4 ms·

Just a single look at the governments who actually do regulate their Internet will lead you to the same conclusion. You don't want your Internet to be like Port

by Grue3 9y ago

Just a single look at the governments who actually do regulate their Internet will lead you to the same conclusion. You don't want your Internet to be like Portugal? Is China or Russia more of your taste? As someone who lives in Russia, I would never trust the government to regulate the Internet. It's obvious what this control will end up being used for. You should be thankful that Trump of all people doesn't want to control your Internet.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
So your argument is essentially that, given the way Russia enforces laws, you rather wouldn't want governments enforcing laws?
- Grue3 9y ago
  Do you think Russia enforces its laws in any special way or what? No, there are just more laws to enforce. First make everything illegal, then put anyone you don't like behind bars. Don't give your government more tools to oppress you, is what would be my advice.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    > Do you think Russia enforces its laws in any special way or what? Yes, very much so. > No, there are just more laws to enforce. First make everything illegal, then put anyone you don't like behind bars. Which already is telling you that it's not the rule of law. Selective enforcement is not a thing that should exist under the rule of law, and it exists to a much lesser extent in other countries. > Don't give your government more tools to oppress you, is what would be my advice. Well, that's fine. But the solution is not to therefore have a powerless government. Because if your government is powerless, others will take over and oppress you instead. Power doesn't care whether it is exercised by what is nominally your government or any other entity that can in fact exercise power. The solution to oppression is to keep power distributed, and government absolutely can be a very helpful entity in keeping a healthy power balance. In this case, ISPs want to use the power they have due to their monopolistic position to oppress their customers and internet companies, which is a case where balancing that power of the ISPs with power from the government is a pretty good idea. Also, I think you might be confusing network neutrality regulation with network content regulation, which are two very different things, if not polar opposites. If you don't have network neutrality, that creates an environment where ISPs can in fact just implement content regulation at will, be it for their own uses, for advertisers, or also as a service they can sell to the government. Network neutrality, on the other hand, is what allows one or two branches of the government to stop anyone else from doing any of that, including the other branches of the government.
    - libertyEQ 9y ago
      Only the government has the power of 'legitimate violence' so they have to be considered in a different manner.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        Really, "the power of legitimate violence" doesn't compute. If someone has the actual power to use violence against the population, what difference does it make whether it is somehow nominally illegitimate? Giving all the power to private corporations is not a solution to that problem, because then those corporations ultimately will also end up with the power to use violence. Your only hope is to keep power distributed.

by Grue3 9y ago

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago

So your argument is essentially that, given the way Russia enforces laws, you rather wouldn't want governments enforcing laws?

Grue3 9y ago
Do you think Russia enforces its laws in any special way or what? No, there are just more laws to enforce. First make everything illegal, then put anyone you don't like behind bars. Don't give your government more tools to oppress you, is what would be my advice.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  > Do you think Russia enforces its laws in any special way or what? Yes, very much so. > No, there are just more laws to enforce. First make everything illegal, then put anyone you don't like behind bars. Which already is telling you that it's not the rule of law. Selective enforcement is not a thing that should exist under the rule of law, and it exists to a much lesser extent in other countries. > Don't give your government more tools to oppress you, is what would be my advice. Well, that's fine. But the solution is not to therefore have a powerless government. Because if your government is powerless, others will take over and oppress you instead. Power doesn't care whether it is exercised by what is nominally your government or any other entity that can in fact exercise power. The solution to oppression is to keep power distributed, and government absolutely can be a very helpful entity in keeping a healthy power balance. In this case, ISPs want to use the power they have due to their monopolistic position to oppress their customers and internet companies, which is a case where balancing that power of the ISPs with power from the government is a pretty good idea. Also, I think you might be confusing network neutrality regulation with network content regulation, which are two very different things, if not polar opposites. If you don't have network neutrality, that creates an environment where ISPs can in fact just implement content regulation at will, be it for their own uses, for advertisers, or also as a service they can sell to the government. Network neutrality, on the other hand, is what allows one or two branches of the government to stop anyone else from doing any of that, including the other branches of the government.
  - libertyEQ 9y ago
    Only the government has the power of 'legitimate violence' so they have to be considered in a different manner.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      Really, "the power of legitimate violence" doesn't compute. If someone has the actual power to use violence against the population, what difference does it make whether it is somehow nominally illegitimate? Giving all the power to private corporations is not a solution to that problem, because then those corporations ultimately will also end up with the power to use violence. Your only hope is to keep power distributed.