor spend as much money digging new holes to run their cables, there would already be a pipe that runs under roads that companies could snake their cable through.

0
4

[–] gh0sth4ck3d 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

This is the worst kind of misinformation and bullshit possible.

0
3

[–] 9296574? 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Well well well...

The focus on censorship of the media at an event purporting to focus on “information equality” is no surprise given Color of Change’s financial supporters. Data published by the Center for Responsive Politics shows that in 2016, billionaire George Soros made two payments totaling $400,000 to the group. The Washington Examiner has stated that Soros and the Ford Foundation have donated over $196 million to various net neutrality advocacy groups. Soros has spent hundreds of millions supporting various anti-government movements, including the Women’s March, the People’s Climate March, the Tax Day protests and far left Berkeley protest group Refuse Fascism. The ACLU also began actively organizing and training protest movements just one month after Soros sank $35 million into the group.

Other big name proponents of net neutrality have themselves been implicated in improper censorship and violations of personal privacy. In April, The Verge reported that Google, Netflix and Facebook were among a number of companies leading a group known as The Internet Association in efforts to lobby for retaining protections of net neutrality. The involvement of these tech giants in pushing for net neutrality raises troubling questions about who truly benefits from regulations which support the concept.

...

In March 2017, BBC News conducted an investigation exposing a child abuse ring operating on Facebook which resulted in a four year prison sentence for one of the offenders. In response to the BBC’s report, Facebook left 80% of photos depicting child abuse online, then reported the BBC journalists to the police before cancelling plans for an interview. Facebook subsequently apologized for their behavior, but The Times reported in April that the social media giant may face criminal prosecution relating to the images of child abuse as well as pro-jihadist content which was being shared on the website. A May 2017 report by Heat Street has also revealed that Facebook has been continually shutting down “ex-Muslim” and atheist groups using its social media services.

0
1

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

Here's my $0.02 (and I'm fully aware I may be wrong).

The way it's currently phrased, they seem to be playing fast and loose with lawful vs legal. They point out that it prohibits interfering with any lawful traffic. And therein lies the rub, as I see it. Lawful means that something is expressly permitted by law. Something that's perfectly legal may still be unlawful by nature of the fact that nothing explicitly permits it. It's not banned, and there's no legal punishment for it, but it's still technically unlawful.

So this weasel-wording opens the door to some major issues. The main one being that they can use it to shut down anything they don't like as being unlawful. They won't go after you for it, since there's no law against <type_of_content_here>, but since it's not explicitly permitted by the powers that be, they'll interfere with it all they want, and it will be completely legal for them to do so.

Change the wording to say that you can't interfere with any traffic not explicitly prohibited by law (i.e. illegal), and this problem goes away. But that would make them give up a LOT of control.

tl;dr - Protecting "lawful" content can be twisted to protecting only "government approved" content.

0
1

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

In a nutshell: author doesn't like all these shady people and organizations advocating for net neutrality and so "it clear that information equality is likely much darker than it appears on the surface." even though he cannot formulate an argument against the policy of net neutrality itself.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
4

[–] Arcesious 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I don't like this net neutrality bullshit either, but you have a point. For now it may be pragmatic to support it, as much as I loathe allowing anything to stay in the hands of the state.

load more comments ▼ (5 remaining)