5 ms·

Lot of nonsense in this article: > Regulation = Freedom only in George Orwell’s 1984. I guess we should stop regulating that whole "freedom of speech" thing.

Lot of nonsense in this article: > Regulation = Freedom only in George Orwell’s 1984. I guess we should stop regulating that whole "freedom of speech" thing. Who protects your freedom of speech? AT&T? Verizon? Did you forget? THE GOVERNMENT. Who makes sure your kids can drink from the same water fountains that white-kids drink? THE GOVERNMENT. I could go on of course, perhaps quote that god awful regulation known as the Bill of Rights, but I think the point is clear. Unlike a company, its sole purpose isn't to "maximize profit". Its "Board of Directors" (Congress) and "CEO" (President) is elected by the entire People of the United States (or [insert country-name here]). We have the power, every few years or so, to throw these elected representatives out. Net Neutrality is our generation's freedom of speech debate, and just like free speech, it needs to be protected. Yes, by... THE GOVERNMENT, because that's how you protect the nation as a whole.

kiba 16y ago
Two words: Regulatory capture.
- itistoday 16y ago
  If you honestly believe that the phenomenon of regulatory capture means we shouldn't attempt to regulate anything at all, then please hand over your Freedom of Speech Card. While you're at it, I could also use an indentured servant... Maybe, one day, regulatory capture will be a thing of the past if The People wake up and learn what that is.
  - kiba 16y ago
    What you're doing is avoid analyzing the regulatory system's incentive system. The regulatory system is wholly connected to the failure and success to protect "net neutrality". All I am telling you is my grim assessment that the government is no confidence as protector. Check and balances doesn't do anything if government is simply hostile as a whole. Democracy is tyranny. The whole idea of an educated electorate is a laughingstock. Well, forgive me when I think people in general are just hostile to the idea of liberty and that democracy have no intrinsic protection against tyranny.
- T-R 16y ago
  So rather than take the risk that a part of government may become corrupt, and attempt to manage that risk with a system of checks and balances, we shouldn't give the government any power whatsoever, and instead leave any other organization that gains any form of power free to use that power without restriction?
  - judd-hustlebear 16y ago
    Precisely. As long as that power was obtained through voluntary cooperation in the market, there is no concern. Power in a free market sense is only gained by being valuable. No longer valuable to your customers, no longer powerful. Government Power and Market Power are pretty much opposite.
    - T-R 16y ago
      So in a free market, all entities inherently act in the best interest of their customers, regardless of whether or not there's competition? And they wouldn't use their position to do anything anticompetitive to maintain that position and keep the "free" market effectively closed? My point is, without some entity establishing rules of fair play, the market isn't a free one, because one player can gain enough power to effectively close the market to any competitors.
1337p337 16y ago
In what way has the government protected freedom of speech? The first amendment is about stopping the government from restricting speech, and it's only when the government restricts speech that there's even a reason. In fact, the government tries time and again to restrict speech, and if they decide, collectively, to block it, there's no recourse besides moving to another country. You've got press blackouts in the 1940s, you have the PMRC triggering congressional hearings about musical content in the 80s, you've got crypto laws in the 90s, you've got the DMCA, you've got the DHS seizing domains, you've got calls to have Wikileaks banned. Your all-caps "the government" did these, and keeps doing them, and I don't know which government you're watching if you think that these elected officials and unelected bureaucrats shouldn't be kept on the shortest leash possible. The Bill of Rights regulates no one but the government itself. The government has two roles: to keep others from infringing on my rights, and to keep its nose out of my damned business unles I infringe on others'. It's doing a lousy job, but that's a different issue. There exists no private entity that can legally stop me from saying what I want. They can keep me from doing it on land they own or with resources they own, but that's fine. I don't want them to be able to freely use my resources without my consent, either. That's the concept of private property. But I can get a bullhorn and run down to city hall and yell, I can publish a newspaper, I can create a blog. If $company_x doesn't want to host my blog, I can get $company_y to do it. If my government can stop me on a whim, though, then I'm screwed. (Edit: typos, damnable phone, it's trying to censor me.)
- itistoday 16y ago
  There exists no private entity that can legally stop me from saying what I want Correct! Your company can fire you for saying something bad about it online, but they can't throw you in jail. No one can throw you in jail for what you say online (with technical exceptions for some forms of hate speech I believe). Companies can't do it, nor can the government. Why? Because of... heh, The Government! You've got press blackouts in the 1940s, you have the PMRC triggering congressional hearings about musical content in the 80s, you've got crypto laws in the 90s, you've got the DMCA, you've got the DHS seizing domains, you've got calls to have Wikileaks banned. Your all-caps "the government" did these Yes. Sometimes the government violates its own laws. And when it gets caught doing that, other parts of.. The Government, actually spring into action. This is called the system of Checks and Balances, and you may have heard of organizations such as the ACLU and the EFF making use of it to correct the Government's behavior using... The Government. The internet, as a whole, belongs to no one. It belongs to us all. In a sense, it is Public Property (on the whole). Protecting it is therefore the responsibility of The People, through the mechanism known as Government. (Edit: BTW, you'll note that most of the examples you cited happen to be caused by contamination in The Government caused by the private sector, known as regulatory capture (as another commenter pointed out).)
fooandbarify 16y ago
No kidding. Of course governments can and do abuse their power, but that is an entirely different argument. The only alternative to having laws, as far as I can tell, is having no laws, and faced with that option I think we should aim for the best laws possible.
- judd-hustlebear 16y ago
  As Nazi Germany can always serve as example, the alternatives discussed here are not between having laws and not having laws. The alternatives are between laws that protect our individual rights and laws that violate them. When government begins meddling in the affairs of content delivery, it is not only an innappropriate harmful intrusion, but leaves a door open for content itself to be regulated or up for public vote.
  - T-R 16y ago
    Agreed, let's not let government meddle in the affairs of content delivery. But let's not let anyone else, either, because government isn't the only entity capable of censorship. But who would enforce such a rule? I have an idea - we could make a law that says "no one should meddle in the affairs of content delivery" - we could call it something catchy, like "Net Neutrality".

