Future of internet censorship (or lack thereof)?

[darklordoftech]

It's interesting how, in 2018 alone, the UK passed the porn credit card requirement law, the EU introduced Articles 11 and 13, and the US passed FOSTA/SESTA. Does this suggest a trend towards internet censorship in the future or does it not?

By the way, please don't post "facebook is the real enemy".

[dead0man]

Yes, and it's not a good thing.

[Del Tachi]

facebook is the real enemy

[MasterJedi]

Removal of net neutrality will do more than any website themselves could do. Just need that corporation to slow down service or block content that they don't control. They've tried to do it before and failed in court, now thanks to Republicans here it comes.

[dead0man]

Removal of net neutrality will do more than any website themselves could do. Just need that corporation to slow down service or block content that they don't control. They've tried to do it before and failed in court, now thanks to Republicans here it comes.

when?

[PSOL]

Removal of net neutrality will do more than any website themselves could do. Just need that corporation to slow down service or block content that they don't control. They've tried to do it before and failed in court, now thanks to Republicans here it comes.

when?

It's not coming. There is mass hysteria over net neutrality. People are acting if the sky is falling! The repeal of net neutrality will allow a more competitive market with improved infrastructure. Internet censorship will stick around for major social media networks such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter. However, internet censorship will not be enforced by law in the United States due to the First Amendment. In this case, the First Amendment applies to individuals, not businesses. Individuals in the United States don't have to worry about internet censorship as long as they can find networking platforms that are opposed to censorship.

No, it will allow a pay-to-play system where ISPs kill off innovative startups by not allowing them to exist on their system. It is incredibly anti-consumer.

Censorship on individuals has already happened mate. Verizon inhibited the spread of a strike by blocking the Union’s website. If you think this administration, and now the court, gives a hoot about individual liberty you are gravely mistaken.

[PSOL]

Removal of net neutrality will do more than any website themselves could do. Just need that corporation to slow down service or block content that they don't control. They've tried to do it before and failed in court, now thanks to Republicans here it comes.

when?

It's not coming. There is mass hysteria over net neutrality. People are acting if the sky is falling! The repeal of net neutrality will allow a more competitive market with improved infrastructure. Internet censorship will stick around for major social media networks such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter. However, internet censorship will not be enforced by law in the United States due to the First Amendment. In this case, the First Amendment applies to individuals, not businesses. Individuals in the United States don't have to worry about internet censorship as long as they can find networking platforms that are opposed to censorship.

No, it will allow a pay-to-play system where ISPs kill off innovative startups by not allowing them to exist on their system. It is incredibly anti-consumer.

Censorship on individuals has already happened mate. Verizon inhibited the spread of a strike by blocking the Union’s website. If you think this administration, and now the court, gives a hoot about individual liberty you are gravely mistaken.

There's no guarantee that will happen. Besides, if the market is competitive it can't happen. Look what happened with mobile phones. The cellular market is very competitive among AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile. Once T-Mobile offered unlimited data all of the others had to jump on board and offer unlimited data as well. When there is competition consumers have choices. If one ISP charges extra for certain sites, another may not. Many consumers will choose to go that ISP instead.

The local monopolies in place basically means that your scenario is a nonstarter, as there is no other competition to have better rates. The only area that has that sort of competition is in North Dakota, where the local government ordered the breaking of the regional company into 35 different companies, thus allowing people to have a choice. So unless the government starts enacting harsher anti-trust laws and enforcing them, we’ll see this new landscape slowly creep into a pay-to-play future of crippling small startups for the parent company’s products.

Your really naïve if you think that corporations won’t squeeze every ounce to take advantage of their newfound abilities, the very extent of the damage to the consumer, and the fact that this administration will allow corporations to screw with the constitutional rights of the consumer. 

[Esteemed Jimmy]

Removal of net neutrality will do more than any website themselves could do. Just need that corporation to slow down service or block content that they don't control. They've tried to do it before and failed in court, now thanks to Republicans here it comes.

when?

It's not coming. There is mass hysteria over net neutrality. People are acting if the sky is falling! The repeal of net neutrality will allow a more competitive market with improved infrastructure. Internet censorship will stick around for major social media networks such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter. However, internet censorship will not be enforced by law in the United States due to the First Amendment. In this case, the First Amendment applies to individuals, not businesses. Individuals in the United States don't have to worry about internet censorship as long as they can find networking platforms that are opposed to censorship.

