5 ms·

Net neutrality went away and as far as I can tell, nothing changed. On the other hand, FOSTA-SESTA killed Craigslist personals and, I think, lots of other stuf

• vxNsr 4y ago
  [flagged]
  • SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
    Imma be honest of all the Covid restrictions masking is not something I would consider extreme by any means.
  • nicoburns 4y ago
    I can't speak for everyone, and I'm not particularly familiar with FOSTA-SESTA (I'm not from the US). But one possible rationale for differentiating between these two is that the covid restrictions were temporary, whereas FOSTA-SESTA seems like a permanent law.
  • nerdponx 4y ago
    Because they believe masking is more beneficial than harmful, and the opposite for FOSTA-SESTA.
    • mardifoufs 4y ago
      I think they were maybe more referring to the logic that "if it saves even one life" that was prevalent early during the pandemic. Which I guess could be applied to FOSTA? I'm not sure, though.
  • Arainach 4y ago
    > the same people who argue for revoking FOSTA-SESTA also believed in blanket masking policies Source? >restrictions that had much wider and deeper unintended consequences compared to FOSTA-SESTA Source? Please avoid tangents unrelated to the original topic.
• catern 4y ago
  People worry about Net Neutrality because it was a fantastically successful astroturfing campaign by internet media companies. No similar campaign against FOSTA-SESTA succeeded.
  • throwayyy479087 4y ago
    Ding ding ding. The largest beneficiary of Net Neutrality would have been Netflix. That's where all the activism came from. Same with Russia paying for anti-fracking activism in the Aughts: https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/596304-investigate-russias-covert-funding-of-us-anti-fossil-fuel-groups/ https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/596304-invest...
    • judge2020 4y ago
      Quite the relevant article you have there. Fracking is bad for the environment. Balancing 'the United States and Earth will not become inhabitable to humans within 500 years' with 'our oil companies want cheaper product and less overhead' is a pretty big challenge, but it's safe to say that Russia is more interested in short-term gains than the US is (and is a large part in why the US is pushing EV adoption).
  • ocdtrekkie 4y ago
    This is also why everyone is on about "protecting Section 230" today as well. The primary benefactors are large tech companies, but it's reframed and marketed as being key to the internet by a ton of well-funded lobbyists.
    • supriyo-biswas 4y ago
      While it is correct that large tech companies are benefited by Section 230, there can be things that mutually benefit both users and companies; and making companies liable for UGC would only have the effect of making it another form of cable TV where a select handful of people get to make content for the rest of us to consume. It is definitely a far cry from the democratization of content generation that we have today, where a nobody could make content and have a realistic chance of becoming recognized widely. The articles posted on HN discussing this very topic bring this up, so reading them is worthwhile instead of simply dismissing the entire thing as “big tech bad.”
• TMWNN 4y ago
  >Net neutrality went away and as far as I can tell, nothing changed. It was always a scam. Revoking a mandate in 2017 that had been imposed in [drum roll, please] 2015 was never going to Destroy the Internet(TM), contrary to the claims by all those Reddit subreddits that "went dark" in protest. In retrospect it was, in large part, yet another example of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
  • nonethewiser 4y ago
    Its amazing how people can recognize that the fears were untrue yet still insist they were correct.
    • hackernewds 4y ago
      Just because the bombs haven't fallen, don't prove that the Nuclear treaties are useless