This dude.......

Ammorn

Space Marshal
Oct 14, 2014
2,654
9,379
1,850
RSI Handle
Ammorn
#61
Maybe im not getting the reference here.....but this made no sense. lol

You mentioned about needing another revolution. My reply was afferming that belief. The nighttime cough medicien mgight be messing with me.

1776, the American revolution. So 1776 part 2, like a movie sequel, a second american revolution. Electric Boogaloo is a movie reference meme for a sequel. The Vietcong picture and the video are reference to successful guerrilla warfare against a modern military of the time. I couldn't find the exact meme that I remembered so I posted as such, though the one I remembered was something like this but a little better.

 
Likes: Sraika

Printimus

Grand Admiral
Officer
Dec 22, 2015
7,738
29,937
1,235
RSI Handle
Printimus
#62
You mentioned about needing another revolution. My reply was afferming that belief. The nighttime cough medicien mgight be messing with me.

1776, the American revolution. So 1776 part 2, like a movie sequel, a second american revolution. Electric Boogaloo is a movie reference meme for a sequel. The Vietcong picture and the video are reference to successful guerrilla warfare against a modern military of the time. I couldn't find the exact meme that I remembered so I posted as such, though the one I remembered was something like this but a little better.

yeah, that was waaaaaay over my head....
 
Likes: Ammorn
Jan 4, 2017
237
699
200
RSI Handle
shakywater
#64
Social media and such are privately owned companies. You do not have freedom of speech on their forums.
Arguments like this are so 2016.

You can't argue for NN and then turn around and defend platforms restricting speech, and if you still haven't figured out why those two positions are mutually exclusive, you should read up on the topic a little more.

p.s. private phone companies are regulated utilities and are not allowed to turn off your service because they don't like what you said on the phone.
 
Likes: Ammorn
Jan 4, 2017
237
699
200
RSI Handle
shakywater
#65
You mentioned about needing another revolution. My reply was afferming that belief. The nighttime cough medicien mgight be messing with me.

1776, the American revolution. So 1776 part 2, like a movie sequel, a second american revolution. Electric Boogaloo is a movie reference meme for a sequel. The Vietcong picture and the video are reference to successful guerrilla warfare against a modern military of the time. I couldn't find the exact meme that I remembered so I posted as such, though the one I remembered was something like this but a little better.

Afghan fighters: "What are we, chopped liver?"
 
Jan 5, 2016
4,217
17,319
1,100
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
#66
You can't argue for NN and then turn around and defend platforms restricting speech, and if you still haven't figured out why those two positions are mutually exclusive, you should read up on the topic a little more.
I'd appreciate it if you could help me to understand - my previous response to your statement was the following:

They are two different issues, really. You'd be just as arrested for committing crimes on a neutral or un-nutral net, a nutral internet doesn't mean an archaic one. You commit fraud online, you have committed fraud just as much as if you'd done it in person. You commit identity theft online, you have committed identity theft just as much as if you'd done it in person etc etc etc. Harassment, hate-crime, stalking etc - there are consequences to actions, even online.

The question is would you find yourself in the cells if you got on a soap-box on the corner of the street and started yelling the things assholes put in comments sections and forums online at members of the general public passing you in person?

If I said "you have dubious personal hygiene", that's a mean thing to say - but if I said it to you in person I would not be arrested for it. The things people get arrested for are usually more serious and the arrests are backed up with actual criminal laws...

I'm sure I don't have to repeat them, but you know the type of comments I mean - this link sort of covers it: https://www.gov.uk/report-hate-crime and there are some legit criminal laws such as "Incitement of religious hatred", "Incitement of racial hatred", "Harassment" etc, which are also things that if you did them on the street you'd be arrested too... Legit crimes that they would be arrested for if they were doing it in person are often what people get arrested for putting online...

Even if not illegal there is just common decency and inadvertent harassment - there was the case of the guy on twitter who was arrested for posting "I'll bomb this airport if my flight gets cancelled" or something close to that. Yeah, it's obviously jokey - but if he was stood in the departure lounge yelling that, what would airport security do? Laugh along? nope, they'd take him aside and he'd definitely miss his flight because they'd be searched his body cavities for suspicious substances.