No, it will allow a pay-to-play system where ISPs kill off innovative startups by not allowing them to exist on their system. It is incredibly anti-consumer.

Censorship on individuals has already happened mate. Verizon inhibited the spread of a strike by blocking the Union’s website. If you think this administration, and now the court, gives a hoot about individual liberty you are gravely mistaken.

There's no guarantee that will happen. Besides, if the market is competitive it can't happen. Look what happened with mobile phones. The cellular market is very competitive among AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile. Once T-Mobile offered unlimited data all of the others had to jump on board and offer unlimited data as well. When there is competition consumers have choices. If one ISP charges extra for certain sites, another may not. Many consumers will choose to go that ISP instead.

The local monopolies in place basically means that your scenario is a nonstarter, as there is no other competition to have better rates. The only area that has that sort of competition is in North Dakota, where the local government ordered the breaking of the regional company into 35 different companies, thus allowing people to have a choice. So unless the government starts enacting harsher anti-trust laws and enforcing them, we’ll see this new landscape slowly creep into a pay-to-play future of crippling small startups for the parent company’s products.

Your really naïve if you think that corporations won’t squeeze every ounce to take advantage of their newfound abilities, the very extent of the damage to the consumer, and the fact that this administration will allow corporations to screw with the constitutional rights of the consumer.  

Yeah, where I live there is only one ISP.

[dead0man]

The local monopolies in place basically means that your scenario is a nonstarter, as there is no other competition to have better rates. The only area that has that sort of competition is in North Dakota, where the local government ordered the breaking of the regional company into 35 different companies, thus allowing people to have a choice. So unless the government starts enacting harsher anti-trust laws and enforcing them, we’ll see this new landscape slowly creep into a pay-to-play future of crippling small startups for the parent company’s products.

Your really naïve if you think that corporations won’t squeeze every ounce to take advantage of their newfound abilities, the very extent of the damage to the consumer, and the fact that this administration will allow corporations to screw with the constitutional rights of the consumer. 

but that started happening two decades before anyone had even uttered the words "net neutrality".  It happened when there was Net Neutrality and it's happening after.  EVERYone agrees (except the companies doing it and the politicians, from both sides, that continue to allow it to happen) that these monopolies are bad and the reason our internet speeds are slow and expensive.  But, for some reason, the only thing people are interested in changing is Net Neutrality.  It's weird.

[PSOL]

The local monopolies in place basically means that your scenario is a nonstarter, as there is no other competition to have better rates. The only area that has that sort of competition is in North Dakota, where the local government ordered the breaking of the regional company into 35 different companies, thus allowing people to have a choice. So unless the government starts enacting harsher anti-trust laws and enforcing them, we’ll see this new landscape slowly creep into a pay-to-play future of crippling small startups for the parent company’s products.

Your really naïve if you think that corporations won’t squeeze every ounce to take advantage of their newfound abilities, the very extent of the damage to the consumer, and the fact that this administration will allow corporations to screw with the constitutional rights of the consumer. 

but that started happening two decades before anyone had even uttered the words "net neutrality".  It happened when there was Net Neutrality and it's happening after.  EVERYone agrees (except the companies doing it and the politicians, from both sides, that continue to allow it to happen) that these monopolies are bad and the reason our internet speeds are slow and expensive.  But, for some reason, the only thing people are interested in changing is Net Neutrality.  It's weird.

Because the political will to break them down is weaker than the political capital the ISPs have in the form of lobbying power. Net Neutrality was the compromise that wouldn’t tip the boat.

You’d rather prefer the “socialistic” alternative, tearing the companies down for municipal broadband?

[dead0man]

The local monopolies in place basically means that your scenario is a nonstarter, as there is no other competition to have better rates. The only area that has that sort of competition is in North Dakota, where the local government ordered the breaking of the regional company into 35 different companies, thus allowing people to have a choice. So unless the government starts enacting harsher anti-trust laws and enforcing them, we’ll see this new landscape slowly creep into a pay-to-play future of crippling small startups for the parent company’s products.

