4 ms·

I think the problem is the roll back of net neutrality for ISPs and at the same time calling for regulation on content providers. It doesn't seem like these in

I think the problem is the roll back of net neutrality for ISPs and at the same time calling for regulation on content providers. It doesn't seem like these interests are protecting the citizens. Anyhow, I do agree we should be protecting peoples right to privacy and unfettered access to the internet.

DanielBMarkham 9y ago
You're right, of course, but as scottie_m points out, the main issue here is one around messaging. The enemy of getting this fixed is complexity. Once we start targeting individual companies, types of internet connections, or hardware devices? We've lost. It's all over. It's not these things don't need fixing, it's that we have about ten words or so to put into a slogan. That slogan needs to be repeated over and over again. I am a firm believer in Net Neutrality -- but that's not the right slogan to march under. If we get Net Neutrality and everything else stays the same, it's a complete loss. By shifting the focus to each user, we can talk more directly about benefits. And by making penalties perhaps draconian, we can leave the management of the complexities to the vendors, where it belongs, instead of the public debate, where the lawyers win. Privacy and anonymity are much bigger fish to fry than whether YouTube costs more than Instagram. If we could come up with a simple slogan to cover both of them, sign me up. Otherwise? We gotta stop everybody from putting telemetry on every detail of our lives. Before the 60s in the U.S., there was pervasive and deeply-held racism, but most people didn't see it, even those who wanted to be morally superior to everybody else. (See the movie "The Help"). Many times I think of what that issue is for us. What will we look back on in 50 years as being barbaric and evil? What is our current equivalent to the Civil Rights campaigns? It's storing tracking data about the minute parts of people's lives. We will either morally overcome this or we will enter a new Dark Ages. There's no middle ground. Here. Here is the moral battle.
- state_less 9y ago
  It's not just the Net Neutrality rules, along with Obama era Net Neutrality rules that were set to be put in place, there were security and privacy rules that ISPs also overturned. If we simply regulate the content providers, we won't get privacy on the internet and we'll also reward ISPs for their lobbying and manipulation. ISPs don't need to collect our data to provide service, yet they do. Content providers don't need to track us, yet they do. They both need to be addressed, or as you say, "we've lost." So, Privacy Now! Or some better clarion call. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/verizon-asks-fcc-to-preempt-any-state-privacy-or-net-neutrality-law/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/verizon-asks-fcc... https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/trumps-signature-makes-it-official-isp-privacy-rules-are-dead/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/trumps-signature...

DanielBMarkham 9y ago

You're right, of course, but as scottie_m points out, the main issue here is one around messaging. The enemy of getting this fixed is complexity. Once we start targeting individual companies, types of internet connections, or hardware devices? We've lost. It's all over. It's not these things don't need fixing, it's that we have about ten words or so to put into a slogan. That slogan needs to be repeated over and over again. I am a firm believer in Net Neutrality -- but that's not the right slogan to march under. If we get Net Neutrality and everything else stays the same, it's a complete loss. By shifting the focus to each user, we can talk more directly about benefits. And by making penalties perhaps draconian, we can leave the management of the complexities to the vendors, where it belongs, instead of the public debate, where the lawyers win. Privacy and anonymity are much bigger fish to fry than whether YouTube costs more than Instagram. If we could come up with a simple slogan to cover both of them, sign me up. Otherwise? We gotta stop everybody from putting telemetry on every detail of our lives. Before the 60s in the U.S., there was pervasive and deeply-held racism, but most people didn't see it, even those who wanted to be morally superior to everybody else. (See the movie "The Help"). Many times I think of what that issue is for us. What will we look back on in 50 years as being barbaric and evil? What is our current equivalent to the Civil Rights campaigns? It's storing tracking data about the minute parts of people's lives. We will either morally overcome this or we will enter a new Dark Ages. There's no middle ground. Here. Here is the moral battle.

state_less 9y ago
It's not just the Net Neutrality rules, along with Obama era Net Neutrality rules that were set to be put in place, there were security and privacy rules that ISPs also overturned. If we simply regulate the content providers, we won't get privacy on the internet and we'll also reward ISPs for their lobbying and manipulation. ISPs don't need to collect our data to provide service, yet they do. Content providers don't need to track us, yet they do. They both need to be addressed, or as you say, "we've lost." So, Privacy Now! Or some better clarion call. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/verizon-asks-fcc-to-preempt-any-state-privacy-or-net-neutrality-law/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/verizon-asks-fcc... https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/trumps-signature-makes-it-official-isp-privacy-rules-are-dead/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/trumps-signature...