5 ms·

The FCC's Plan to Censor the Internet

26 points by mike_organon 18y ago

tedshroyer 18y ago
"Since no ISP can compete with free, omnipresent Internet access, this plan means that virtually all online users will be herded into the government-controlled Internet. And as the history of radio and television has shown, once the government guarantees ‘free’ access to a communications medium, ..." I don't think his assertion is accurate given the number of DirectTV and cable users. There's a market for XM and SIRIUS as well. I think this shows that people pay for things that are better.
jwesley 18y ago
I refused to clickthrough to this link after noticing it's a page from AynRand.org. Most overrated writer of all time. Back to the gold standard! Free market rules all!
- MrRage 18y ago
  First off, Ayn Rand is dead. She didn't write the article. Second, this is basically an ad hominem argument. I agree Ayn Rand was overrated, but that doesn't mean that this article has some truth to it, despite coming from an objectivist.
- davidw 18y ago
  I just flagged it and moved on, although I really wish pg would just nuke all the politics stories, because otherwise they start breeding.
mindslight 18y ago
I hope the FCC does take this lead in trying to censor the net, ahead of requiring all the "private" carriers to do so. Government attempts for increased control have to come sometime, and I'd rather have that happen on a single network so that the workarounds are developed before the majority of people are affected.
- jmtame 18y ago
  I thought the current requirement was that websites were required to verify age before allowing users to enter? You make it sound like the ISPs are doing this job, which I wasn't aware that they were.
  - mindslight 18y ago
    I believe what you're referring to is the regulations on collecting data on people under 13. Which is why you've got to check those meaningless 'I'm over 13' boxes. Annoying and pointless, but not really censorship. The bulk data taps are much more worrying, and those are mandated on the ISPs (look what happened to the Qwest CEO). The next thing forced onto the ISPs will be mandatory proxying of certain connections (like the system that recently snagged wikipedia in the UK).
- tdavis 18y ago
  Uh... why should anyone be allowed, much less required, to censor the net?
  - mindslight 18y ago
    The net threatens the status quo, so the status quo will attempt to control the net. Stronger attempts to put the net.genie back in the bottle are coming. I most certainly agree that the net should not be censored, but stopping censorship will not happen through democratic means - the herd is easily panicked with tales of child abuse, terrorism, organized crime, etc. The control will be defeated through technical means - pervasive encryption seamlessly integrated into every day applications, such that filtering "bad stuff" from "normal usage" is impossible. All I'm saying is that I'd like to see one ISP blaze the trail of total control (and thus become the technical battleground) instead of all of them at once.
    - tdavis 18y ago
      Ah, so you'd rather have one established technology to circumvent than numerous being worked on in parallel. Gotcha. I will stick with my irrational assumption that the Internet at large is safe from this shit, at least until I'm too old to care ;)
vaksel 18y ago
Its funny, all these right-wingers who bitch and moan about how big government is bad and needs to get eliminated, then turn around and want the government to step in to control everything in our society.
- jordanf 18y ago
  Um, what?
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
- mike_organon 18y ago
  I think the point is that it opens the door to blocking whatever they think is "inappropriate" which you may not agree with. It's not just censorship of the bad, but censorship of what they don't want us to see.
makecheck 18y ago
The provider of a free service has a right to dictate the terms of use. However, a government service is NOT free, it is paid for with taxes. And last I checked, producers of content that the FCC deems inappropriate are paying the same taxes as everyone else. (And increasingly in this YouTube generation, that could be almost anyone.) Filtering is a CLIENT SIDE operation. The FCC isn't doing anything useful specifying what content is filterable. If the government wants to be useful, they can publish a list of recommended web browsers that allow user-specified filtering, e.g. through a list of URL patterns. The approach of filtering the entire Internet service is of course overkill. It would be like using police to barricade the public roads that lead to an adult film store. The road is yours, paid with your taxes; whether or not you enter the shop is up to you, part of your own, personal filter.
grouchyOldGuy 18y ago
I don't agree with the assertion that all Americans (or even "most") will move to free Wi-Fi and drop their current paid access. Wi-Fi is a shared medium, and the more users on it, the worse the performance. What good is free if it's unuseable? IF this comes to pass, I may try the free access, but you can bet I'll still keep my DSL account.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Me neither. I've seen the free Wi-Fi in Mountainview, it was enough to convince me that while it may cause some people to cancel their tethering or EVDO cards, that's about it.
- sgibat 18y ago
  Not Wi-Fi. This is white space. I've heard estimates of 20mbits but I'm not sure if anyone really knows yet.
youngnh 18y ago
I'm as against censorship as the next guy, but the government is filtering content, they're not taking protocols away from us. Worst case, the government gets the backbone. Wasn't this scenario the design target of the original ARPAnet? Network survivability in the face of massive topography holes?

