2 ms·

> AT&T cannot inspect our packets for 'bad words' I was under impression that they actually can inspect, but should not be able to deny/degrade or prioritize s

> AT&T cannot inspect our packets for 'bad words' I was under impression that they actually can inspect, but should not be able to deny/degrade or prioritize service based on whatever they might find in one’s packets. Inspection part is going to be moot if everyone is using encryption though.

jollybean 5y ago
Net Neutrality was tossed by the Trump admin, and Section 230 was written for the protection of business. What remains is this [1] 1934 Comms. Act. In the US it's the Wild West and basically money rules on this issue, like the vague laws about land holding and mineral rights on the frontier in the 20th century, power is winning, not so much civility. I'm not sure that the EU has the right laws, but at least there are clearly measures enacted to protect individuals and to try to create some kind of more rational 'playing field' even at the risk over over regulation. Maybe we are in an era where only a few things here and there are going to get banned, and we will arrive at a new 'consensus' without intervention, that Parler was taken down isn't the end of the world for free expression ... or it's possible things will only escalate, it's hard to say. But it's worth considering if hosting platforms might better fall more under the notion of 'carrier' than they would 'internet service' i.e. Section 230. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934
- hypothesis 5y ago
  One issue that people brought up is that “curation” (or moderation even) is not really possible with a “carrier”-type hosting platform, but I think that specialized or niche forums are a good thing. On the other hand, it is clear that heavy handed suppression is not good either, especially when all major platforms do that. Is it possible to have both alternatives available somehow?
  - jollybean 5y ago
    Neither VISA nor Amazon 'curate' either which is why I lean towards some kind of light regulation towards 'open access' as opposed to them kicking people out arbitrarily. But I like your 'have the cake and eat it too' thinking! ... I wonder if companies on the margins could be given either the option of Section 230 protections, but then also have an obligation to curate for some things, and to have some kind of 'consistently objective rules' ... or ... take the more 'neutral' approach and wash their hands of everything and be obligated to provide services for 'pretty much anything legal' ... which in this case would be interesting because GoDaddy is looking mostly to avoid populist outrage. If they are legally bound to allow the 'legal site' ... well ... there's little they can do ant the outrage would have be oriented towards the legislators. My feeling is that both our current Net Neutrality and Section 230 just don't provide very well in the middle ground cases.
    - hypothesis 5y ago
      Maybe it’s naive to think that that we can legislate those two options into existence where a company can pick an option (and maybe even switch between them under some circumstances), but it would be nice to see a “free market” finding one that most efficient without everyone being forced to just use one. For Visa, wasn’t the latest OnlyFan thing that payment networks almost forced them to self-destruct due to some morality rules? That would be a bit too restrictive for “carrier” case I think…

jollybean 5y ago

Net Neutrality was tossed by the Trump admin, and Section 230 was written for the protection of business. What remains is this [1] 1934 Comms. Act. In the US it's the Wild West and basically money rules on this issue, like the vague laws about land holding and mineral rights on the frontier in the 20th century, power is winning, not so much civility. I'm not sure that the EU has the right laws, but at least there are clearly measures enacted to protect individuals and to try to create some kind of more rational 'playing field' even at the risk over over regulation. Maybe we are in an era where only a few things here and there are going to get banned, and we will arrive at a new 'consensus' without intervention, that Parler was taken down isn't the end of the world for free expression ... or it's possible things will only escalate, it's hard to say. But it's worth considering if hosting platforms might better fall more under the notion of 'carrier' than they would 'internet service' i.e. Section 230. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934

hypothesis 5y ago
One issue that people brought up is that “curation” (or moderation even) is not really possible with a “carrier”-type hosting platform, but I think that specialized or niche forums are a good thing. On the other hand, it is clear that heavy handed suppression is not good either, especially when all major platforms do that. Is it possible to have both alternatives available somehow?
- jollybean 5y ago
  Neither VISA nor Amazon 'curate' either which is why I lean towards some kind of light regulation towards 'open access' as opposed to them kicking people out arbitrarily. But I like your 'have the cake and eat it too' thinking! ... I wonder if companies on the margins could be given either the option of Section 230 protections, but then also have an obligation to curate for some things, and to have some kind of 'consistently objective rules' ... or ... take the more 'neutral' approach and wash their hands of everything and be obligated to provide services for 'pretty much anything legal' ... which in this case would be interesting because GoDaddy is looking mostly to avoid populist outrage. If they are legally bound to allow the 'legal site' ... well ... there's little they can do ant the outrage would have be oriented towards the legislators. My feeling is that both our current Net Neutrality and Section 230 just don't provide very well in the middle ground cases.
  - hypothesis 5y ago
    Maybe it’s naive to think that that we can legislate those two options into existence where a company can pick an option (and maybe even switch between them under some circumstances), but it would be nice to see a “free market” finding one that most efficient without everyone being forced to just use one. For Visa, wasn’t the latest OnlyFan thing that payment networks almost forced them to self-destruct due to some morality rules? That would be a bit too restrictive for “carrier” case I think…