This dude.......

[Bruttle]

And now this.

https://www.pcgamer.com/fcc-chairman-ajit-pai-lashes-out-at-californias-illegal-net-neutrality-rules/

This whole thing is unbelievable. I just can't wrap my head around how why the FCC has all the power over the internet. Sure, this made sense in the 90's, but the internet has grown to be a huge thing. The internet influenced $2.3 trillion dollars worth of retail sales in the US in 2017, compared to the total $4.9 trillion total in the US. 84.6% of America uses the internet. The average American spends 3.4 hours per day online. If you remove 7 hours out of the day (the average time an American spends asleep per night), that is exactly 20% of our day.

So if it influences almost half of all US retail sales and we spend around 20% of our day using it, why in the FK is it ruled by one guy and a voting pool of 5 people? That is far too much power for just a few people. Especially if they are completely ignoring what the nation is saying. Nobody with that much power should be able to ignore the public opinion. That's not how the US government was set up.

 

[Metal-Muffin]

This whole thing is unbelievable. I just can't wrap my head around how why the FCC has all the power over the internet. Sure, this made sense in the 90's, but the internet has grown to be a huge thing. The internet influenced $2.3 trillion dollars worth of retail sales in the US in 2017, compared to the total $4.9 trillion total in the US. 84.6% of America uses the internet. The average American spends 3.4 hours per day online. If you remove 7 hours out of the day (the average time an American spends asleep per night), that is exactly 20% of our day.

So if it influences almost half of all US retail sales and we spend around 20% of our day using it, why in the FK is it ruled by one guy and a voting pool of 5 people? That is far too much power for just a few people. Especially if they are completely ignoring what the nation is saying. Nobody with that much power should be able to ignore the public opinion. That's not how the US government was set up.

He only has the power that we allow him to have. A new round of elections is coming in November. Fill the senate with tech-savy, people-friendly representatives, and the rest will follow. Vote out the orange muppet in 2020 and maybe some normalcy will return. I use mullet in a literal sense, too- because I don’t believe that he’s smart enough to make his own decisions.

 

[Radegast74]

I'll put my money on the Entrepreneurs. Bill McGowan with MCI took AT&T and Baby Bells to the woodshed in the late 80s and early 90s. People will vote with their pocketbooks as innovation will always find a way to beat the companies relying on politicians to protect their bottom lines.

I don't think anybody disagrees with that. The issue is that government laws and regs can stifle innovation or kill it outright. The big businesses want to keep the little guy down, because that is their competition.

Just think if the government had encouraged more robust competition in the phone industry, earlier...it wouldn't have taken MCI until the late 80's to get the government to break up ATT & the Baby Bells.

BTW, have you ever wondered what happened to MCI?

Spoiler

"They were bought out by Verizon! See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCI_Communications"

And of course, you know that

Spoiler

"Verizon is actually (originally) Bell Atlantic!" See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications

And finally, you know that AT&T of today is actually

Spoiler

"one of the Baby Bells, Southwestern Bell! See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_AT&T"

I don't know about you, but the image I get is of a big fish gobbling up smaller fish, and getting even bigger!

 

[ShakyWater]

not really sure what this has to do with net neutrality...

It looks real silly to hit the roof over NN, because we're worried the internet won't be free anymore, when there are thousands of people who have been arrested for saying mean things online.

It gets worse when the same companies who are on board with sending the police to your house over a mean tweet are the same ones saying NN will erode internet freedom.

Do you see the problem with this arrangement?

 

[ShakyWater]

I'll put my money on the Entrepreneurs. Bill McGowan with MCI took AT&T and Baby Bells to the woodshed in the late 80s and early 90s. People will vote with their pocketbooks as innovation will always find a way to beat the companies relying on politicians to protect their bottom lines.

AT&T also bought MCI.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

It looks real silly to hit the roof over NN, because we're worried the internet won't be free anymore, when there are thousands of people who have been arrested for saying mean things online.

They are two different issues, really. You'd be just as arrested for committing crimes on a neutral or un-nutral net, a nutral internet doesn't mean an archaic one. You commit fraud online, you have committed fraud just as much as if you'd done it in person. You commit identity theft online, you have committed identity theft just as much as if you'd done it in person etc etc etc. Harassment, hate-crime, stalking etc - there are consequences to actions, even online.

