7 ms·

Supreme Court pick: ISPs have First Amendment right to block websites

41 points by glitcher 8y ago

craftyguy 8y ago
Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better, if ever.
linuxftw 8y ago
50 years from now, we won't have an internet. Everything will be accessible only from a proprietary app, on a proprietary operating system, on a proprietary device. Apps can only come from a sanctioned marketplace. All walled garden, all the time. The internet in general will be replaced by 'Facebook pages'. No more URL bar. Many kids today don't know how to utilize the internet but they do know how to consume apps. This is the future that you vote for every time you buy an iPhone or a Windows PC. This is the future you buy into when you buy an Android from an OEM that doesn't allow unlocking their bootloader.
- filleduchaos 8y ago
  Who are these many kids that don't know how to use the internet (I'm assuming here you mean the web)?
- jstarfish 8y ago
  Sounds like AOL's vision for the future ~20 years ago. Keyword: ABANDONALLHOPE It was fun while it lasted, but everything old becomes new again. Business interests and law enforcement are far too entrenched with the current internet for things to ever revert back to the wild west it once was. Legislators went from thinking the internet was an inconsequential series of tubes to now understanding its implications enough to legislate it, which is indication enough that the party is over. With net neutrality dead, selective law enforcement of content (FO/SESTA) established and ISPs allowed to be choosy with how they participate in a network that depends on global participation to have any utility at all, the walls of this garden are being raised one slab at a time. Blaming Apple, Microsoft or Google is not the solution. The storm is indeed upon us, but it's not too late to start building an ark.
  - linuxftw 8y ago
    I'm not blaming the corporations. I'm blaming those who vote with their dollars/<other currency> to further the construction of the walled garden.
- commandlinefan 8y ago
  Or we'll come up with a workable technical solution (like meshnet, but something that works) to the fundamental problem of centralization of the internet.
  - linuxftw 8y ago
    I don't think the devices to enable this will be available. Unless people plan on saving the devices that are in use now.
- kart23 8y ago
  For every couple kids that have iPads and spend their days consuming mindless content through apps, there are kids who build computers from old parts, install linux on those computers, and learn from the infinite amount of documentation on the internet. The future internet might not have the same independent spirit as in the past, but it will exist.
  - mnr 8y ago
    It's 100:1 really.
davidkuhta 8y ago
> But Kavanaugh argued that ISPs are like cable TV operators—since cable TV companies can choose not to carry certain channels, Internet providers should be able to choose not to allow access to a certain website For all the legal scholars: Would there be any legal distinction between signals which are broadcasted (as in traditional TV, whether digital or analog) and the structure of the internet having packets exchanged which ultimately contain two MAC addresses between two entities? Note: Not a network engineer so additional comments on domain specific nuances I may be ignorant of are welcome.
pavel_lishin 8y ago
Just like phone companies have the right to block phone calls.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  As much as it pains me to say this because I absolutely hate junk mail: internet service providers should be like the USPS, with an obligation to deliver all the content regardless of the content. The internet is (arguably) more powerful today than the telephone is, or ever was, as a tool for mass communication, learning, and dissention. If the government allows companies to stifle this resource without themselves providing an unbiased alternative, then the government has effectively, indirectly, snuffed out a very important medium for free speech in the 21st century.
  - astrodust 8y ago
    There's always some sort of reasonable limit that must be imposed. The USPS is a neutral carrier but they're not required to transport dangerous materials or hostile devices like mail bombs. Where that line is drawn is where there should be debate. By what definition is something hostile, and so on.
    - craftyguy 8y ago
      Good point. Isn't this already defined though? For example, you cannot shout "fire!" in a crowded courthouse when there is no fire and expect to walk out without any penalties.
    - mjevans 8y ago
      The USPS does get to require that things are properly labeled and items which are /hazardous/ (such as highly flammable/reactive/etc materials) might require non-generic transport (which is that USPS is supposed to provide). Are you proposing that EM emissions controlled entirely by the transporting party might spontaneously explode based on the content of the data as transcribed by those automated systems?
kevin_b_er 8y ago
And again we find Republican Party philosophy is that corporate rights are as strong as or stronger than human rights. Greed is good.
- User23 8y ago