Your really naïve if you think that corporations won’t squeeze every ounce to take advantage of their newfound abilities, the very extent of the damage to the consumer, and the fact that this administration will allow corporations to screw with the constitutional rights of the consumer. 

but that started happening two decades before anyone had even uttered the words "net neutrality".  It happened when there was Net Neutrality and it's happening after.  EVERYone agrees (except the companies doing it and the politicians, from both sides, that continue to allow it to happen) that these monopolies are bad and the reason our internet speeds are slow and expensive.  But, for some reason, the only thing people are interested in changing is Net Neutrality.  It's weird.

Because the political will to break them down is weaker than the political capital the ISPs have in the form of lobbying power. Net Neutrality was the compromise that wouldn’t tip the boat.

You’d rather prefer the “socialistic” alternative, tearing the companies down for municipal broadband?

only as a last resort after politicians let the bigger companies ruin any hopes of competition.


Do we normally roll over when we lack the political capital to do what's right?  For example, as someone outside of the two big hack machines, I'm accustomed to reminding people that should know that letting gay people get married isn't a bad thing.  It didn't take the first thousand times we said it, but eventually more and more people came to see the light, and now gay people can get married in the most backward counties in West Virginia.  Sure, it was disheartening how hard the left in this country pushed against it (and before the whataboutery starts, nobody never expected the right in this country to be for it...why would we?), but eventually even super conservative people like Hillary and Gore came around to the right way of thinking.  There was very little political will to do it for decades, but we did it, eventually. 

We can do the same thing with ISP monopolies.

[PSOL]

The local monopolies in place basically means that your scenario is a nonstarter, as there is no other competition to have better rates. The only area that has that sort of competition is in North Dakota, where the local government ordered the breaking of the regional company into 35 different companies, thus allowing people to have a choice. So unless the government starts enacting harsher anti-trust laws and enforcing them, we’ll see this new landscape slowly creep into a pay-to-play future of crippling small startups for the parent company’s products.

Your really naïve if you think that corporations won’t squeeze every ounce to take advantage of their newfound abilities, the very extent of the damage to the consumer, and the fact that this administration will allow corporations to screw with the constitutional rights of the consumer.  

but that started happening two decades before anyone had even uttered the words "net neutrality".  It happened when there was Net Neutrality and it's happening after.  EVERYone agrees (except the companies doing it and the politicians, from both sides, that continue to allow it to happen) that these monopolies are bad and the reason our internet speeds are slow and expensive.  But, for some reason, the only thing people are interested in changing is Net Neutrality.  It's weird.

Because the political will to break them down is weaker than the political capital the ISPs have in the form of lobbying power. Net Neutrality was the compromise that wouldn’t tip the boat.

You’d rather prefer the “socialistic” alternative, tearing the companies down for municipal broadband?

only as a last resort after politicians let the bigger companies ruin any hopes of competition.


Do we normally roll over when we lack the political capital to do what's right?  For example, as someone outside of the two big hack machines, I'm accustomed to reminding people that should know that letting gay people get married isn't a bad thing.  It didn't take the first thousand times we said it, but eventually more and more people came to see the light, and now gay people can get married in the most backward counties in West Virginia.  Sure, it was disheartening how hard the left in this country pushed against it (and before the whataboutery starts, nobody never expected the right in this country to be for it...why would we?), but eventually even super conservative people like Hillary and Gore came around to the right way of thinking.  There was very little political will to do it for decades, but we did it, eventually.  

We can do the same thing with ISP monopolies.

Gay marriage is only possible due to a historical shift in the way Americans deal with religion. There weren’t structural stop gaps to prevent change, something that the current system has in place by our electoral financing rules determined by our judiciary body interpreting the constitution. Since the opposition is toothless, having such measures protects us in the meantime as we move forward to put more change, like Obamacare was with the rampant populations of uninsured and priced out folks.

Again, we could do slow change or a complete overhaul of the system. Try getting another constitutional convention running, I dare you in this environment. The only other option is suffering ,mate.

[dead0man]

Or we just keep repeating what's right over and over and over, if we're actually right, other people will start to join in.  Eventually the chorus is too loud to ignore.  We don't need a constitutional convention to change the local laws that prevent other ISPs from opening shop in town.