The question is would you find yourself in the cells if you got on a soap-box on the corner of the street and started yelling the things assholes put in comments sections and forums online at members of the general public passing you in person?

If I said "you have dubious personal hygiene", that's a mean thing to say - but if I said it to you in person I would not be arrested for it. The things people get arrested for are usually more serious and the arrests are backed up with actual criminal laws...

I'm sure I don't have to repeat them, but you know the type of comments I mean - this link sort of covers it: https://www.gov.uk/report-hate-crime and there are some legit criminal laws such as "Incitement of religious hatred", "Incitement of racial hatred", "Harassment" etc, which are also things that if you did them on the street you'd be arrested too... Legit crimes that they would be arrested for if they were doing it in person are often what people get arrested for putting online...

Even if not illegal there is just common decency and inadvertent harassment - there was the case of the guy on twitter who was arrested for posting "I'll bomb this airport if my flight gets cancelled" or something close to that. Yeah, it's obviously jokey - but if he was stood in the departure lounge yelling that, what would airport security do? Laugh along? nope, they'd take him aside and he'd definitely miss his flight because they'd be searched his body cavities for suspicious substances.

Within 10 minutes of yelling some of the stuff people put online on the corner of a street, you'd be reported. within 20 minutes officers would be observing and within 30 minutes you'd be having your collar felt. The internet is just as public a place as the high-street.

There are also parts of the web that are not easily accessible to the general public via search engines etc. How many web-related arrests take place because of what goes on in the 'dark' web? Figures we don't have access to.

 

[Printimus]

It looks real silly to hit the roof over NN, because we're worried the internet won't be free anymore, when there are thousands of people who have been arrested for saying mean things online.

It gets worse when the same companies who are on board with sending the police to your house over a mean tweet are the same ones saying NN will erode internet freedom.

Do you see the problem with this arrangement?

i think im starting to see a connection

 

[Printimus]

This whole thing is unbelievable. I just can't wrap my head around how why the FCC has all the power over the internet. Sure, this made sense in the 90's, but the internet has grown to be a huge thing. The internet influenced $2.3 trillion dollars worth of retail sales in the US in 2017, compared to the total $4.9 trillion total in the US. 84.6% of America uses the internet. The average American spends 3.4 hours per day online. If you remove 7 hours out of the day (the average time an American spends asleep per night), that is exactly 20% of our day.

So if it influences almost half of all US retail sales and we spend around 20% of our day using it, why in the FK is it ruled by one guy and a voting pool of 5 people? That is far too much power for just a few people. Especially if they are completely ignoring what the nation is saying. Nobody with that much power should be able to ignore the public opinion. That's not how the US government was set up.

Sounds to me like we need another Viva La Revolution

 

[Metal-Muffin]

He only has the power that we allow him to have. A new round of elections is coming in November. Fill the senate with tech-savy, people-friendly representatives, and the rest will follow. Vote out the orange muppet in 2020 and maybe some normalcy will return. I use muppet in a literal sense, too- because I don’t believe that he’s smart enough to make his own decisions.

 

[Radegast74]

It looks real silly to hit the roof over NN, because we're worried the internet won't be free anymore, when there are thousands of people who have been arrested for saying mean things online.

It gets worse when the same companies who are on board with sending the police to your house over a mean tweet are the same ones saying NN will erode internet freedom.

Do you see the problem with this arrangement?

Different countries have different laws. And even in the USA, "freedom of speech" is not absolute. The famous example is, you don't have the freedom to jokingly yell "fire' in a crowded movie theater. Also, state laws are very consistent, If you say something threatening, and the victim believes you could likely carry out that threat, that is technically an assault (a battery is when you actually make physical contact with somebody).

Here is the State of California definition of "criminal threat"
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=422.

Obligatory xkcd comic:
https://xkcd.com/1357/

Copyright enforcement is another, separate issue that I'm looking forward to somebody psychotically associating with this net neutrality thread.

 

[ShakyWater]

Different countries have different laws. And even in the USA, "freedom of speech" is not absolute. The famous example is, you don't have the freedom to jokingly yell "fire' in a crowded movie theater.

