4 ms·
A good way to get the right wingers might be to ask them what happens when their ISP blocks "hate speech" (as they or someone else defines it) or political spee
by api 9y ago
A good way to get the right wingers might be to ask them what happens when their ISP blocks "hate speech" (as they or someone else defines it) or political speech that falls far outside well established political views.
This is actually pretty likely to happen.
Of course I suppose it'll be kind of funny to see God Emperor Trump usher in policies that make things like Gab and Voat unreachable. Top Kek!
- creaghpatr 9y agoOr the ISPs will pressure companies like FB and Youtube and Twitter into changing their speech policies to unblock hate speech or face throttling. Those tech companies already 'throttle' users who do not meet their orwellian standards.
- singlow 9y agoThe Orwellian standards of not censoring? I am not a fan of hate speech - but I'm also not a fan of corporate oligarchs deciding how it is defined.
- creaghpatr 9y agoThe question is which group of oligarchs would you allow this unchecked power? Personally, I'm not a fan of either, but I'd rather see competition in this area rather than government-sanctioned neutrality.
- pcnix 9y agoThat competition should not be decided by who has the most money, it should be based on the weight of public representation, hence democracy.
- jetpks 9y agoOr charging extra, per-page-view if the ISP felt like it, to visit FoxNews.com or NPR.org since they're not the ISP's preferred news networks. THAT is the reality we're about to enter with this FCC change. Who gives a shit about Netflix being slower? Using that example to fight for Net Neutrality is a guaranteed way to lose.
- cat199 9y agothis isn't a right-v-left issue, it's a top-v-bottom issue. the clipper chip was a clinton thing, the obama administration was for a long time on the fence, etc. i will credit that the current administration is 'right', whatever that actually means these days..
- m00g00 9y agoProblem is the blocking of politically unpopular speech is already happening, just by the major gatekeepers of social media, Facebook, Google, Twitter etc. instead of ISP's. In fact many of the same people advocating for NN are also cheering on major tech companies censorship policies (while the tech companies still insist that they are Common Carriers and thus not liable for user posted content). So why would right wingers or anyone else with politically unpopular opinions want to train their ire at ISP's who have no history of political censorship, when censorship is happening right now, under everyone's nose. Where are all the articles demanding Google et al become neutral carriers of information or lose their Common Carrier status? In fact, we are getting the exact opposite, with article after article posted here and elsewhere basically demanding that big tech companies censor Fake News, i.e. propaganda you don't agree with.
- IronWolve 9y agoThe right sees an unregulated approach and naive of the censorship aspects. But Net Neutrality doesn't fix the censorship of companies refusing services to people it doesn't like. In fact many people praise such censorship. The proposed Net Neutrality argument is just consumer access to the net, not the person wanting to be a host on the Net. That aspect, it doesn't go far enough to provide an unregulated and uncensored free speech.
- trumpownsyou420 9y agokys cuckboi