Within 10 minutes of yelling some of the stuff people put online on the corner of a street, you'd be reported. within 20 minutes officers would be observing and within 30 minutes you'd be having your collar felt. The internet is just as public a place as the high-street.

There are also parts of the web that are not easily accessible to the general public via search engines etc. How many web-related arrests take place because of what goes on in the 'dark' web? Figures we don't have access to.
Please assist in my understanding if the above is not right? 🙂

Many thanks.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Ammorn

August

Commander
Aug 27, 2018
252
828
100
RSI Handle
Countersink
#67
You can't argue for NN and then turn around and defend platforms restricting speech, and if you still haven't figured out why those two positions are mutually exclusive, you should read up on the topic a little more.
I don’t understand this sentence.
Freedom to say dumb stuff has nothing to do with us being charged more to watch Netflix.

Why can you not have points of view on both subjects?
 
Likes: Ammorn
Jan 4, 2017
237
699
200
RSI Handle
shakywater
#68
I don’t understand this sentence.
Freedom to say dumb stuff has nothing to do with us being charged more to watch Netflix.

Why can you not have points of view on both subjects?
You're not using the correct frame.

1. Each of these is a choice of the private company.

Choice to ban users. Choice to jack up rates.

When it comes to a service provider being able to choose what users can and cannot say, people who want to see censorship welcome the provider having that choice.

When that same provider wants to choose to charge more for faster service, suddenly the users who were okay with choice previously are arguing against it.

Once you bring private businesses under government regulation, similar to an electricity or communication utility, you remove most of their ability to discriminate. The power company can't cut off your lights because they don't like your political views.

2. Citizens of western democracies are already being jailed for prohibited speech by the thousands, so the idea that getting charged a higher rate is some insufferable break from the free internet is nuts.

3. Both of these sentiments are being expressed by the same people.

A. We do not support free speech.
B. We need NN to keep the internet free.
 
Likes: Ammorn

August

Commander
Aug 27, 2018
252
828
100
RSI Handle
Countersink
#69
Assumptions aside, what’s wrong with regulating ISP’s to provide fair and equitable access to an essential service?

Which western democracies are jailing people in their thousands for prohibited speech?

Facebook is not a service, it’s a commercial platform and your access to the internet as an essential service is not impacted by its commercial decisions.

Twitter is not a service, it’s a commercial platform and your access to the internet as an essential service is not impacted by its commercial decisions.

Your ISP restricting or pricing you out of third party content which it chooses to charge differently for does impact your access to an essential service. Netflix is an easy example, but what if shopping out of country, or across state lines is restricted? What if access to the online sale of non-proprietary medicines is restricted?

Here in Australia we can no longer purchase from Amazon.com and are forced to use their local portal with higher prices and limited content. While it’s not directly related to net neutrality ( although we did have a major ISP throttle netflix to push users to their own proprietary VOD service ), the effect is similar.

Net neutrality is not about freedom of speech, it’s about freedom of choice.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Ammorn
Jan 4, 2017
237
699
200
RSI Handle
shakywater
#70
I don't agree with the idea that global communication platforms, which are used as direct communication methods between citizens and governments, are purely private companies.

I would be more inclined to listen to that perspective if there was not already at least one federal court decision saying government leaders can't block users on twitter because twitter serves as a court recognized venue of speech between government and citizens.

See how the hypocrisy keeps stacking up?

It's okay for twitter to block you for offending someone else, but it's not okay for government to block you for being offensive.

Similarly, it's okay for verizon to act as a private company by blocking traffic for being offensive, but it's not okay for them to act as a private company by setting their own rates.

You have to pick one, but probably more importantly, you have to ask if what you think you're asking for is actually what you're going to get, because the people who are saying they can do what they damn well please in regard to setting the rules for what can and cannot happen online are the same people saying YOU need NN so you can be free online.

Regarding who is locking people up, the UK locks up 9 people a day for offensive speech online.

9 * 365 = 3285 people a year.

and that's just the UK.
 
Likes: Ammorn

August

Commander
Aug 27, 2018
252
828
100
RSI Handle
Countersink
#71
I don't agree with the idea that global communication platforms, which are used as direct communication methods between citizens and governments, are purely private companies.

I would be more inclined to listen to that perspective if there was not already at least one federal court decision saying government leaders can't block users on twitter because twitter serves as a court recognized venue of speech between government and citizens.

