| Off Topic > Off Topic |
| Net neutrality shenanigins are happening. |
| << < (78/125) > >> |
| OrangeMan³:
--- Quote from: Corderlain on December 14, 2017, 10:10:09 PM ---Just felt like adding that. So, internet and free speech. Directly tied together but not the same thing. Same reason books can be banned and you can't sue Badspot for banning you from this forum. Internet is a service not a right. You enter an agreement with your ISP. If you break your agreement you get what you get. Same as not paying utilities. Same as not paying phone. --- End quote --- but what if theres a mentally handicapped black queer mother of 5000 living off of one dollar a day who needs to use the internet to diagnose herself and get cancer treatment? i cant believe republicans want to kill all black women. this is literally worse than national socialist germany |
| TristanLuigi:
--- Quote from: Corderlain on December 14, 2017, 10:10:09 PM ---Just felt like adding that. So, internet and free speech. Directly tied together but not the same thing. Same reason books can be banned and you can't sue Badspot for banning you from this forum. --- End quote --- of course they aren't the exact same thing but you the internet is a communication method, therefore it's subject to free speech and yes, badspot banning people from the forum is hampering free speech (in the broad sense, not the constitutional sense), but it's not a problem because there are so many other places on the internet to communicate; and worst case scenario, that person could simply host their own website on the other hand, giving ISPs the power to filter, limit, or block certain organizations/sites is a much bigger issue, because it gives a few organizations much more control over a much wider range of things --- Quote from: Corderlain on December 14, 2017, 10:08:48 PM ---Ripped from reddit: What if I told you there was nothing in the existing net neutrality rules that stopped providers from throttling speeds, blocking content, or creating fast lanes? https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fcc-internet-regulations-dont-protect-net-neutrality/ The 2016 court decision upholding the rules was a Pyrrhic victory for the net neutrality movement. In short, the decision revealed that the 2015 Open Internet Order provides no meaningful net neutrality protections–it allows ISPs to block and throttle content. As the judges who upheld the Order said, “The Order…specifies that an ISP remains ‘free to offer ‘edited’ services’ without becoming subject to the rule’s requirements.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/washingtonbytes/2017/05/15/can-isps-simply-opt-out-of-net-neutrality/ But the DC Circuit suggests that a walled garden is fine as long as the provider “mak[es it] sufficiently clear to potential customers that if provides a filtered services involving the ISP’s exercise of ‘editorial intervention.’” Court document here, https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD079A89E13852581130053C3F8/$file/15-1063-1673357.pdf TL;DR: Nothing in previous rules prevented ISPs from throttling or blocking content. Just like before 2015. --- End quote --- this is a problem with the current net neutrality rules, but not a reason to abandon net neutrality it's also completely unrelated to your "the internet is not free speech" nonsense --- Quote from: Corderlain on December 14, 2017, 10:13:22 PM ---I am 100% for a more open internet and I think the best way to do that is remove the fees and regulations preventing new ISP companies from laying lines and break up the current monopolies. Much the same reason there isn't huge variance in gas and electric companies, politics was snuffing out fledgling local competition. --- End quote --- yeah, pretty much nobody on the left is against this funnily enough, net neutrality doesn't prevent new ISPs from establishing themselves, it just prevents them from filtering and blocking content arbitrarily |
| Corderlain:
--- Quote from: Darth C3P0² on December 14, 2017, 10:14:39 PM ---are you trying to claim we are all handicapped --- End quote --- If that's all you can make out of that yes you are a handicap. --- Quote from: TristanLuigi on December 14, 2017, 10:15:16 PM ---of course they aren't the exact same thing but you the internet is a communication method, therefore it's subject to free speech and yes, badspot banning people from the forum is hampering free speech (in the broad sense, not the constitutional sense), but it's not a problem because there are so many other places on the internet to communicate; and worst case scenario, that person could simply host their own website on the other hand, giving ISPs the power to filter, limit, or block certain organizations/sites is a much bigger issue, because it gives a few organizations much more control over a much wider range of things this is a problem with the current net neutrality rules, but not a reason to abandon net neutrality it's also completely unrelated to your "the internet is not free speech" nonsense --- End quote --- The constitutional side is the only side that matters. |
| TristanLuigi:
--- Quote from: Corderlain on December 14, 2017, 10:15:33 PM ---The constitutional side is the only side that matters. --- End quote --- what the forget are you talking about "it doesn't matter if it's not in the constitution" |
| Corderlain:
--- Quote from: TristanLuigi on December 14, 2017, 10:17:13 PM ---what the forget are you talking about "it doesn't matter if it's not in the constitution" --- End quote --- If it's not against the law and not in the Constitution then yeah it doesn't matter. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |