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

I can't say I'm a fan of this. His logic is sound - if corporations have freedom of speech, they have the ability to police their platforms.

This line of logic is fine if there is ample competition because no service provider is going to shoot themselves in the foot and block websites because their customers would flee to the competitor that doesn't block anything.

The problem here lies in the fact that we do not have a competitive ISP market, as such this will end up devolving into ISP's picking winners and losers, which is why net neutrality is even a thing.

In a competive market the problem solves itself. Since we don't have that - how do we fix this issue? The problem arose from too much government involvement, but I'm not sure if I see a solution that doesn't require even more government involvement.

Thoughts?

[–] WestEnd99 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I can't say I'm a fan of this. His logic is sound - if corporations have freedom of speech, they have the ability to police their platforms.

The issue is the corporations want it both ways. They want the right to "police" their platforms but they also want common carrier protection. As far as I'm concerned, as soon as they start choosing what goes over their lines they are now responsible for all it. They become a party to any illegal activity performed on their network (if they are person they have to accept personal responsibility). That would be where I draw the line. Make the choice optional. They can accept net neutrality rules and be protected under common carrier designation or reject net neutrality and be responsible for everything on their network.

In a competive market the problem solves itself. Since we don't have that - how do we fix this issue? The problem arose from too much government involvement, but I'm not sure if I see a solution that doesn't require even more government involvement.

There are no easy solutions. The barrier to entry for telecom is huge. You need tens of billions of dollars (probably hundreds of billions) to build out a network that would be competitive with the incumbents (which were built via government subsidies over decades) . You can try mandating open access to incumbent networks (treat them more like utilities) but that can get messy fast (although it has worked in other countries). Or you could try lowering the barrier to entry by mandating free access to right of ways for installing telecom infrastructure (but even with that the barriers will still be high and some resources like radio spectrum are finite and already mostly allocated).

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

This is a very elegant solution that still allows corporations to maintain freedom of speech while nudging them pretty hard to allow everything to get those shiny S230 protections. I like it.

[–] 475677 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Compare it to another utility, lets say electricity. Should my provider be able to police what devices I power up? Do they have a responsibility to report suspect usage such as the 12/12 light cycle of marijuana grow ops? Smart meters give them the ability to work that out but do they have the right to invade our privacy and assume our guilt or should that be left up to law enforcement entirely?

ISP's should solely provide network access in it's raw form. No favorites, no fast lanes, no bullshit like logging which sites we visit. They should keep a log of who used what IP at what time for law enforcement at most so that if they take down a CP site that also kept a log they can hunt down the pedos but other than that it should be a free for all.

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

Unfortunately this does not apply, internet isn't considered a utility in the United States.

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

This is more or less what I've thought as well - utility status seems to make the most sense.

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

“sound - if corporations have freedom of speech”

How about stop worshipping corporations and giving them human rights that are higher than actual physical human rights.

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

Freedom of association. Any business, large or small, has the first amendment right to choose who to associate or not associate with. The baker doesn't have to bake the cake an the ISP doesn't have to host pornography and the Uber driver doesn't have to give the smelly person a ride either. To believe otherwise is to approve of forced servitude and we abolished that shit a long time ago.

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

Oh... Well, there is the one reason I need to not like this.

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

They just want to get people riled up.

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

Corporations are not people and don't have rights. People are people, and have rights, including the right to form a corporation.

They also have the right to take on the protections, and obligations, of become a public entity. It saves their ass from going to jail if they fuck up or do a shitty job. It also obligates to serve the public.

I don't get why no one understands that. Fix the law! Get rights out of corporations and into people again. Stop censorship. Save America.

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

https://archive.fo/TWWsw :

Trump’s Supreme Court pick: ISPs have 1st Amendment right to block websites | Ars Technica

'"The rule transforms the Internet by imposing common-carrier obligations on Internet service providers and thereby prohibiting Internet service providers from exercising editorial control over the content they transmit to consumers," Kavanaugh wrote. '

'Therefore, under the Supreme Court's precedents applying the First Amendment, the net neutrality rule violates the First Amendment."', "Srinivasan and Tatel also provided the two votes supporting the FCC's right to impose net neutrality rules in the 2016 version of the case.", "Broadband industry lobby groups have continued to seek Supreme Court review of the legality of Wheeler's net neutrality rules even after Pai's repeal."

'But "Congress did not clearly authorize the FCC to issue the net neutrality rule" or to impose common-carrier obligations on ISPs, Kavanaugh argued. '


This has been an automated message.

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

Arse Techa. Shill site. Do not believe.