  The first amendment doesn’t give you the right to use someone else’s printing press or network. This is a completely reasonable ruling. You’re free to start your own ISP. There are plenty of Democrat VCs. I’m sure they have no interest in greed and will be happy to fund you for purely idealistic reasons.
  - DannyB2 8y ago
    You are paying your ISP to move packets to and from the internet backbone they are connected to without editing or blocking those packets. The contents of, source of, and destination of each packet is none of the ISP's business.
    - User23 8y ago
      That depends on the contract you signed with them. Even common carriers can refuse to transport objects. Many forbid even disassembled firearms for example.
      - DannyB2 8y ago
        Packets are data. Not explosives. Not dangerous chemicals. Packets may even be encrypted. And increasingly, they are.
        User23 8y ago
        An AR 15 lower is not explosive or a dangerous chemical. It’s no more dangerous than any other couple pound hunk of metal. But common carriers choose not to transport them even though it’s safe and legal.
glitcher 8y ago
Imagine if roads were built like this. "Buy the mall + metro bundle for discounted access to many convenient routes to your favorite shopping destinations!"
pascalxus 8y ago
Imagine if GM or Ford prevented their cars from driving on certain roads.
- astrodust 8y ago
  Imagine if GM built a significant highway and made it available for free for any GM OnStar customer, but everyone else had to pay tolls. This used to seem utterly dystopian, but it's probably right around the corner. For instance, Detroit could be forced to sell off highways and if GM's financing division bought one as an investment...
  - mindslight 8y ago
    > Detroit could be forced to sell off highways and if GM's financing division bought one as an investment This is completely analogous to the current issue, just an iteration or two behind. Detroit should be incapable of "selling off highways", as they're public property built out with public money. "Detroit" is a force monopoly that purported to steward public money for public works, not a free enterprise that took private investment to improve private property. An [inherently temporary] politician purporting to represent Detroit while selling off assets for short-term balance sheet boosts is in violation of the public trust and therefore has no actual authority to contract. All of these communication companies used to fall under the purview of regulated utilities, and were built out using public subsidies. They've lobbied to escape the regulatory regime, and are now playing the "muh propertuh" card with public infrastructure that they essentially embezzled from the public. If big ISP wishes offer only curated media services instead of general communications, they can easily divest their holdings of this inappropriately-titled public infrastructure to another company which can then carry their traffic non-exclusively.
    - astrodust 8y ago
      "Should be incapable" and "are legally prohibited from" are two different things here. The United States is perilously close to seeing its infrastructure utterly collapse in many areas with the backlog of repairs climbing exponentially every year. Sure, maintenance is expensive, but failing to do routine maintenance means a simple repair becomes a big problem. If there's one thing that America seems to love it's building things, and if there's one thing it seems allergic to it's paying taxes to keep those things in working order. The only way out for some municipalities might be to offload these expensive responsibilities to third parties (e.g. "Public-Private Partnerships" or outright sale) to get them off their books. Domino's taking over road repair responsibilities is just the beginning of a sad trend. The problem here is that roads aren't cheap to maintain but they're necessary and if the only option is a private one then equal access is critical. The same goes for network infrastructure although at a smaller scale.
User23 8y ago
It’s not the Supreme Court’s job to make policy. This is a job for Congress.
cmurf 8y ago
The main contra-agent to corporate censorship is competition. But the U.S. by political choice doesn't really have strong competition law, anti-competitive behavior is profitable, so it's likely most people in the U.S. will continue to have one or two choices in ISPs. The next contra-agent is making sure states allow local municipalities to own, or regulate, and offer alternatives. The track record for Republicans in the similar case of health care insurance is, ignore the problem of lack of competition, allow mergers and conglomeration. As a party, it's ideologically lost on both issues. And the track record for Democrats is not really that much farther behind, they took a busted anti-competitive health insurance market and made it compulsory, while also offering no public option like a Medicare or Medicaid buy-in even though they certainly would have had the votes for it. So either party poses difficulty with censorship free internet, but as there's no viable 3rd party, for now the emphasis should be on getting more technically qualified people elected at all levels of government, and accept that a lot of persuasion is going to be needed to bring Democrats along.