[Sestak]

Or we just keep repeating what's right over and over and over, if we're actually right, other people will start to join in.  Eventually the chorus is too loud to ignore.  We don't need a constitutional convention to change the local laws that prevent other ISPs from opening shop in town.

Eventually, yes.

But until such time as that may happen, isn't it better to mitigate the effects?

[Deleted User #4049]

I just don't understand why there is such mass hysteria. Many of those who are starting this hysteria are the 14 year old "keyboard warriors". Those who think that the ISPs will definitely throttle and block sites are naive. Why are you all for allowing censorship for Facebook, Twitter, and Google? Those leftists will say "they're companies! They can do whatever they want!". So you all are against government regulation for social media companies but all for it for internet service providers. The hypocrisy is mind blowing here! The government should not regulate internet service providers AND/OR social media companies.

The government absolutely should regulate social media companies due to the role they play in our society. If Silicon Valley is going to try to manipulate us for their own ends the government must step in.

Better yet would be to just break up the monopolies but we all know that's never going to happen.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The local monopolies in place basically means that your scenario is a nonstarter, as there is no other competition to have better rates. The only area that has that sort of competition is in North Dakota, where the local government ordered the breaking of the regional company into 35 different companies, thus allowing people to have a choice. So unless the government starts enacting harsher anti-trust laws and enforcing them, we’ll see this new landscape slowly creep into a pay-to-play future of crippling small startups for the parent company’s products.

Your really naïve if you think that corporations won’t squeeze every ounce to take advantage of their newfound abilities, the very extent of the damage to the consumer, and the fact that this administration will allow corporations to screw with the constitutional rights of the consumer. 

but that started happening two decades before anyone had even uttered the words "net neutrality".  It happened when there was Net Neutrality and it's happening after.  EVERYone agrees (except the companies doing it and the politicians, from both sides, that continue to allow it to happen) that these monopolies are bad and the reason our internet speeds are slow and expensive.  But, for some reason, the only thing people are interested in changing is Net Neutrality.  It's weird.

Because the political will to break them down is weaker than the political capital the ISPs have in the form of lobbying power. Net Neutrality was the compromise that wouldn’t tip the boat.

You’d rather prefer the “socialistic” alternative, tearing the companies down for municipal broadband?

only as a last resort after politicians let the bigger companies ruin any hopes of competition.


Do we normally roll over when we lack the political capital to do what's right?  For example, as someone outside of the two big hack machines, I'm accustomed to reminding people that should know that letting gay people get married isn't a bad thing.  It didn't take the first thousand times we said it, but eventually more and more people came to see the light, and now gay people can get married in the most backward counties in West Virginia.  Sure, it was disheartening how hard the left in this country pushed against it (and before the whataboutery starts, nobody never expected the right in this country to be for it...why would we?), but eventually even super conservative people like Hillary and Gore came around to the right way of thinking.  There was very little political will to do it for decades, but we did it, eventually. 

We can do the same thing with ISP monopolies.

The difference is there was no powerful big monies corporations who benefited from gay marriage not being allowed.

[dead0man]

The difference is there was no powerful big monies corporations who benefited from gay marriage not being allowed.

sure, but it's also something no voter actually wants.  There are millions of voters that think gay marriage is (somehow) harmful to society.



I can't believe you guys are so funking soft on this issue you claim is so funking important.  There were assholes wanting to shut the govt down over net neutrality, but when it comes to correcting ISP monopolies (every funking bit as harmful, and arguably much more harmful), we throw our hands in the air?

[PSOL]

The difference is there was no powerful big monies corporations who benefited from gay marriage not being allowed.

sure, but it's also something no voter actually wants.  There are millions of voters that think gay marriage is (somehow) harmful to society.



I can't believe you guys are so funking soft on this issue you claim is so funking important.  There were assholes wanting to shut the govt down over net neutrality, but when it comes to correcting ISP monopolies (every funking bit as harmful, and arguably much more harmful), we throw our hands in the air?

The political capital isn’t there mate. Such extreme trust-busting is too far-left and too risky to lead to an electoral smear campaign to enact by the only viable opposition, the Democrats. Net Neutrality was the compromise that allowed for the boat not to get tipped.

For clarification, I would totally shut down the government to protect both, as the internet is practically a necessity/utility that can’t be properly distributed by private corporations.