71–80 of 99 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People have to have a measurably worse life now than they did before, for one. "I don't like President Trump" isn't a valid response, even if he is an idiot.
There's a massive amount of economic documentation on wage stagnation just for starters. This is of course open to challenge or refutation, but bashing straw men does nothing to advance discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>But what if the FCC is counting the quantity of citizens making a given point when deciding? That is an interesting theory but ultimately the FCC answers to Congress. They are not allowed to do their own politics (although sometimes they try). They are in the end just a regulator. They do make a nice scapegoat so as to allow the actual politicians to avoid criticism of the policies those politicians created.
This makes sense, actually. Dead people tend to be older, and have less stake in newer bandwidth-intensive applications.
This site[1] will help you search the database. I read a number of comments that start out with some variation of "The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and obstructing job creation. I urge the Federal Communications Commission to end the bureaucratic regulatory overreach of the internet known as Title II..."
It's amazing how many people spontaneously had the same opinion on a handful of days in May and July this year! /s
[1]: https://www.comcastroturf.com/
Edit: You were making a joke, weren't you... (woosh)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HN is so fast I use it to test my internet issues. It’ll be hard to throttle it.
Additionally, why would any ISP throttle a site with as little traffic as HN? Edit: I say "little" in comparison to the seriously high traffic sites like Netflix or Google.
Being we've had foreign governments messing with our democracy using social media and hacking, this should be fully investigated. I'm not claiming they are interfering, only saying we should rule out the possibility using our best forensics.
Public forms on the internet != democracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m sure you’ve heard this before, but I can’t let the response go unsaid: democracy does not require direct elections. The founding fathers were not naive idiots who didn’t know how to design an election.
No offence by why are the founding fathers put on such a high pedestal in the U.S.? Everything they did had a reason but some of those reasons do not make sense anymore. The electoral college was put in place to give more saying to the south but that's not needed anymore. Gun ownership was put in place to protect from militias but again, that's not the case anymore, why keep all of these laws?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No offence by why are the founding fathers put on such a high pedestal in the U.S.? Everything they did had a reason but some of those reasons do not make sense anymore. The electoral college was put in place to give more saying to the south but that's not needed anymore. Gun ownership was put in place to protect from militias but again, that's not the case anymore, why keep all of these laws?
No, gun ownership was put in place to allow citizens to form militias to protect themselves FROM the government.
This makes sense, actually. Dead people tend to be older, and have less stake in newer bandwidth-intensive applications.
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…
And the law you are referring to isn't from the 1930s. It's the 1996 Telecom Act.
Here's what the order said about that section:
We also note that the restrictions on obscene and illicit content in sections 223 and 231(to the extent enforced)1647—as well as the associated limitations on liability—in many cases, do not vary with the classification decisions in this Order, and thus likewise are not encompassed by the forbearance in this Order.1648 To the extent that certain of these provisions would benefit broadband providers and could instead be viewed as provisions that are newly applied to broadband providers by virtue of the classification decisions in this Order, it would better promote broadband deployment, and thus better serve the public interest, if we continue to apply those provisions.1
Footnote -> We note that many of the relevant provisions in these sections stem from the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which federal courts have enjoined from being enforced. COPA amended the Communications Act by adding sections 230(d) and 231 and amending parts of sections 223(h)(2) and 230(d)–(f). See Child Online Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 105-277, §§ 1401–05, 112 Stat. 2681-736–2681-741 (1998). After COPA reached the Supreme Court twice, a federal court held that COPA is unconstitutional and placed a permanent injunction against its enforcement. The decision was affirmed on appeal, and petition for writ of certiorari has been denied. See ACLU v. Reno, 31 F. Supp.2d 473 (E.D. Pa. 1999) (enjoining the enforcement of the Act), aff’d, 217 F.3d 162 (3rd Cir. 2000), vacated and remanded, Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. 564 (2002) (finding that the Act’s reference to contemporary community standards on its own does not render it unconstitutional and the 3rd Circuit must consider additional matters), aff’d, ACLU v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 240 (3rd Cir. 2003), aff’d and remanded, Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004) (instructing that the district court should update the factual record and take into account current, applicable technologies); ACLU v. Gonzales, 478 F. Supp.2d 775 (E.D. Pa 2007) (entering a permanent injunction against enforcement of the Act after holding that it is facially unconstitutional), aff’d, ACLU v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 181 (3rd Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1032 (2009). The Communications Decency Act (CDA) (Pub. L. No. 104-104, §§ 501–02, 110 Stat. 56, 133–36), which amended section 223 of the Communications Act, has also been overturned in part, by the Supreme Court. See Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997). However, the constitutionally offensive parts of the CDA were amended by the PROTECT Act, which is still good law. See Prosecutorial Remedies and Tools against the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act, Pub. L. No. 108-21, § 603, 117 Stat. 650, 687 (2003)
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pd...
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.
Your whole argument rests on the unspoken and incorrect premise that such laws aren't open to challenge, when in fact they have been challenged and litigated extensively and you're only looking at the statutory side. This seems to be a common error among hackers who assume that statute = law and don't consider the history of how courts have interpreted and circumscribed statutes over the years. Of course, this is als…