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

Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 99 posts

Re: Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality

#11

Post by moron4hire »

cjslep wrote: post #7
nnfy wrote: post #4

I'd just like to point out, hopefully without being accused of shilling, that part of Net Neutrality legislation involves the quiet reclassification of ISPs as title ii common carriers. These are regulations designed for phone companies in the 1930s. Why should you worry? Because all network traffic will be subject to extremely broad obscenity laws. I will try to find the legislation shortly, but effectively, causing…

You're not shilling, you're just wrong. Its requirement is to be obscene with intent to abuse, threaten, or harass another person which is a strong safeguard most people want. It prevents revenge porn and the like. Not all porn. Edit: The other provision requires the sender of obscenity to know the recipient is under 18 - this is worth re-evaluating in the light of two consensual teenagers, but is nowhere near the sk…

Also, while I can't find a definition for obscenity, a later section bars the transmission of it over cable and subscription services. So it would seem that the sort of material that is already being transmitted on Cinemax, HBO, or the Playboy Channel is not what is considered "obscene". I see there are still pornography shops and strip clubs still around, so whatever the definition of "obscene" must be, it must not involve garden variety, hardcore pornography.

Re: Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality

#12

Post by nnfy »

cjslep wrote: post #7
nnfy wrote: post #4

I'd just like to point out, hopefully without being accused of shilling, that part of Net Neutrality legislation involves the quiet reclassification of ISPs as title ii common carriers. These are regulations designed for phone companies in the 1930s. Why should you worry? Because all network traffic will be subject to extremely broad obscenity laws. I will try to find the legislation shortly, but effectively, causing…

You're not shilling, you're just wrong. Its requirement is to be obscene with intent to abuse, threaten, or harass another person which is a strong safeguard most people want. It prevents revenge porn and the like. Not all porn. Edit: The other provision requires the sender of obscenity to know the recipient is under 18 - this is worth re-evaluating in the light of two consensual teenagers, but is nowhere near the sk…

Do you believe that "harass" and "abuse" are well defined?

It doesn't bother you that a sizable proportion of mostly harmless messages on Facebook, Twitter, 4chan, etc are suddenly potential felonies? And that they can be used to target innocent individuals by the federal government?

What happens when a legitimate whistleblower becomes a problem, and suddenly an angry twitter rant becomes an excuse for arrest?

Re: Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality

#13

Post by jerkstate »

moron4hire wrote: post #11
cjslep wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not shilling, you're just wrong. Its requirement is to be obscene with intent to abuse, threaten, or harass another person which is a strong safeguard most people want. It prevents revenge porn and the like. Not all porn. Edit: The other provision requires the sender of obscenity to know the recipient is under 18 - this is worth re-evaluating in the light of two consensual teenagers, but is nowhere near the sk…

Also, while I can't find a definition for obscenity, a later section bars the transmission of it over cable and subscription services. So it would seem that the sort of material that is already being transmitted on Cinemax, HBO, or the Playboy Channel is not what is considered "obscene". I see there are still pornography shops and strip clubs still around, so whatever the definition of "obscene" must be, it must not…

> Also, while I can't find a definition for obscenity

not even the supreme court can define obscenity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

Re: Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality

#14

Post by moron4hire »

nnfy wrote: post #8
GauntletWizard wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been trying to tell people this for a while - I do believe in net neutrality, but the title II classification is a boondoggle, and those laws need serious rewrite. I'm not seriously concerned about getting arrested for downloading pornography - When was the last time you heard of someone getting arrested for shouting "Fuck!" over the phone? - But I am concerned that those laws were written for Bell Telephone, an…

These laws are dangerous because they are vague enough to give the government a free pass to legally target almost anyone who uses the internet. It is another means to possibly silence whistleblowers and/or opposition.

Except these laws already apply to every other form of media and they aren't being used to silence whistleblowers or political opposition.

The sky is not falling.

Re: Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality

#15

Post by upofadown »

Well if dead people can come up with insightful comments, then great. These are comments, not votes. Once all the possible ideas have been presented, there is no point in further comments.

In the end only actual politics matters. If you want to do a petition then do a partition. If you want to complain then target a politician.

Re: Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality

#17

Post by cjslep »

nnfy wrote: post #12
cjslep wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not shilling, you're just wrong. Its requirement is to be obscene with intent to abuse, threaten, or harass another person which is a strong safeguard most people want. It prevents revenge porn and the like. Not all porn. Edit: The other provision requires the sender of obscenity to know the recipient is under 18 - this is worth re-evaluating in the light of two consensual teenagers, but is nowhere near the sk…

Do you believe that "harass" and "abuse" are well defined? It doesn't bother you that a sizable proportion of mostly harmless messages on Facebook, Twitter, 4chan, etc are suddenly potential felonies? And that they can be used to target innocent individuals by the federal government? What happens when a legitimate whistleblower becomes a problem, and suddenly an angry twitter rant becomes an excuse for arrest?

Your questions are all assuming you are already correct. This won't be a productive conversation if you keep trying to start from there when I've already pointed out how you were originally wrong. Additionally, anti-cyberbullying laws which deal with this exact scenario we are discussing (obscenity with intention to harass/abuse) already exist in nearly all US States, so no I am not worried about our social consensus at the federal level.

Re: Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality

#18

Post by nnfy »

moron4hire wrote: post #14
nnfy wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These laws are dangerous because they are vague enough to give the government a free pass to legally target almost anyone who uses the internet. It is another means to possibly silence whistleblowers and/or opposition.

Except these laws already apply to every other form of media and they aren't being used to silence whistleblowers or political opposition. The sky is not falling.

"Every other form of media" is not the same as the media on the internet, where individuals create the media.

More importantly, why would you want the federal government to have such abusable power? The sky may not be falling now, but that is no excuse to do nothing while our freedoms are eroded.

Re: Dead People Mysteriously Support the FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality

#20

Post by tabtab »

upofadown wrote: post #15

Well if dead people can come up with insightful comments, then great. These are comments, not votes. Once all the possible ideas have been presented, there is no point in further comments. In the end only actual politics matters. If you want to do a petition then do a partition. If you want to complain then target a politician.

But what if the FCC is counting the quantity of citizens making a given point when deciding? In that case the quantity matters even if it is a restatement of the same argument.
Post reply on HN