6 ms·

The whole Web showed up for net neutrality and this bill was completely ignored until they took down Craigslist personals. What the hell happened?

gcb0 9y ago
everyone that I know in tech that was involved in this one, with half a brain, just walked out of discussions. left was the corrupt, lobbists and idiots-puppets-think-of-the-children. really, early on nobody thought this could ever be taken seriously. guess engineers suck at politics. (still have to see what the lawyers that were involved are saying now).
- rocqua 9y ago
  I never heard of this bill until after it was passed. Feels like more could have been done if this publicity had come earlier.
arca_vorago 9y ago
The same thing that happens any time the oligarchy wants legislation... they just took the losses and kept trying until one time we weren't paying attention. I have seen this coming for a while now. Once the oligarchy understood the internet is the last bastion of anarchistic fredom of thought they immediately wanted to take control over it somehow.
- mirimir 9y ago
  Also embedded in the spending bill[0] is the CLOUD Act:[1] > The CLOUD Act (S. 2383 and H.R. 4943) has two major components. First, it empowers U.S. law enforcement to grab data stored anywhere in the world, without following foreign data privacy rules. Second, it empowers the president to unilaterally enter executive agreements with any nation on earth, even known human rights abusers. Under such executive agreements, foreign law enforcement officials could grab data stored in the United States, directly from U.S. companies, without following U.S. privacy rules like the Fourth Amendment, so long as the foreign police are not targeting a U.S. person or a person in the United States. 0) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/responsibility-deflected-cloud-act-passes https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/responsibility-deflect... 1) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/new-backdoor-around-fourth-amendment-cloud-act https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/new-backdoor-around-fo...
  - jakeogh 9y ago
    "unilaterally enter executive agreements with any nation on earth" good chance the SC strikes that down if it gets there. https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/spotlight-fourth-amendment/ https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/spotlight-fourth-am...
    - votepaunchy 9y ago
      You do realize that non-U.S. persons not in the U.S. are not covered by the U.S. Constitution?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - jakeogh 9y ago
        Correct. That's up to that country, if they cant handle outside influence that's bad, and they and only they can fix it. We have our own trouble with it here... I am doing everything I can to stop us from meddling in other countries, and you wont see us going to war any time soon (despite the BS media owned by the war party). What else do you want? This law violates my 4th Amendment, and as far as that goes, it's highly likely that it gets struck down given the chance, our latest SC appointment makes that even more likely. Maybe it would have been more clear if I had quoted the "foreign law enforcement officials could grab data stored in the United States" part.
        Intermernet 9y ago
        >despite the BS media owned by the war party Sorry, I'm from Australia and sometimes find tracking US internal nomenclature confusing. Which party is "the war party"? Both major parties seem to have been happy to support ongoing military action over the last few decades so maybe I'm missing something. Once again, I'm legitimately asking for clarification in order to put your comment in context. No judgement!
        9y ago
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
nordsieck 9y ago
I don't now, but I suspect that it may partially be Compassion Fatigue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_fatigue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_fatigue
AFNobody 9y ago
Every time there is an unpopular bill they cannot get passed but their financial backers do shit like this happens. They keep trying to pass variations of it in various shady ways until compassion fatigue sets in.
- ianai 9y ago
  Is it compassion fatigue if the law was written and passed in near total secret and at a fast pace?
  - AFNobody 9y ago
    They tried that trick before but I suppose you can argue its not.
    - ianai 9y ago
      It’s what they did this time.
      - AFNobody 9y ago
        And multiple previous times. This isn't the first time stuff like this has been amended to an unrelated bill.
jakeogh 9y ago
Power wanted "net neutrality". It's a stepping stone to the same ends, more rules regulating the internet. Once you convince people it should be regulated, the sky is the limit. Standard incrementalism tactic. I mean... who likes "hate speech" anyway? I could post a wall of similar links: http://www.businessinsider.com/sen-al-franken-calls-for-vigorous-overight-of-big-tech-companies-2017-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/sen-al-franken-calls-for-vigo...
- devmunchies 9y ago
  No it’s the other way around. Net neutrality is itself a regulation. Removing the government regulation turns it into a Wild West with less rules and allows other powers to slap us around.
  - jakeogh 9y ago
    "Net neutrality is itself a regulation" Correct, that's exactly what I said. NN is gov enforced regs. This thread is about bad _gov_ regulation. Companies cant make or enforce law. Gov can. Gov is therefore much more powerful, as we see here. You can leave FB, you cant leave your gov (well... easily).
    - ben_w 9y ago
      From the perspective of Joe & Jane Average, there is no difference between a contract and a civil (rather than criminal) law: Break the rules you didn’t read and you get a fine you might not be able to afford.
      - jakeogh 9y ago
        Contracts are civil law... I'm not sure what you are getting at. What contracts are you thinking about? If you are thinking about TOS, that's not a contract. The uni-party would love to change that though. I forget which one it was... SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/CISPA/TPP etc etc. NN is civil law since it's FCC regs, but that's not all that important since large corps cant hide from the process server. They would follow it regardless or get their accounts "directed un-deposited" from eventually.
adventured 9y ago
It's because most of the left shuts down critical thinking if you say a bill is for ending sex trafficking. It ends their ability to think rationally or challenge the rest of it. It's the reason politicians use the: "it's for the children," bullshit - it ends debate & challenges. That same contingent, mostly the left, were the ones protesting ending net neutrality. You had the NY Times and Washington Post both supporting the Cloud Act as a good idea, by pushing pro opinion pieces.
- behindmyscreen 9y ago
  Just like the right goes crazy when using "but muh freedom", or "they want to take your guns".
  - mrhappyunhappy 9y ago
    Don’t get them started!
- John_KZ 9y ago
  At first I felt insulted for implying the left is easy to manipulated, but then I realized I'd be more insulted if I was in the right wing because you imply the right-wing doesn't care about the sexual molestation and exploitation of children nearly as much.
- pmarreck 9y ago
  "BUT HER EMAILS!!" Dude, there is absolutely no monopoly by lefties on a lack of critical thinking.
mnm1 9y ago
They added "sex" to the title of the bill. I knew this would pass the first time I heard of it when they were discussing it as a separate bill. Stopping people from having sex is clearly high on the agenda for both parties as is getting information without a warrant.
pmarreck 9y ago
The day I heard of it was the day it passed :/
pasbesoin 9y ago
You have a group of people and organizations who are paid very well to make this crap their job. In significant part, they're being paid by many of us (using revenue generated from us) who are opposed to what they are doing but held hostage -- or quasi-extorted -- by oligopoly. People's individual efforts -- just to keep up with the news and endless initiatives, much less continue to actively respond to them in effective fashions -- tire out. Want it to end? Then you need to put the people behind these things -- commercial and political -- out of business. But they fight us on that, too. No municipal broadband for you! Years of wrangling with Google Fiber (who arguably could go bad at any time, themselves) over pole access. Etc. Musk's nascent satellite network is in the news, currently. Who's going to control that, and what agendas will they bring with them?

