Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality • Hacker News Board

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#211

Post by Sohcahtoa82 » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 10:40 PM UTC

User23 wrote: post #85

I haven’t noticed any change in my Internet connectivity since so-called net neutrality regulations were rolled back. That said, the fears of a single party dictating what you can and can’t see on the Internet are not just clear, they’re present. How many net neutrality supporters stood up for Alex Jones? Or say anything about shadow bans on Twitter, Facebook, and Google search results based on organizational caprici…

> How many net neutrality supporters stood up for Alex Jones?

By asking this question, it makes it clear you don't know what NN is about. It has nothing to do with censorship.

> That said, the fears of a single party dictating what you can and can’t see on the Internet are not just clear, they’re present.

Facebook/Twitter/YouTube/etc. didn't ban Alex Jones because they didn't want us to be able to see what he wants to say. They did it because they didn't want to be the ones broadcasting what he says. He incites violence. I do not fault anybody for refusing to be the platform relaying that message.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#212

Post by tomp » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 10:58 PM UTC

mullen wrote: post #60

justinzollars wrote: post #40

I would like to see Twitter, Google, CloudFlare and Facebook classified as public utilities. While Alex Jones is a nut case (And shouldn't be defended), other less publicized incidents of censorship by Social Media companies has occurred (related to picking winners between Israel and Palestine) [1]. While I am a Democrat who has been elected in the past, I agree with the conservative argument that: Corporate censorsh…

This is silly. We don't have to have Twitter, Google, CloudFlare or Facebook in our lives. We can live perfectly happy lives without them and they can be replaced by other companies as quickly as they were created by Twitter, Google, CloudFlare or Facebook. Electricity and phones are two physical services that we really need and can be ran by any company. Cable television is regulated because cable companies need rig…

It's vastly easier to replace your electricity or phone provider than your Facebook provider.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#213

Post by paulddraper » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 10:58 PM UTC

openasocket wrote: post #158

paulddraper wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the FCC should not have been allowed to repeal it because their legal reasoning was flawed I have not been able to pin this down. What law/rule did the FCC allegedly violate?

Check out the NY filing for more complete information about their arguments ( https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/nn_govt_petitioners_br... ). But the short answer is that the FCC is being accused of violating the Administrative Procedures Act. The APA was created in response to the growth of government agencies tasked with creating regulations, essentially to curb the power of bureaucrats. Agencies are required to…

> they have to look at all available evidence and actually come up with an argument for why the change needs to happen based on that evidence.

Make sense. Proving this seems like it would be an enormously uphill battle.

It would have to be an unambiguously wrong decision on the part of the FCC. (Otherwise, the court essentially becomes the FCC by upholding/overturning any "wrong" decision.)

Given that it only became a policy recently, and the current amount of debate...it's hard to believe that the court would decide that not having NN is egregiously in the wrong. But we shall see.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#214

Post by fein » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 11:04 PM UTC

moorhosj wrote: post #179

fein wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A more relevant case So are we deliberately conflating spam with political discourse now? Seriously?

Not at all, no idea where you got that idea. The discussion is about the right of the government to force private companies to do things with their own property. The AOL case is more relevant because it involves a private internet company and data crossing it's privately held servers, much like Twitter today. The Marsh case involves a company acting like a government, then trying to stifle free speech. Twitter never…

The Marsh case handles a scenario in which a private company controlled the public space.

The big 3 of social media currently do the same thing, however in a digital sphere. Trumps twitter, for example, was ruled as a public resource and therefore he couldn't block users from his feed. So here we have a private property leveraged as a public gathering space.

Would you have the same opinion here if Twitter was banning minorities based on race? Is it still a private company that can do whatever they please?

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#215

Post by fein » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 11:06 PM UTC

wvenable wrote: post #187

fein wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A more relevant case So are we deliberately conflating spam with political discourse now? Seriously?

Only political discourse is free speech?