See how the hypocrisy keeps stacking up?

It's okay for twitter to block you for offending someone else, but it's not okay for government to block you for being offensive.

Similarly, it's okay for verizon to act as a private company by blocking traffic for being offensive, but it's not okay for them to act as a private company by setting their own rates.

You have to pick one, but probably more importantly, you have to ask if what you think you're asking for is actually what you're going to get, because the people who are saying they can do what they damn well please in regard to setting the rules for what can and cannot happen online are the same people saying YOU need NN so you can be free online.

Regarding who is locking people up, the UK locks up 9 people a day for offensive speech online.

9 * 365 = 3285 people a year.

and that's just the UK.
Net neutrality isn’t about free speech, it has nothing to do with Verizon blocking people. I think this argument is being deliberately confused to minimise public scrutiny.

The UK stuff is interesting, I would like to see how many of the charges resulted in conviction. It look like the law specifically targets hate speech.
 
Likes: Ammorn
Apr 4, 2015
444
576
850
RSI Handle
DontTouchMyHoHos
#72
Arguments like this are so 2016.

You can't argue for NN and then turn around and defend platforms restricting speech, and if you still haven't figured out why those two positions are mutually exclusive, you should read up on the topic a little more.

p.s. private phone companies are regulated utilities and are not allowed to turn off your service because they don't like what you said on the phone.
I can, it's my freedom of speech that allows me to argue that. That is literally what freedom of speech allows me to do. Phone companies are regulated by the government, reddit and twitter are not. You cant have NN then demand the government regulates the purpose of NN. That is contradictory. You are saying that the government can't regulate private companies and in order to do this, they regulate them by restricting their freedom to run their own business.
 
Likes: Ammorn

Printimus

Grand Admiral
Officer
Dec 22, 2015
7,738
29,937
1,235
RSI Handle
Printimus
#73
I can, it's my freedom of speech that allows me to argue that. That is literally what freedom of speech allows me to do. Phone companies are regulated by the government, reddit and twitter are not. You cant have NN then demand the government regulates the purpose of NN. That is contradictory. You are saying that the government can't regulate private companies and in order to do this, they regulate them by restricting their freedom to run their own business.
Are reddit and twitter not regulated under the FCC?
 
Likes: Ammorn
Jan 4, 2017
237
699
200
RSI Handle
shakywater
#75
I can, it's my freedom of speech that allows me to argue that. That is literally what freedom of speech allows me to do. Phone companies are regulated by the government, reddit and twitter are not. You cant have NN then demand the government regulates the purpose of NN. That is contradictory. You are saying that the government can't regulate private companies and in order to do this, they regulate them by restricting their freedom to run their own business.
Then I'll rephrase, if you want to be taken seriously you can't support the right to choose content policies, but not the right to choose rates. You've got to pick one. If private companies can set their terms of use how they see fit, then they can arrange their billing schemes to their liking as well.

It makes it very transparent that there isn't any principle being applied other than, good for me, not for thee.
 

Radegast74

Grand Admiral
Oct 8, 2016
1,324
5,242
1,100
RSI Handle
Radegast74
#76
Then I'll rephrase, if you want to be taken seriously you can't support the right to choose content policies, but not the right to choose rates. You've got to pick one. If private companies can set their terms of use how they see fit, then they can arrange their billing schemes to their liking as well.

It makes it very transparent that there isn't any principle being applied other than, good for me, not for thee.
It sounds like you are trampling on the corpations right to free-speech. Corporations have that right, too.
 
Likes: Ammorn
Jan 5, 2016
4,217
17,319
1,100
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
#77
Then I'll rephrase, if you want to be taken seriously you can't support the right to choose content policies, but not the right to choose rates. You've got to pick one. If private companies can set their terms of use how they see fit, then they can arrange their billing schemes to their liking as well.

It makes it very transparent that there isn't any principle being applied other than, good for me, not for thee.
Ah, so its just a Morals thing...

Well, in response to that, here is a lettter from the man who invented the internet:

https://webfoundation.org/2015/10/net-neutrality-in-europe-a-statement-from-sir-tim-berners-lee/

[From 2015]:
"Tomorrow, members of the European Parliament face a key vote on the future of the Internet. The proposed regulations in front of them are weak and confusing. To keep Europe innovative and competitive, it is essential that MEPs adopt amendments for stronger “network neutrality” (net neutrality).