gcb0 9y ago

everyone that I know in tech that was involved in this one, with half a brain, just walked out of discussions. left was the corrupt, lobbists and idiots-puppets-think-of-the-children. really, early on nobody thought this could ever be taken seriously. guess engineers suck at politics. (still have to see what the lawyers that were involved are saying now).

rocqua 9y ago
I never heard of this bill until after it was passed. Feels like more could have been done if this publicity had come earlier.

arca_vorago 9y ago

The same thing that happens any time the oligarchy wants legislation... they just took the losses and kept trying until one time we weren't paying attention. I have seen this coming for a while now. Once the oligarchy understood the internet is the last bastion of anarchistic fredom of thought they immediately wanted to take control over it somehow.

mirimir 9y ago
Also embedded in the spending bill[0] is the CLOUD Act:[1] > The CLOUD Act (S. 2383 and H.R. 4943) has two major components. First, it empowers U.S. law enforcement to grab data stored anywhere in the world, without following foreign data privacy rules. Second, it empowers the president to unilaterally enter executive agreements with any nation on earth, even known human rights abusers. Under such executive agreements, foreign law enforcement officials could grab data stored in the United States, directly from U.S. companies, without following U.S. privacy rules like the Fourth Amendment, so long as the foreign police are not targeting a U.S. person or a person in the United States. 0) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/responsibility-deflected-cloud-act-passes https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/responsibility-deflect... 1) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/new-backdoor-around-fourth-amendment-cloud-act https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/new-backdoor-around-fo...
- jakeogh 9y ago
  "unilaterally enter executive agreements with any nation on earth" good chance the SC strikes that down if it gets there. https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/spotlight-fourth-amendment/ https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/spotlight-fourth-am...
  - votepaunchy 9y ago
    You do realize that non-U.S. persons not in the U.S. are not covered by the U.S. Constitution?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - jakeogh 9y ago
      Correct. That's up to that country, if they cant handle outside influence that's bad, and they and only they can fix it. We have our own trouble with it here... I am doing everything I can to stop us from meddling in other countries, and you wont see us going to war any time soon (despite the BS media owned by the war party). What else do you want? This law violates my 4th Amendment, and as far as that goes, it's highly likely that it gets struck down given the chance, our latest SC appointment makes that even more likely. Maybe it would have been more clear if I had quoted the "foreign law enforcement officials could grab data stored in the United States" part.
      - Intermernet 9y ago
        >despite the BS media owned by the war party Sorry, I'm from Australia and sometimes find tracking US internal nomenclature confusing. Which party is "the war party"? Both major parties seem to have been happy to support ongoing military action over the last few decades so maybe I'm missing something. Once again, I'm legitimately asking for clarification in order to put your comment in context. No judgement!
        9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

nordsieck 9y ago

I don't now, but I suspect that it may partially be Compassion Fatigue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_fatigue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_fatigue