41 points by glitcher 8y ago

Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better, if ever.

50 years from now, we won't have an internet. Everything will be accessible only from a proprietary app, on a proprietary operating system, on a proprietary device. Apps can only come from a sanctioned marketplace. All walled garden, all the time. The internet in general will be replaced by 'Facebook pages'. No more URL bar. Many kids today don't know how to utilize the internet but they do know how to consume apps. This is the future that you vote for every time you buy an iPhone or a Windows PC. This is the future you buy into when you buy an Android from an OEM that doesn't allow unlocking their bootloader.

filleduchaos 8y ago
Who are these many kids that don't know how to use the internet (I'm assuming here you mean the web)?
jstarfish 8y ago
Sounds like AOL's vision for the future ~20 years ago. Keyword: ABANDONALLHOPE It was fun while it lasted, but everything old becomes new again. Business interests and law enforcement are far too entrenched with the current internet for things to ever revert back to the wild west it once was. Legislators went from thinking the internet was an inconsequential series of tubes to now understanding its implications enough to legislate it, which is indication enough that the party is over. With net neutrality dead, selective law enforcement of content (FO/SESTA) established and ISPs allowed to be choosy with how they participate in a network that depends on global participation to have any utility at all, the walls of this garden are being raised one slab at a time. Blaming Apple, Microsoft or Google is not the solution. The storm is indeed upon us, but it's not too late to start building an ark.
- linuxftw 8y ago
  I'm not blaming the corporations. I'm blaming those who vote with their dollars/<other currency> to further the construction of the walled garden.
commandlinefan 8y ago
Or we'll come up with a workable technical solution (like meshnet, but something that works) to the fundamental problem of centralization of the internet.
- linuxftw 8y ago
  I don't think the devices to enable this will be available. Unless people plan on saving the devices that are in use now.
kart23 8y ago
For every couple kids that have iPads and spend their days consuming mindless content through apps, there are kids who build computers from old parts, install linux on those computers, and learn from the infinite amount of documentation on the internet. The future internet might not have the same independent spirit as in the past, but it will exist.
- mnr 8y ago
  It's 100:1 really.

davidkuhta 8y ago

> But Kavanaugh argued that ISPs are like cable TV operators—since cable TV companies can choose not to carry certain channels, Internet providers should be able to choose not to allow access to a certain website For all the legal scholars: Would there be any legal distinction between signals which are broadcasted (as in traditional TV, whether digital or analog) and the structure of the internet having packets exchanged which ultimately contain two MAC addresses between two entities? Note: Not a network engineer so additional comments on domain specific nuances I may be ignorant of are welcome.

pavel_lishin 8y ago

Just like phone companies have the right to block phone calls.

craftyguy 8y ago
As much as it pains me to say this because I absolutely hate junk mail: internet service providers should be like the USPS, with an obligation to deliver all the content regardless of the content. The internet is (arguably) more powerful today than the telephone is, or ever was, as a tool for mass communication, learning, and dissention. If the government allows companies to stifle this resource without themselves providing an unbiased alternative, then the government has effectively, indirectly, snuffed out a very important medium for free speech in the 21st century.
- astrodust 8y ago
  There's always some sort of reasonable limit that must be imposed. The USPS is a neutral carrier but they're not required to transport dangerous materials or hostile devices like mail bombs. Where that line is drawn is where there should be debate. By what definition is something hostile, and so on.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    Good point. Isn't this already defined though? For example, you cannot shout "fire!" in a crowded courthouse when there is no fire and expect to walk out without any penalties.
  - mjevans 8y ago
    The USPS does get to require that things are properly labeled and items which are /hazardous/ (such as highly flammable/reactive/etc materials) might require non-generic transport (which is that USPS is supposed to provide). Are you proposing that EM emissions controlled entirely by the transporting party might spontaneously explode based on the content of the data as transcribed by those automated systems?

kevin_b_er 8y ago

And again we find Republican Party philosophy is that corporate rights are as strong as or stronger than human rights. Greed is good.