When I designed the World Wide Web, I built it as an open platform to foster collaboration and innovation. The Web evolved into a powerful and ubiquitous platform because I was able to build it on an open network that treated all packets of information equally. This principle of net neutrality has kept the Internet a free and open space since its inception.

Since then, the Internet has become the central infrastructure of our time — every sector of our economy and democracy depends on it.

To strengthen and clarify the proposed EU net neutrality rules, here are the amendments that MEPs should insist on:
  • The current proposal allows ISPs to create fast lanes for companies that pay to have their content load faster by calling them “specialized services”. Fast lanes will make it harder for anyone who can’t pay extra fees — start-ups, small businesses, artists, activists, and educators in Europe and around the globe — to reach Europeans online. MEPs should vote for the amendments that close the so-called “specialized services” loophole to prevent the creation of online fast lanes and keep the Internet a level playing field.
  • The current proposal permits ISPs to exempt applications from users’ monthly bandwidth cap (“zero-rating”). Economic discrimination is just as harmful as technical discrimination, so ISPs will still be able to pick winners and losers online. MEPs should adopt the amendments that allow member states to create their own rules regulating the harmful practice of zero-rating. That way, States which have already banned this practice will be able to continue to do so, while others can move to protect innovation if they choose.
  • The proposal allows ISPs to define classes of services, and speed up or slow down traffic in those classes, even in the absence of congestion. As well as harming competition, this also discourages encryption: many ISPs lump all encrypted services together in a single class, and throttle that class. MEPs should vote for the amendments that ban class-based discrimination to protect users, competition, privacy, and innovation online.
  • The proposal allows ISPs to prevent “impending” congestion. That means that ISPs can slow down traffic anytime, arguing that congestion was just about to happen. MEPs should vote to close this loophole.
If adopted as currently written, these rules will threaten innovation, free speech and privacy, and compromise Europe’s ability to lead in the digital economy."

This is what neutrality is about - that no matter what your background, your salary, your shopping or your voting habbits, we all have equal access and equal opportunity to consume or create online, just as we are here on this forum. An nu-nutral net risks damageing free-speech: Tim Burners-Lee says so - and he should know, he invented it.
 
Likes: Ammorn
Jan 4, 2017
237
699
200
RSI Handle
shakywater
#79
well that is something i did not know. The more you learn!

Thanks!
There's been talk of changing it. I don't know if it will happen.

Because they've been so active in deciding what is allowed on their platforms, people have been talking about taking away their immunity as platforms, and instead treating them like publishers, completely responsible and liable for everything that they host.

It's sort of like the doomsday device in doctor strangelove. The threat of treating them like publishers, and suing them into bankruptcy for every libel and offense that gets past their standards, is supposed to convince them to go back to being open platforms.

I wouldn't hold my breath.
 
Likes: Ammorn
Sep 25, 2017
1,865
6,072
750
RSI Handle
MrBambooza
#80
platforms have limited liability so long as they take expedited action to limit the exposure of bad actors. Which is why most of these places have the policy of guilty until proven innocent in their modding.

As for the statement by @ShakyWater there are two different players. There is content providers like YouTube, Netflix, Quora and even xkcd and there is ISP's. While Net Neutrality at its heart intends to cover the later it does not apply the the former who are still free to do what ever they like as to who they interact with, promote and so forth.

Since parables seem to be common in this thread i'll continue the tradition.

While the local municipality can't discriminate on who uses the road by a local church the church itself doesn't need to allow everyone who drives past them on the road into their building.

The same goes for ISP who should allow everyone who pays for the service to use the service how ever they choose while content providers do not. Based on the realization that while its easy to utilize or even start your own content provider, it is not so possible to pick ISP's or even create your own ISP and provide competing services to your local community given the limited physical space allotted to this in the public easement. The same easement is also shared by the power company, phone company, water company and all those services fall under similar public access restrictions and government over site. While not the best course of action as government involvement tends to lead to stifled innovation, inefficiency and poor service it is better then allowing corporation's to act in markets with naturally limited competition due to space constraints.
 
Likes: Ammorn