You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

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

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] WestEnd99 0 points 1 point (+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).

0
1

[–] 475677 0 points 1 point (+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.

0
3

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

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

2
0

[–] 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.

1
-1

[–] YugeDick 1 point -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.