Not famous enough, really. People repeat it without even knowing where it comes from. The man that was sent to prison with that excuse did not actually yell fire in a crowded theater. He was a political candidate for president, and the government locked him up for promoting communism. They used the fire in a theater analogy to pretend like his words were actually actions, and therefor not protected speech.

When people use the fire in a theater argument to defend criminalizing speech, they're saying it's okay to lock up Bernie.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Not famous enough, really.

Well, it was in part based on the Italian Hall Disaster which was famous enough to help inspire it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Hall_disaster

 

[Grimbli]

Glad I moved to California, which passed their own NN bill, and are refusing to give in to this bastard.

 

[Radegast74]

Well, it was in part based on the Italian Hall Disaster which was famous enough to help inspire it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Hall_disaster

This is a thread on an internet discussion: NO FACTS ALLOWED!
[QUOTE="ShakyWater, post: 270543, member: 4673"The man that was sent to prison with that excuse did not actually yell fire in a crowded theater. He was a political candidate for president, and the government locked him up for promoting communism.[/QUOTE]
What are you, a commie?

In all seriousness, there are just limits to free speech, even in the Land of the Free™, Home of the Brave*, it's been litigated and so ruled by the Supreme Court, and if you aren't happy, then find a test case, hire a lawyer, and go for it!
*some restrictions may apply. Void where prohibited by law. Allow 6 to 8 weeks for delivery. TEST Squadron members and immediate family are not eligible for prizes.Contents may not fill box due to settling during shipping.

 

[Bruttle]

He only has the power that we allow him to have. A new round of elections is coming in November. Fill the senate with tech-savy, people-friendly representatives, and the rest will follow. Vote out the orange muppet in 2020 and maybe some normalcy will return. I use mullet in a literal sense, too- because I don’t believe that he’s smart enough to make his own decisions.

I agree. That is the only form of power the public has, voting. The problem is that the FCC chair and the four commisioners aren't voted in. They are appointed positions. So they really don't have to answer to anyone. The president selects them and they are confirmed by the senate. ... and as far as the senate is concerned, I have no faith. They typically have around an 80% disapproval rating, yet historically enjoy between 80-100% incumbent re-election...

aaaand now I need a drink...

 

[ShakyWater]

This is a thread on an internet discussion: NO FACTS ALLOWED!
[QUOTE="ShakyWater, post: 270543, member: 4673"The man that was sent to prison with that excuse did not actually yell fire in a crowded theater. He was a political candidate for president, and the government locked him up for promoting communism.

What are you, a commie?

In all seriousness, there are just limits to free speech, even in the Land of the Free™, Home of the Brave*, it's been litigated and so ruled by the Supreme Court, and if you aren't happy, then find a test case, hire a lawyer, and go for it!
*some restrictions may apply. Void where prohibited by law. Allow 6 to 8 weeks for delivery. TEST Squadron members and immediate family are not eligible for prizes.Contents may not fill box due to settling during shipping.[/QUOTE]

The SCOTUS has upheld free speech decisions going back a long long time. It's untrue to characterize the court's relationship with free speech as one where the court agrees with restrictions on speech.

Hate speech in the United States is much less regulated when compared to that of most other liberal democracies.[1]The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment, except where such speech is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. The most recent Supreme Court case on the issue was in 2017, when the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment.

 

[Printimus]

Alright alrighty, lets try to keep this thread on topic regarding Net Neutrality.

 

[Ammorn]

Sounds to me like we need another Viva La Revolution

1776 Part 2: Electric Boogaloo!

 

[Printimus]

1776 Part 2: Electric Boogaloo!

Maybe im not getting the reference here.....but this made no sense. lol

 

[DontTouchMyHoHos]

The tech industry vocally opposed the FCC's decision to reverse Obama-era net neutrality policies.

https://www.cnet.com/news/heres-how-techs-facebook-twitter-trump-reddit-responding-to-the-net-neutrality-vote/

AS TWITTER SUSPENDS ALEX JONES, SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT SILICON VALLEY REGULATING SPEECH?

https://theintercept.com/2018/08/15/alex-jones-twitter-infowars-ban-free-speech/

Forgive me if I don't join in all at once with this lot.

Social media and such are privately owned companies. You do not have freedom of speech on their forums.