The government does indeed criminalize spammers, so I'm not sure where your logic is going here.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#216

Post by JustSomeNobody » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 11:07 PM UTC

peterwwillis wrote: post #61

EpiphanyMachine wrote: post #2

The system seems broken when states representing more than 50% of the population have to sue in court to try to change something like this. Instead with that much backing it should be done through the legislative branch. I'm concerned about the growing use of courts to try to decide policies because our legislative bodies can't work together and instead just try to force one sided issues through or block each other.…

I came here to say the opposite. The states are doing what they can to limit damaging actions by the federal government. This is the system working for the people. Without the ability or interest from the states to push back against the federal government's decrees, we would be stuck with an authoritarian nation. Currently, trying to pass meaningful legislation is like trying to squeeze a watermelon through a pinhole…

You both are likely correct.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#217

Post by welder » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 11:26 PM UTC

justinzollars wrote: post #40

I would like to see Twitter, Google, CloudFlare and Facebook classified as public utilities. While Alex Jones is a nut case (And shouldn't be defended), other less publicized incidents of censorship by Social Media companies has occurred (related to picking winners between Israel and Palestine) [1]. While I am a Democrat who has been elected in the past, I agree with the conservative argument that: Corporate censorsh…

You're confusing PIPE[1] with PRODUCT[2].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_(business)

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#218

Post by _dczq » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 11:30 PM UTC

fein wrote: post #214

moorhosj wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all, no idea where you got that idea. The discussion is about the right of the government to force private companies to do things with their own property. The AOL case is more relevant because it involves a private internet company and data crossing it's privately held servers, much like Twitter today. The Marsh case involves a company acting like a government, then trying to stifle free speech. Twitter never…

The Marsh case handles a scenario in which a private company controlled the public space. The big 3 of social media currently do the same thing, however in a digital sphere. Trumps twitter, for example, was ruled as a public resource and therefore he couldn't block users from his feed. So here we have a private property leveraged as a public gathering space. Would you have the same opinion here if Twitter was banning…

==The Marsh case handles a scenario in which a private company controlled the public space.==

and acted as a de-facto government by providing fire, police and other services typically provided by governments. Twitter is not similar, as multiple people have already mentioned.

==Trumps twitter, for example, was ruled as a public resource and therefore he couldn't block users from his feed.==

His personal Twitter feed is a public resource. Trump is the government, blocking people is literally the government limiting free speech. Twitter is not the government.

==Would you have the same opinion here if Twitter was banning minorities based on race? Is it still a private company that can do whatever they please?==

No, because they are very different, as explained by justice.gov [1].

"Federal laws prohibit discrimination based on a person's national origin, race, color, religion, disability, sex, and familial status."

[1] https://www.justice.gov/crt/federal-protections-against-nati...

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#219

Post by danjoc » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 12:19 AM UTC

tzs wrote: post #194

danjoc wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The system seems broken when When it does stuff you disagree with personally. That's a pretty universal feeling. While you may get plenty of internet points from your friends that agree with you, you have to realize, you are the one with the unpopular opinion this time. >50% of the population Counting illegals. 22 states isn't 50% either. This is the "not my president" argument all over again. The people won. ISPs w…

> It's time FAANG pays their share for video streaming bandwidth They do pay their share. In general, when party X and party Y communicate on the internet, they both pay a service provide (their ISP) for a connection to the internet backbone. That payment to their ISP fully pays for the costs of the data X and Y send to or receive from the internet (or their ISP won't stay in business for long). What you are calling…

The ISP paid for the network. They have the right to do what they want with it. That's internet freedom. The government has no business telling me how to run my personal network. It has no business telling ISPs how to run theirs. On top of it all, FAANG are direct competitors eroding those ISPs' cable tv business in most cases. So it's not just a matter of the government telling the ISPs how to run their network, it's the government picking a winner.

Tell me, if FAANG has a problem with internet freedom, why don't they just build their own ISPs? Answer, that's expensive. That's why Google quit building fiber after a half dozen cities. So instead, they want "net neutrality" which is where ISPs pay for the networks, FAANG takes all the money, and ISP customers get stuck with rising prices. No thanks.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#220

Post by fein » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 12:34 AM UTC

_dczq wrote: post #218

fein wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Marsh case handles a scenario in which a private company controlled the public space. The big 3 of social media currently do the same thing, however in a digital sphere. Trumps twitter, for example, was ruled as a public resource and therefore he couldn't block users from his feed. So here we have a private property leveraged as a public gathering space. Would you have the same opinion here if Twitter was banning…

==The Marsh case handles a scenario in which a private company controlled the public space.== and acted as a de-facto government by providing fire, police and other services typically provided by governments. Twitter is not similar, as multiple people have already mentioned. ==Trumps twitter, for example, was ruled as a public resource and therefore he couldn't block users from his feed.== His personal Twitter feed i…

> No, because they are very different, as explained by justice.gov [1].

Then please explain to me individuals like Sarah Jeong being outwardly racist yet a member of the blue check cadre.

There is clearly a double standard here, and you seem to be in the grouping of individuals that appreciate the oppression when it suits your own interests.