Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

whitehouse.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 449 posts

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#361

Post by drivingmenuts »

rhino369 wrote: post #340
smileysteve wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd only support that if the ISPs started fucking up the internet massively. So, say they propose a fast lane for the internet. Or don't invest in the connections to level 3 to be able to provide Netflix to users.

I don't think a fast lane would necessarily fuck the internet. In fact, with proper management it might actually be beneficial. For example, I'd love it if my work VPN could be prioritized over someones pron torrent during internet rush hour. Net neutrality wouldn't fix the Level3/ Verizon&Comcast issues. Net neutrality doesn't force free peering. When I mean fucking the internet up, I mean significant degrading of s…

> I'd love it if my work VPN could be prioritized over someones pron torrent during internet rush hour.

That would require that someone somewhere would have to actually look at the bits to make a value judgement.

And then you lose privacy and security.

Additionally, you open the door wide for moral judgement of your bits, because we're people and that's what we do, rightly or wrongly. It's probably fine because you may work on something innocuous - but what about the artist, the protestor or the troll?

Personally, I dislike trolls intensely, but in certain forums they're apparently desirable.

The transport itself should be totally neutral to content. Only the endpoints should matter.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#362

Post by venomsnake »

fulafel wrote: post #267
revscat wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me explain a few things about the American government. The most important thing to understand is that the ability of the executive to influence the direction of the government is limited. The reasons for this are several, but I will try to elucidate a few here. First, it is commonly believed that because of the ability to hire/fire people the President can more or less do whatever he wants in regards to the direc…

> Let me explain a few things about the American government. The most important thing to understand is that the ability of the executive to influence the direction of the government is limited. Compared to most other parliamentary democracies the president in USA is nearly a dictator. So Obama has exceptionally broad abilities in that direction.

Totally wrong. In other parliamentary democracies the winning parties/coalitions get on a plate executive and legislative branches simultaneously and big ability to influence judiciary.

Sources: I live in one.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#363

Post by nathan_long »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #104
mpweiher wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are the same thing: in order to protect net neutrality (the free and open internet), you need strong regulation, it doesn't happen by itself.

This sounds very George Orwell, like "Freedom is Slavery". It's going to take a very strong argument to support the idea that freedom is enhanced by limiting freedom. Not that it's impossible; my glib statement plays fast-and-loose with "freedom", using the same word in one sentence to mean both the overall amount of freedom as well as in a microcosm. But even so, the apparent contradiction should make us think befor…

Freedom can be enhanced by limiting freedom. In the US, you may not have a slave or be a slave. It is illegal, even if both parties are willing.

Why can't we decide? Because if we could, it would open the door to trickery and coercion. The fact that no slavery arrangement is legal keeps a lot of people from being tricked or coerced into one.

Hence, limiting freedom (of agreements) can enhance freedom generally (no slavery).

Similarly, you can't sell me a house made of popsicle sticks even if I'm informed. We want a market where houses below a certain level of quality just don't exist, because it's better for everyone.

It's possible that net neutrality is like this. "An internet connection where ComCastMovies.com works great but Netflix is severely throttled" would be a crappy product that Comcast is incentivized to sell, and consumers may be tricked (fine print) or coerced (no other options) into buying. It may be in the public interest to outlaw it.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#364

Post by Bud »

rhino369 wrote: post #311
joezydeco wrote: post #238

And it's already getting worse: https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/531834493922189313 "Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.

Net Neutrality isn't, but Title II regulation is definitely the Obamacare of the internet. Title II gives the FCC broad powers over regulating the internet. You just have to look at the what the BushII-era FCC did about policing broadcast media to see the potential dangers in letting the FCC heavily regulate every ISP in America. Title II will heavily disincentivize investment into faster networks because of the unce…

Pardon me for saying this, but our last couple decades of experience have done a really great job of informing all of us that "investment into faster networks" isn't a main priority of many of today's net providers, and it has nothing to do with Title II or the FCC.

It has to do with profit.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#366

Post by dragontamer »

enraged_camel wrote: post #215
dragontamer wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone needs to learn American History... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_an... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton When the FBI start assassinating American Citizens in their sleep after an agent drugs their food to silence African American Political movements... THEN we can start talking about…

>>When the FBI start assassinating American Citizens in their sleep after an agent drugs their food to silence African American Political movements... THEN we can start talking about a "police state". You do realize that the USA committed extrajudicial murder of an American citizen during the current president's term, right? Or are you just ignoring it because it's inconvenient to your narrative? >>Today's laws make…

>>> You do realize that the USA committed extrajudicial murder of an American citizen during the current president's term, right? Or are you just ignoring it because it's inconvenient to your narrative?

Sorry, I seem to have missed this.

Americans were killed in all wars, extrajudiciously when they leave America and start making propaganda for the other side. Anwar al-Awlaki's death is an extremely common occurrence.

