ISPs should not police online speech no matter how awful it is

Post by gwright » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 9:14 PM UTC

dcow wrote: post #888

gwright wrote: post #794

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if this transitive common carrier approach makes sense. Wouldn't that mean that every company that used telephony, railroads, airlines, or shipping would have to be behave like a common carrier? I'm not sure what the correct balance is but I don't think it makes sense to force common carrier status to propagate in the way you seem to be suggesting.

Using a common carrier for business is different from purchasing reserved quotas from them and then reselling the access. I can see how it isn’t clear when taken to the extreme, but there’s got to be some balance otherwise a carrier could just resell 100% of the bandwidth to some subsidiary to launder it. I don’t know the answer but this at least seems like a pretty big loophole if it were allowed. I think you can pr…

Post by chonkerz » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 9:15 PM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #128

explanatorygap wrote: post #17

EFF is on the wrong side of this, just as they were on the wrong side of the debates about what to do about spam email back in the day. They're committed to the view that the only acceptable place to block any flow of information (which they define very broadly) is at the receiving user's end and that the end user must personally opt-in. This is completely at odds with the last 30 years of experience on the internet…

> how bad actors will abuse systems I’ve seen both ends of the spectrum - I remember Usenet, that had no moderation at all, and having to wade through a sea of spam, wishing somebody would get rid of it. But then I saw what reddit moderation turned into… I’ll take the spam, thanks. The spammers are bad actors, but moderators actually become evil actors.

Post by chonkerz » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 9:19 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #343

cycomanic wrote: post #309

I think the question is not quite so easy as many here (and even the EFF) are making it seem. It's easy to talk about free-speech that needs to be protected at any cost when it comes to political speech, but if we look at e.g. spam nobody argues that spam and spammers should be blocked. Now is spam less speech, because it is not political? On a similar note, if I own a large piece of land should I allow a demonstrati…

>but if we look at e.g. spam nobody argues that spam and spammers should be blocked. Now is spam less speech, because it is not political? Because the blocking is consensual. You're actively choosing to block out the spam, and if you so choose you can still see the spam. The same can't be said for deplatforming. Even if you want to read kwifarms you can't, because others have presented you from being able to access t…

Post by dang » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 9:53 PM UTC

plagiarist wrote: post #150

What I'd like to figure out is how there are still so many Nazis despite readily-available facts that Naziism is racist delusions? And how are countries like Germany still doing kinda okay despite making it illegal to do Nazi stuff? Isn't it a slippery slope directly from banning Naziism direct to North Korean-style authoritarianism?

Post by dang » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 10:04 PM UTC

Dan_Sylveste wrote: post #814

chonkerz wrote: post #790

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

There isn't a single comment I've seen you make in this thread which even vaguely qualifies as being in good faith.