26 points by mike_organon 18y ago

"Since no ISP can compete with free, omnipresent Internet access, this plan means that virtually all online users will be herded into the government-controlled Internet. And as the history of radio and television has shown, once the government guarantees ‘free’ access to a communications medium, ..." I don't think his assertion is accurate given the number of DirectTV and cable users. There's a market for XM and SIRIUS as well. I think this shows that people pay for things that are better.

jwesley 18y ago

I refused to clickthrough to this link after noticing it's a page from AynRand.org. Most overrated writer of all time. Back to the gold standard! Free market rules all!

MrRage 18y ago
First off, Ayn Rand is dead. She didn't write the article. Second, this is basically an ad hominem argument. I agree Ayn Rand was overrated, but that doesn't mean that this article has some truth to it, despite coming from an objectivist.
davidw 18y ago
I just flagged it and moved on, although I really wish pg would just nuke all the politics stories, because otherwise they start breeding.

mindslight 18y ago

I hope the FCC does take this lead in trying to censor the net, ahead of requiring all the "private" carriers to do so. Government attempts for increased control have to come sometime, and I'd rather have that happen on a single network so that the workarounds are developed before the majority of people are affected.

jmtame 18y ago
I thought the current requirement was that websites were required to verify age before allowing users to enter? You make it sound like the ISPs are doing this job, which I wasn't aware that they were.
- mindslight 18y ago
  I believe what you're referring to is the regulations on collecting data on people under 13. Which is why you've got to check those meaningless 'I'm over 13' boxes. Annoying and pointless, but not really censorship. The bulk data taps are much more worrying, and those are mandated on the ISPs (look what happened to the Qwest CEO). The next thing forced onto the ISPs will be mandatory proxying of certain connections (like the system that recently snagged wikipedia in the UK).
tdavis 18y ago
Uh... why should anyone be allowed, much less required, to censor the net?
- mindslight 18y ago
  The net threatens the status quo, so the status quo will attempt to control the net. Stronger attempts to put the net.genie back in the bottle are coming. I most certainly agree that the net should not be censored, but stopping censorship will not happen through democratic means - the herd is easily panicked with tales of child abuse, terrorism, organized crime, etc. The control will be defeated through technical means - pervasive encryption seamlessly integrated into every day applications, such that filtering "bad stuff" from "normal usage" is impossible. All I'm saying is that I'd like to see one ISP blaze the trail of total control (and thus become the technical battleground) instead of all of them at once.
  - tdavis 18y ago
    Ah, so you'd rather have one established technology to circumvent than numerous being worked on in parallel. Gotcha. I will stick with my irrational assumption that the Internet at large is safe from this shit, at least until I'm too old to care ;)

vaksel 18y ago

Its funny, all these right-wingers who bitch and moan about how big government is bad and needs to get eliminated, then turn around and want the government to step in to control everything in our society.

jordanf 18y ago
Um, what?

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

mike_organon 18y ago
I think the point is that it opens the door to blocking whatever they think is "inappropriate" which you may not agree with. It's not just censorship of the bad, but censorship of what they don't want us to see.

makecheck 18y ago

The provider of a free service has a right to dictate the terms of use. However, a government service is NOT free, it is paid for with taxes. And last I checked, producers of content that the FCC deems inappropriate are paying the same taxes as everyone else. (And increasingly in this YouTube generation, that could be almost anyone.) Filtering is a CLIENT SIDE operation. The FCC isn't doing anything useful specifying what content is filterable. If the government wants to be useful, they can publish a list of recommended web browsers that allow user-specified filtering, e.g. through a list of URL patterns. The approach of filtering the entire Internet service is of course overkill. It would be like using police to barricade the public roads that lead to an adult film store. The road is yours, paid with your taxes; whether or not you enter the shop is up to you, part of your own, personal filter.

grouchyOldGuy 18y ago

I don't agree with the assertion that all Americans (or even "most") will move to free Wi-Fi and drop their current paid access. Wi-Fi is a shared medium, and the more users on it, the worse the performance. What good is free if it's unuseable? IF this comes to pass, I may try the free access, but you can bet I'll still keep my DSL account.

mattmaroon 18y ago
Me neither. I've seen the free Wi-Fi in Mountainview, it was enough to convince me that while it may cause some people to cancel their tethering or EVDO cards, that's about it.
sgibat 18y ago
Not Wi-Fi. This is white space. I've heard estimates of 20mbits but I'm not sure if anyone really knows yet.

youngnh 18y ago

I'm as against censorship as the next guy, but the government is filtering content, they're not taking protocols away from us. Worst case, the government gets the backbone. Wasn't this scenario the design target of the original ARPAnet? Network survivability in the face of massive topography holes?