3 ms·

This seems to be a different conception of net neutrality than we have in the US where registrars have a right to terminate service at will.

by drb91 8y ago

jerkstate 8y ago
I just find it ironic that in NN threads here, the prevailing thought is "NN is necessary to prevent censorship!" and then in censorship/deplatforming threads like this one, the prevailing thought is "this is a good thing and actually necessary"
- ferongr 8y ago
  People are biased even if they claim to not be.
- tjoff 8y ago
  I don't. The isp is forced to censor, so they choose to also censor the entity that abused the system. The difference is astronomical. The purpose is also to send a signal...
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > I don't. The isp is forced to censor, so they choose to also censor the entity that abused the system. Exactly. There is a huge difference between wanting to censor your enemies and not wanting to censor anybody but being forced to, and then responding by doing so in a balanced rather than asymmetric way. It would be best for the ISP not to be blocking anything, but given that is not a permitted option...
- drb91 8y ago
  I actually haven’t found NN to be framed in terms of censorship at all. In addition, the version of censorship people find evil is state censorship. I’ve found this to be a relatively easy thing to agree on in western society. In terms of non-state platforms, what would be censorship is both widely used (curation, bowdlerization, protection of identities of anonymous sources, etc) and in certain circumstances desired. My point being: “censorship” is not a useful thing to discuss in the abstract, and crying censorship whenever service is terminated is less useful that discussing the event in concrete terms. I think the uncanny part here is that the perception of DNS is that it is a public space, but it is implemented in the private space. I’m emphatically not sure what the right thing is to do here but I can’t help but feel glee that the weapons capitalists use to enforce control can also be used against them.

This seems to be a different conception of net neutrality than we have in the US where registrars have a right to terminate service at will.

by drb91 8y ago

This seems to be a different conception of net neutrality than we have in the US where registrars have a right to terminate service at will.

jerkstate 8y ago

I just find it ironic that in NN threads here, the prevailing thought is "NN is necessary to prevent censorship!" and then in censorship/deplatforming threads like this one, the prevailing thought is "this is a good thing and actually necessary"

ferongr 8y ago
People are biased even if they claim to not be.
tjoff 8y ago
I don't. The isp is forced to censor, so they choose to also censor the entity that abused the system. The difference is astronomical. The purpose is also to send a signal...
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > I don't. The isp is forced to censor, so they choose to also censor the entity that abused the system. Exactly. There is a huge difference between wanting to censor your enemies and not wanting to censor anybody but being forced to, and then responding by doing so in a balanced rather than asymmetric way. It would be best for the ISP not to be blocking anything, but given that is not a permitted option...
drb91 8y ago
I actually haven’t found NN to be framed in terms of censorship at all. In addition, the version of censorship people find evil is state censorship. I’ve found this to be a relatively easy thing to agree on in western society. In terms of non-state platforms, what would be censorship is both widely used (curation, bowdlerization, protection of identities of anonymous sources, etc) and in certain circumstances desired. My point being: “censorship” is not a useful thing to discuss in the abstract, and crying censorship whenever service is terminated is less useful that discussing the event in concrete terms. I think the uncanny part here is that the perception of DNS is that it is a public space, but it is implemented in the private space. I’m emphatically not sure what the right thing is to do here but I can’t help but feel glee that the weapons capitalists use to enforce control can also be used against them.