kiba 16y ago

Two words: Regulatory capture.

itistoday 16y ago
If you honestly believe that the phenomenon of regulatory capture means we shouldn't attempt to regulate anything at all, then please hand over your Freedom of Speech Card. While you're at it, I could also use an indentured servant... Maybe, one day, regulatory capture will be a thing of the past if The People wake up and learn what that is.
- kiba 16y ago
  What you're doing is avoid analyzing the regulatory system's incentive system. The regulatory system is wholly connected to the failure and success to protect "net neutrality". All I am telling you is my grim assessment that the government is no confidence as protector. Check and balances doesn't do anything if government is simply hostile as a whole. Democracy is tyranny. The whole idea of an educated electorate is a laughingstock. Well, forgive me when I think people in general are just hostile to the idea of liberty and that democracy have no intrinsic protection against tyranny.
T-R 16y ago
So rather than take the risk that a part of government may become corrupt, and attempt to manage that risk with a system of checks and balances, we shouldn't give the government any power whatsoever, and instead leave any other organization that gains any form of power free to use that power without restriction?
- judd-hustlebear 16y ago
  Precisely. As long as that power was obtained through voluntary cooperation in the market, there is no concern. Power in a free market sense is only gained by being valuable. No longer valuable to your customers, no longer powerful. Government Power and Market Power are pretty much opposite.
  - T-R 16y ago
    So in a free market, all entities inherently act in the best interest of their customers, regardless of whether or not there's competition? And they wouldn't use their position to do anything anticompetitive to maintain that position and keep the "free" market effectively closed? My point is, without some entity establishing rules of fair play, the market isn't a free one, because one player can gain enough power to effectively close the market to any competitors.

1337p337 16y ago

In what way has the government protected freedom of speech? The first amendment is about stopping the government from restricting speech, and it's only when the government restricts speech that there's even a reason. In fact, the government tries time and again to restrict speech, and if they decide, collectively, to block it, there's no recourse besides moving to another country. You've got press blackouts in the 1940s, you have the PMRC triggering congressional hearings about musical content in the 80s, you've got crypto laws in the 90s, you've got the DMCA, you've got the DHS seizing domains, you've got calls to have Wikileaks banned. Your all-caps "the government" did these, and keeps doing them, and I don't know which government you're watching if you think that these elected officials and unelected bureaucrats shouldn't be kept on the shortest leash possible. The Bill of Rights regulates no one but the government itself. The government has two roles: to keep others from infringing on my rights, and to keep its nose out of my damned business unles I infringe on others'. It's doing a lousy job, but that's a different issue. There exists no private entity that can legally stop me from saying what I want. They can keep me from doing it on land they own or with resources they own, but that's fine. I don't want them to be able to freely use my resources without my consent, either. That's the concept of private property. But I can get a bullhorn and run down to city hall and yell, I can publish a newspaper, I can create a blog. If $company_x doesn't want to host my blog, I can get $company_y to do it. If my government can stop me on a whim, though, then I'm screwed. (Edit: typos, damnable phone, it's trying to censor me.)

itistoday 16y ago
There exists no private entity that can legally stop me from saying what I want Correct! Your company can fire you for saying something bad about it online, but they can't throw you in jail. No one can throw you in jail for what you say online (with technical exceptions for some forms of hate speech I believe). Companies can't do it, nor can the government. Why? Because of... heh, The Government! You've got press blackouts in the 1940s, you have the PMRC triggering congressional hearings about musical content in the 80s, you've got crypto laws in the 90s, you've got the DMCA, you've got the DHS seizing domains, you've got calls to have Wikileaks banned. Your all-caps "the government" did these Yes. Sometimes the government violates its own laws. And when it gets caught doing that, other parts of.. The Government, actually spring into action. This is called the system of Checks and Balances, and you may have heard of organizations such as the ACLU and the EFF making use of it to correct the Government's behavior using... The Government. The internet, as a whole, belongs to no one. It belongs to us all. In a sense, it is Public Property (on the whole). Protecting it is therefore the responsibility of The People, through the mechanism known as Government. (Edit: BTW, you'll note that most of the examples you cited happen to be caused by contamination in The Government caused by the private sector, known as regulatory capture (as another commenter pointed out).)

fooandbarify 16y ago

No kidding. Of course governments can and do abuse their power, but that is an entirely different argument. The only alternative to having laws, as far as I can tell, is having no laws, and faced with that option I think we should aim for the best laws possible.

judd-hustlebear 16y ago
As Nazi Germany can always serve as example, the alternatives discussed here are not between having laws and not having laws. The alternatives are between laws that protect our individual rights and laws that violate them. When government begins meddling in the affairs of content delivery, it is not only an innappropriate harmful intrusion, but leaves a door open for content itself to be regulated or up for public vote.
- T-R 16y ago
  Agreed, let's not let government meddle in the affairs of content delivery. But let's not let anyone else, either, because government isn't the only entity capable of censorship. But who would enforce such a rule? I have an idea - we could make a law that says "no one should meddle in the affairs of content delivery" - we could call it something catchy, like "Net Neutrality".