User23 8y ago
The first amendment doesn’t give you the right to use someone else’s printing press or network. This is a completely reasonable ruling. You’re free to start your own ISP. There are plenty of Democrat VCs. I’m sure they have no interest in greed and will be happy to fund you for purely idealistic reasons.
- DannyB2 8y ago
  You are paying your ISP to move packets to and from the internet backbone they are connected to without editing or blocking those packets. The contents of, source of, and destination of each packet is none of the ISP's business.
  - User23 8y ago
    That depends on the contract you signed with them. Even common carriers can refuse to transport objects. Many forbid even disassembled firearms for example.
    - DannyB2 8y ago
      Packets are data. Not explosives. Not dangerous chemicals. Packets may even be encrypted. And increasingly, they are.
      - User23 8y ago
        An AR 15 lower is not explosive or a dangerous chemical. It’s no more dangerous than any other couple pound hunk of metal. But common carriers choose not to transport them even though it’s safe and legal.

glitcher 8y ago

Imagine if roads were built like this. "Buy the mall + metro bundle for discounted access to many convenient routes to your favorite shopping destinations!"

pascalxus 8y ago

Imagine if GM or Ford prevented their cars from driving on certain roads.

astrodust 8y ago
Imagine if GM built a significant highway and made it available for free for any GM OnStar customer, but everyone else had to pay tolls. This used to seem utterly dystopian, but it's probably right around the corner. For instance, Detroit could be forced to sell off highways and if GM's financing division bought one as an investment...
- mindslight 8y ago
  > Detroit could be forced to sell off highways and if GM's financing division bought one as an investment This is completely analogous to the current issue, just an iteration or two behind. Detroit should be incapable of "selling off highways", as they're public property built out with public money. "Detroit" is a force monopoly that purported to steward public money for public works, not a free enterprise that took private investment to improve private property. An [inherently temporary] politician purporting to represent Detroit while selling off assets for short-term balance sheet boosts is in violation of the public trust and therefore has no actual authority to contract. All of these communication companies used to fall under the purview of regulated utilities, and were built out using public subsidies. They've lobbied to escape the regulatory regime, and are now playing the "muh propertuh" card with public infrastructure that they essentially embezzled from the public. If big ISP wishes offer only curated media services instead of general communications, they can easily divest their holdings of this inappropriately-titled public infrastructure to another company which can then carry their traffic non-exclusively.
  - astrodust 8y ago
    "Should be incapable" and "are legally prohibited from" are two different things here. The United States is perilously close to seeing its infrastructure utterly collapse in many areas with the backlog of repairs climbing exponentially every year. Sure, maintenance is expensive, but failing to do routine maintenance means a simple repair becomes a big problem. If there's one thing that America seems to love it's building things, and if there's one thing it seems allergic to it's paying taxes to keep those things in working order. The only way out for some municipalities might be to offload these expensive responsibilities to third parties (e.g. "Public-Private Partnerships" or outright sale) to get them off their books. Domino's taking over road repair responsibilities is just the beginning of a sad trend. The problem here is that roads aren't cheap to maintain but they're necessary and if the only option is a private one then equal access is critical. The same goes for network infrastructure although at a smaller scale.

User23 8y ago

It’s not the Supreme Court’s job to make policy. This is a job for Congress.

cmurf 8y ago

The main contra-agent to corporate censorship is competition. But the U.S. by political choice doesn't really have strong competition law, anti-competitive behavior is profitable, so it's likely most people in the U.S. will continue to have one or two choices in ISPs. The next contra-agent is making sure states allow local municipalities to own, or regulate, and offer alternatives. The track record for Republicans in the similar case of health care insurance is, ignore the problem of lack of competition, allow mergers and conglomeration. As a party, it's ideologically lost on both issues. And the track record for Democrats is not really that much farther behind, they took a busted anti-competitive health insurance market and made it compulsory, while also offering no public option like a Medicare or Medicaid buy-in even though they certainly would have had the votes for it. So either party poses difficulty with censorship free internet, but as there's no viable 3rd party, for now the emphasis should be on getting more technically qualified people elected at all levels of government, and accept that a lot of persuasion is going to be needed to bring Democrats along.