U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Today, 08:09 AM
 
Location: Haiku
4,433 posts, read 2,666,228 times
Reputation: 6492

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lycanmaster View Post
There are definitely some very powerful people and organizations (like the ADL) that DO want to censor the Internet of what they consider "hate speech" and "conspiracy theories"...
It is not just organizations that want to censor internet content, it is whole countries. Many European countries have anti-hate speech laws that apply to Internet services like Google and Facebook. It becomes easier for Facebook to comply with those laws by just making hate speech forbidden by their usage policy across all countries so that when they enforce against hate speech it meets the requirements in France and Germany but also restricts content here in the US.

People who complain that Facebook is censoring and removing "conservative" content are really complaining because they want to see hate speech, because that is the only content being removed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 08:24 AM
 
9,778 posts, read 2,403,623 times
Reputation: 4852
The mere fact that it was leaked by white house staff is a clear indication that the people close to Trump see him as a dangerous man.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 08:31 AM
 
Location: Haiku
4,433 posts, read 2,666,228 times
Reputation: 6492
Quote:
Originally Posted by take57 View Post
I find all the righteous indignation about the narrowing of content distributed over the internet amusing from Trump supporters after sitting by with their thumbs planted in their fannies while Trump's FCC Chairman Ajit Pai was dismantling net neutrality safeguards. While this proposed EO isn't exactly a textbook comparison, it sure is in the same area code....
The two are night and day different. NN was driven entirely by deregulation of the internet. At its heart was the last mile providers wanting to cash in on the pile of money Google makes off ad content that the last-mile providers were transporting. They want ad content providers (like Google) to pay them a fee to transport all those ads but they cannot do that with NN in place. Google convinced the public that ATT and others would rebundle streaming services to be like cable. That might happen but why would Google care? They don't but they do care very much about giving a slice of their big pie to ATT.


This EO is all about government control over Internet content. It is the opposite of the NN issue Pai was pushing since it adds regulations and it has nothing to do with business or fees.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 08:34 AM
 
9,778 posts, read 2,403,623 times
Reputation: 4852
Quote:
Originally Posted by PilgrimsProgress View Post
Google has already censored the internet. That's the problem
The USA is the land of free enterprise ... emphasis on the word enterprise.

A private company, an enterprise, does not have to carry your garbage whether immoral or simply hate filled nonsense. Politics is ok otherwise. These firms have terms of use their customers must abide by, and people who want to spew garbage and hate filled nonsense and outright libelous fabrications out need to find companies that are ok with that. Simple.

Government should remain politically neutral, as should churches that receive tax exemptions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 09:09 AM
 
39,719 posts, read 41,077,500 times
Reputation: 16431
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour View Post
The two are night and day different. NN was driven entirely by deregulation of the internet. At its heart was the last mile providers wanting to cash in on the pile of money Google makes off ad content that the last-mile providers were transporting. They want ad content providers (like Google) to pay them a fee to transport all those ads but they cannot do that with NN in place. Google convinced the public that ATT and others would rebundle streaming services to be like cable. That might happen but why would Google care? They don't but they do care very much about giving a slice of their big pie to ATT.

You have a bunch of 1's and 0's traveling across the ISP's network, the expense they have is the volume and speed of those 1's and 0's. There is nothing in the NN regulations that prevented the ISP from charging the consumer of their services whatever the hell they wanted for the volume and speed.

The only thing NN prevented was them charging you based on the order of those 1's and 0's.

The best analogy I have come up with is if the ISP was a water company. They could charge you based on the gallons, pressure or combination of both. What they could not charge you for is using water in a Maytag washer instead of their preferred model nor could they limit how much water your Maytag washer uses. That is NN in nutshell.


They are not interested in Google ads, they are interested in controlling the content so among other things they can put their own ads. For example they offer a new service called Comcastube to compete with Google's Youtube. Throttle or limit Youtube to bury them and collect the revenue from their own ads on Comcastube.

Last edited by thecoalman; Today at 09:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:37 AM
 
Location: Haiku
4,433 posts, read 2,666,228 times
Reputation: 6492
Net Neutrality has always been about peering. Peering is the agreement between regional networks, mostly last-mile providers, to be agnostic about who owns the content that is being shuttled onto their fiber. Otherwise every network and content creator would have to form agreements with every regional network which would be a night mare. So NN evolved in the 1990's to solve that and everyone agreed to it. NN has since taken on more meaning with fast and slow lanes but the original open-peering is still at the heart of it. ATT does not like open peering because they are moving bits that others are making tons of money on and ATT isn't. Follow the money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:51 AM
 
Location: Orange County, CA
1,888 posts, read 1,964,072 times
Reputation: 920
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour View Post
The two are night and day different. NN was driven entirely by deregulation of the internet. At its heart was the last mile providers wanting to cash in on the pile of money Google makes off ad content that the last-mile providers were transporting. They want ad content providers (like Google) to pay them a fee to transport all those ads but they cannot do that with NN in place. Google convinced the public that ATT and others would rebundle streaming services to be like cable. That might happen but why would Google care? They don't but they do care very much about giving a slice of their big pie to ATT.


This EO is all about government control over Internet content. It is the opposite of the NN issue Pai was pushing since it adds regulations and it has nothing to do with business or fees.
The only problem is that "hate speech" is so broadly defined in that in some countries and even US states, support for the BDS movement or any criticism of Israel is now included as "hate speech"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:54 AM
Status: "Make sure you include me in your manifesto" (set 13 days ago)
 
Location: Posting from my space yacht.
8,294 posts, read 3,246,063 times
Reputation: 14884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lycanmaster View Post
The only problem is that "hate speech" is so broadly defined in that in some countries and even US states, support for the BDS movement or any criticism of Israel is now included as "hate speech"
If criticism of anyone is hate speech then criticism of everyone is hate speech.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:07 AM
 
Location: Haiku
4,433 posts, read 2,666,228 times
Reputation: 6492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lycanmaster View Post
The only problem is that "hate speech" is so broadly defined in that in some countries and even US states, support for the BDS movement or any criticism of Israel is now included as "hate speech"
I agree that defining hate speech is a slipper slope. Facebook did not want to censor any of their content and it was the US Senate that pressured them to stop hate speech. And Europe. FB thought that rational voices would drown out hate speech and I tend to agree with them. But they bowed to pressure and put in place their usage policies. I don't trust the government to decide what is hate speech any more than I trust a private company but this is what the public is demanding apparently so FB is doing what the public wants.

Personally I think that there should be public boards that give guidance to any Internet company as to what speech is hateful. Board members are voted in and represent public interest. This is how pornography censorship used to work. Nobody cares about porn anymore though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:38 AM
 
Location: SDL/PDX/RDU
4,844 posts, read 2,602,481 times
Reputation: 5631
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour View Post
The two are night and day different. NN was driven entirely by deregulation of the internet. At its heart was the last mile providers wanting to cash in on the pile of money Google makes off ad content that the last-mile providers were transporting. They want ad content providers (like Google) to pay them a fee to transport all those ads but they cannot do that with NN in place. Google convinced the public that ATT and others would rebundle streaming services to be like cable. That might happen but why would Google care? They don't but they do care very much about giving a slice of their big pie to ATT.


This EO is all about government control over Internet content. It is the opposite of the NN issue Pai was pushing since it adds regulations and it has nothing to do with business or fees.
My point (that apparently eluded you) was if folks were fine to sit by with some manner of government internet regulation then there should be little surprise or room for complaint when their preferred service comes under some manner of regulation as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top