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

#101

Post by monocasa » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 5:42 PM UTC

xenophonf wrote: post #81

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.…

The system's not broken. If that many people in that many states really want net neutrality legislation, then they should advocate for that within the House of Representatives, who are our direct representatives at the federal level. The Presidency is designed to have broad national appeal---across rural and urban states, large and small states---so it's not enough that a minority of attorneys-general want regulatory…

Except that, due to gerrymandering, the ratios of our federal representatives don't match the ratios of the population.

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

#102

Post by monocasa » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 5:44 PM UTC

craftyguy wrote: post #73

EpiphanyMachine wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the FCC is trying to remove that ability from States now because federal law overrules state law. > The Attorneys General are hardly alone on this one. As Reuters notes, Mozilla, Vimeo and Etsy also joined forces today to file a legal challenge, while governors in six states have signed executive orders and three states have passed their own net neutrality laws.

> because federal law overrules state law The FCC does not (and cannot) pass laws.

The FCC gains it's authority to create regulation from federal law though.

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

#103

Post by wang_li » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 5:44 PM UTC

asdkhadsj wrote: post #52

wang_li wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The latter largely do not produce their own content and thus are not fundamentally different than what a carrier provides. Why would you say that it's ok for Google to ban Alex Jones from youtube, but not ok for level-3 to do the same? It's a convenient kind of bullshit to draw a line below layer 4 of the ISO stack and say "everything below this line has to be fully neutral, everything above this line can be fully bi…

Because internet is more important than binge watching Netflix. To many of us, we're thinking of it on par with water, electricity, etc. With that said, I would agree that some other services such as information seekers ought to be regulated somehow. Ie, Google/Facebook can do massive harm these days, and their reign of independence is failing here. Another point is that, many companies have previously ran into issue…

> To be honest, your objection really confuses me. You seem to argue that ISPs can do whatever they want, because we're inconsistent with other sites/etc.

I don't have an objection against net neutrality. I have an objection to net neutrality policies that concentrate control with a small number of companies while stripping such autonomy from other companies. It's absurd to say that backbone providers are required to carry any traffic, but microblogging sites, video streaming sites, etc. can curate and have any bias they choose.

If it were me we'd have net neutrality, but the net neutrality policies would be conditional on whether a company wants to claim safe harbor under the DMCA or not. Anyone who wants to hide behind the DMCA has to be neutral on their platform. Anyone who is willing to take responsibility for the content they distribute can have any bias or opinion they want.

I'd also extend the DMCA safe harbor provisions to require that the customer be identifiable and within the legal jurisdiction of the United States.

> Lets fix all abusers, not just ISPs. That should satisfy your argument, no?

It would make me feel that we're being consistent and actually taking the internet closer to fairness and equity.

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

#104

Post by PurpleBoxDragon » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 5:46 PM UTC

delinka wrote: post #46

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…

What makes these companies "public utilities" as opposed to others? I don't need Twitter in my life. Nor Google. Definitely not Facebook. And maybe lots of web sites use CloudFlare, but consumers don't interact directly with them. Maybe applying common carrier status is something that's more palatable, but classifying them as "public utilities" doesn't have to be the mechanism by which CC is applied.

What counts as a need? Does one need land lines? Electricity? People live off the grid by generating these themselves and people live elsewhere without them at all.

Of course, one could bring a distinction between things that naturally grant a physical monopoly and things that don't, but I think one could make an argument that certain sites have effectively become the new public square and in doing so have a natural monopoly of our attention (or more pedantically a natural cartel).

There is also a natural monopoly of technology. If you have a patent for something, others can't use it unless you let them. Imagine if every major tech corporation aggressively pursued every possible patent claim against any companies trying to offer an alternate space for those banned from the mainstream, would the little company have any greater chance that a new electric company fighting against the entrenched players?

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

#105

Post by smsm42 » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 5:47 PM UTC

barneygumble742 wrote: post #34

javagram wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The House of Representatives majority, which is held by the GOP and is anti - net neutrality, also represents more than 50% of the US population by this method of counting (which says the state AGs “represent” people who didn’t vote for them). Under the constitutional system of the US something like net neutrality could be passed as a law by the congress, but there hasn’t been a congress that chose to do so.