AFNobody 9y ago

Every time there is an unpopular bill they cannot get passed but their financial backers do shit like this happens. They keep trying to pass variations of it in various shady ways until compassion fatigue sets in.

ianai 9y ago
Is it compassion fatigue if the law was written and passed in near total secret and at a fast pace?
- AFNobody 9y ago
  They tried that trick before but I suppose you can argue its not.
  - ianai 9y ago
    It’s what they did this time.
    - AFNobody 9y ago
      And multiple previous times. This isn't the first time stuff like this has been amended to an unrelated bill.

jakeogh 9y ago

Power wanted "net neutrality". It's a stepping stone to the same ends, more rules regulating the internet. Once you convince people it should be regulated, the sky is the limit. Standard incrementalism tactic. I mean... who likes "hate speech" anyway? I could post a wall of similar links: http://www.businessinsider.com/sen-al-franken-calls-for-vigorous-overight-of-big-tech-companies-2017-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/sen-al-franken-calls-for-vigo...

devmunchies 9y ago
No it’s the other way around. Net neutrality is itself a regulation. Removing the government regulation turns it into a Wild West with less rules and allows other powers to slap us around.
- jakeogh 9y ago
  "Net neutrality is itself a regulation" Correct, that's exactly what I said. NN is gov enforced regs. This thread is about bad _gov_ regulation. Companies cant make or enforce law. Gov can. Gov is therefore much more powerful, as we see here. You can leave FB, you cant leave your gov (well... easily).
  - ben_w 9y ago
    From the perspective of Joe & Jane Average, there is no difference between a contract and a civil (rather than criminal) law: Break the rules you didn’t read and you get a fine you might not be able to afford.
    - jakeogh 9y ago
      Contracts are civil law... I'm not sure what you are getting at. What contracts are you thinking about? If you are thinking about TOS, that's not a contract. The uni-party would love to change that though. I forget which one it was... SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/CISPA/TPP etc etc. NN is civil law since it's FCC regs, but that's not all that important since large corps cant hide from the process server. They would follow it regardless or get their accounts "directed un-deposited" from eventually.

adventured 9y ago

It's because most of the left shuts down critical thinking if you say a bill is for ending sex trafficking. It ends their ability to think rationally or challenge the rest of it. It's the reason politicians use the: "it's for the children," bullshit - it ends debate & challenges. That same contingent, mostly the left, were the ones protesting ending net neutrality. You had the NY Times and Washington Post both supporting the Cloud Act as a good idea, by pushing pro opinion pieces.

behindmyscreen 9y ago
Just like the right goes crazy when using "but muh freedom", or "they want to take your guns".
- mrhappyunhappy 9y ago
  Don’t get them started!
John_KZ 9y ago
At first I felt insulted for implying the left is easy to manipulated, but then I realized I'd be more insulted if I was in the right wing because you imply the right-wing doesn't care about the sexual molestation and exploitation of children nearly as much.
pmarreck 9y ago
"BUT HER EMAILS!!" Dude, there is absolutely no monopoly by lefties on a lack of critical thinking.

mnm1 9y ago

They added "sex" to the title of the bill. I knew this would pass the first time I heard of it when they were discussing it as a separate bill. Stopping people from having sex is clearly high on the agenda for both parties as is getting information without a warrant.

pmarreck 9y ago

The day I heard of it was the day it passed :/

pasbesoin 9y ago

You have a group of people and organizations who are paid very well to make this crap their job. In significant part, they're being paid by many of us (using revenue generated from us) who are opposed to what they are doing but held hostage -- or quasi-extorted -- by oligopoly. People's individual efforts -- just to keep up with the news and endless initiatives, much less continue to actively respond to them in effective fashions -- tire out. Want it to end? Then you need to put the people behind these things -- commercial and political -- out of business. But they fight us on that, too. No municipal broadband for you! Years of wrangling with Google Fiber (who arguably could go bad at any time, themselves) over pole access. Etc. Musk's nascent satellite network is in the news, currently. Who's going to control that, and what agendas will they bring with them?