What happened to Fred Hampton makes Anwar al-Awlaki's death look patriotic. First, Fred Hampton's assassination took place in Chicago. Fred Hampton didn't run away from America, he simply went to his Apartment, talked with some "friends" (one of which was a plant who gave him a drugged beverage), and then went to sleep.

Soon afterwards, the FBI raided his home and shot him dead as he slept. Fred Hampton was completely unaware that he was even being tracked by the FBI, as it was all secret.

Anwar Al Awlaki on the other hand, ran away to foreign countries. The US made claims against Anwar Al Awlaki publicly, and ordered him to court. Al Awlaki refused, remained in foreign countries and worked for a terrorist organization. He may have been a US Citizen technically when he was shot by a drone, but his loyalty is most definitely under question.

And at very least, the nature of Anwar Al Awlaki's attack was entirely public the whole time. We all knew he was targeted by Obama for at least a year before they got him.

So when we start shooting hellfire missiles to assassinate US citizens in Chicago... entirely in secret like how we used to do things in 1960s, call me.

But from a historical context, Anwar Al Awlaki has _nothing_ on Fred Hampton.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#367

Post by Bud »

brandonmenc wrote: post #221
AndrewHampton wrote: post #9

Here's the thing that bothers me the most about a lot of the talk about net neutrality by government officials: > If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. Specifically "and the content is legal" is what raises a flag for me. I've seen similar phrases in nearly everything I've read coming from any government official regarding net ne…

I'm betting "illegal content" will eventually come to include things like "bullying." Expect a much broader array of takedown notices once the FCC is granted content-level authority over the internet.

Great. Bullying should be illegal already, and internet bullies should be aggressively prosecuted.

This is currently a law enforcement blind spot, but that needs to change.

BTW, putting quotes around the world "bullying" isn't actually effective in mocking it as something actionable; it just communicates to us that you are perfectly ok with bullying.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#368

Post by jeangenie »

dragonwriter wrote: post #315
jeangenie wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that the presence of that single qualifier casts an irrevocably ominous shadow over the entire sentiment. In a purely-hypothetical dystopia it could be the basis of more invasive monitoring and control capabilities over network infrastructure.

Not really. Blocking of illegal content is possible -- and can be (and, at times, has been ) encouraged and even mandated by government -- even without protection of legal content. So, while the qualifier might suggest that such practices would not be curtailed by the neutrality, they don't provide the basis for more invasive monitoring and control than the absence of neutrality does, because the basis of that more i…

Why would the statement need to provide any basis? It's merely a carefully worded expression of a decision that's already been made. You will find even recent history rife with examples.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#369

Post by protomyth »

joezydeco wrote: post #304
smspence wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ted Cruz is an extreme outlier. Everyone else in the Republican party hates him. Please don't take his dumb remarks as representative of anyone else. Here is a quote [1] referring to how Mitch McConnell (Republican Senate Minority Leader, soon to be Majority Leader) handles nut-jobs like Ted Cruz: "Mitch has very carefully, very methodically, very much under the radar, isolated Ted Cruz. He's kind of sealed him off l…

"Please don't take his dumb remarks as representative of anyone else." The GOP is masterfully adept at deciding on a set of talking points, getting them into the hands of key people in politics and the media, and then beating voters over the head repeatedly with it until the voters start repeating it back. The Republicans just won the Senate back on the idea that Obamacare is the root of all evil. Watch them leverage…

You give more credit than I would, especially about the recent election since the messaging was anything but coherent from the party leadership. I think the Scott Walker / Chris Chrissy feud is a pretty nice indicator of where the breaks lie. The GOP is basically a split party these days under one roof. I would expect at some point to get back to a single message, much as they did before.

Yes, Cruz is popular among the rank and file, but he is very unpopular among the leadership and media. He is a very good speaker and makes a fair number of good points. He is also very easy to soundbite-attack.

If you look at rhino369's comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8585565 you can see what many of the Republicans fear. The boogeyman of "fairness doctrine" has even been raised. If you are serious about net neutrality and brush aside the concern then you are not going to advance any issue.

I don't expect anything to advance on this issue. Its to mantra and flags now.

If someone would narrowly define a technical definition of what techs actually want for net neutrality, then I think you could a fair bit of Republican support. Particularly if it was phrased as keeping the fairness doctrine out of the internet. Never mention the poison phrase net neutrality.

Re: President Obama Calls for a Free and Open Internet

#370

Post by fulafel »

venomsnake wrote: post #362
fulafel wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let me explain a few things about the American government. The most important thing to understand is that the ability of the executive to influence the direction of the government is limited. Compared to most other parliamentary democracies the president in USA is nearly a dictator. So Obama has exceptionally broad abilities in that direction.

Totally wrong. In other parliamentary democracies the winning parties/coalitions get on a plate executive and legislative branches simultaneously and big ability to influence judiciary. Sources: I live in one.

This was about president's powers, not what winning party/coalition in parliamentary elections gets. Parliamentary systems with active (but less powerful vs the US) presidents such as France, Finland, etc. (but re your tangent, minority governments happen and are common in some places. See eg. Denmark)
Post reply on HN