The Senate actually came up with a resolution to reinstate NN but Paul Ryan refuses to bring it up for a vote in the House. So there is your legislative bottleneck. If it passes the house and the senate, of course trump will sign it and take credit for it. Not a difficult task there.

> If it passes the house and the senate

If. It is likely to pass the House?

> of course trump will sign it

If Trump supports it, why doesn't he instruct Ajit Pai to implement this policy, or if he doesn't want to do it, why doesn't he replace Ajit Pai with somebody whose views on the subject align with those of Trump? I think it might be because Trump doesn't actually support it.

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

#106

Post by monocasa » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 5:49 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…

> I haven’t noticed any change in my Internet connectivity since so-called net neutrality regulations were rolled back.

That's just because of how slow ISPs are at reacting to anything. I know product owners at a couple cable companies and they are actively modifying their systems to take advantage of the new lack of net neutrality.

> 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 capriciousness?

Net Neutrality regulates the ISPs. If he were banned from Comcast or something so that he couldn't have internet connectivity, then that would be applicable.

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

#107

Post by monocasa » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 5:50 PM UTC

drak0n1c wrote: post #91

_bxg1 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ISP's are more important because of their physical locality. It's infinitely easier to create a competitor for Facebook than a competitor for Time Warner (Google, one of the world's most powerful companies, tried and failed). That said, with the amount of ubiquity and sway on society that self-proclaimed platforms like Facebook and Google have started to have, I would not be opposed to regulating some of those as…

Is it infinitely easier? Google tried and failed to make a Facebook competitor too.

They also essentially failed to make an ISP, so not a great comparison.

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

#108

Post by moorhosj » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 5:52 PM UTC

fein wrote: post #18

jamescostian wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you get blocked on Twitter, you go to $OTHER_PLATFORM on the internet. If you don't have NN and you get blocked from Twitter, your ISP can also make it so that you can't go to $OTHER_PLATFORM.

What would this other platform be that provides a similar reach? Freedom of speech isn't just saying what you want while alone on your back patio. Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc is the "digital public space". Hell just take a look at what private companies are doing to the attempts at making alternatives: gab is threatened daily, and BitChute keeps getting bumped by payment processors.

==Freedom of speech isn't just saying what you want while alone on your back patio.==

It's also not going onto other people's property and doing whatever you want. Having a successful platform doesn't make them the government.

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

#109

Post by monocasa » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 5:54 PM UTC

wang_li wrote: post #103

asdkhadsj wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because internet is more important than binge watching Netflix. To many of us, we're thinking of it on par with water, electricity, etc. With that said, I would agree that some other services such as information seekers ought to be regulated somehow. Ie, Google/Facebook can do massive harm these days, and their reign of independence is failing here. Another point is that, many companies have previously ran into issue…

> To be honest, your objection really confuses me. You seem to argue that ISPs can do whatever they want, because we're inconsistent with other sites/etc. I don't have an objection against net neutrality. I have an objection to net neutrality policies that concentrate control with a small number of companies while stripping such autonomy from other companies. It's absurd to say that backbone providers are required to…

> I don't have an objection against net neutrality. I have an objection to net neutrality policies that concentrate control with a small number of companies while stripping such autonomy from other companies. It's absurd to say that backbone providers are required to carry any traffic, but microblogging sites, video streaming sites, etc. can curate and have any bias they choose.

Why? Going back to the common carrier regulations pre-Internet, it's like you're saying that just because mail carriers have to carry anything (as long as it's safe), then magazines delivered by mail carriers would have to allow anyone to write articles.

There's just a fundamental difference between forum and transport.

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

#110

Post by twblalock » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 5:55 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #98

peterwwillis wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The states are doing what they can to limit damaging actions by the federal government. Or rather, absence of action in this case. > This is the system working for the people. The system working for the people would be the states to make their own legislation. Using courts to force federal government to take action that elected executive and elected legislature do not support is not system working. > Currently, try…

> The system working for the people would be the states to make their own legislation. Using courts to force federal government to take action that elected executive and elected legislature do not support is not system working.

The tension between federal and state power is an intentionally designed feature of the system, and the fact that the states can push back is one of the several ways the system is supposed to work.