[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
31–40 of 1001 posts
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#32> But just because there’s a serious problem doesn’t mean that every response is a good one. This is a fantastic line, one that I'm tucking away for future use.
The politician's syllogism (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism)
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#33[flagged]
Quoting the article:
> When a person uses a room in a house to engage in illegal or just terrible activity, we don’t call on the electric company to cut off the light and heat to the entire house, or the post office to stop delivering mail. We know that this will backfire in the long run. Instead, we go after the bad guys themselves and hold them accountable.
Although your points are valid in some sense, I don’t see how they respond to any claims of the article.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#34The ACLU will absolutely oppose this. If not for the reason they stand to make a lot of money suing ISPs for "not doing enough" to stop the big-ole-meanies online. I see ISPs blocking "mean speech" to "protect people" as another symptom of the enshittification of the internet. I legitimately cannot understand problems in this arena because you can just...walk away from your computer. Or turn off the website. Or hey,…
[flagged]
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#35The ACLU will absolutely oppose this. If not for the reason they stand to make a lot of money suing ISPs for "not doing enough" to stop the big-ole-meanies online. I see ISPs blocking "mean speech" to "protect people" as another symptom of the enshittification of the internet. I legitimately cannot understand problems in this arena because you can just...walk away from your computer. Or turn off the website. Or hey,…
> you can just...walk away from your computer I take it that (a) your income doesn't depend on your internet presence, and (b) you're reasonably well off. KiwiFarms has done massive damage to people in "the real world", and some people concerned for their safety cannot afford to ignore it. It is a genuine danger.
There are laws and law enforcement already in place to address bad actors, particularly those who would pose tangible harm upon an individual.
Violating the principle and right of free speech is nothing more than grabbing and abusing power.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#36The ACLU will absolutely oppose this. If not for the reason they stand to make a lot of money suing ISPs for "not doing enough" to stop the big-ole-meanies online. I see ISPs blocking "mean speech" to "protect people" as another symptom of the enshittification of the internet. I legitimately cannot understand problems in this arena because you can just...walk away from your computer. Or turn off the website. Or hey,…
[deleted]
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#37I think it's fine for the ISP to police online speech over their network as long as it's clearly stated in their service agreement that they can cancel/interfere with your service if they think you're too mean and as long as they also lose all safe harbor and assume liability for everything transmitted over their network.
Quoted from the article:
> When a person uses a room in a house to engage in illegal or just terrible activity, we don’t call on the electric company to cut off the light and heat to the entire house, or the post office to stop delivering mail. We know that this will backfire in the long run. Instead, we go after the bad guys themselves and hold them accountable.
Although I see your point, the quote above made me switch to thinking it’s not okay.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#38It feels like it's pretty much gameover for free speech in any context. Too much of the population of the world wants rid and it doesn't matter much that they disagree on precisely which opinions are unacceptable.
Free speech has never existed. We've always been pushing and pulling against what's acceptable.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#39Too bad they didn't touch on the net neutrality issues at play here. Washington passed a state level net neutrality law, and KF might end up being the test case. They have filed a complaint with the AG and are waiting for a response.
Re: ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is
#40Why does it have to be absolute/binary?
If I can't have full, unfettered free speech, then it's the end of the world.
Let's put aside the slippery-slope arguments. The real world is messy, with ridiculously obscure corner cases that make blanket statements and policies practically impossible to operationalize without significant collateral damage.
Shouldn't a more realistic approach be something like "give me speech as free as is possible", with considerations that are negotiable, such as, "does this speech promote destroying the institutions on which the speech itself is based on", etc...
As an extension of the Spolky-ism that all non-trivial abstractions are leaky, all production systems have edge and corner cases that can't (or shouldn't) be contained within a blanket uniform policy.
Yeah, it's messy. But, as with many regulations written in blood, there are legitimate use cases where exceptions to blanket policies and statements are better to include than not include.