Electriking wrote:Bump because this is important.
Tomorrow, parts of the FCC's repeal of Net Neutrality will go into effect. Don't expect changes to your internet though, because ISPs will wait until you stop paying attention, so don't stop paying attention if you want to keep fighting. [url=ttps://www.inverse.com/amp/article/43968-net-n ... appear-yet]Click this for more info[/url].
You should try to keep fighting because you may look back in 10 years and you would be able to say that you tried, because if you are American and Net Neutrality is not saved, then in 10 years the internet will look very different. And these differences will also be visible to the rest of the world, which will be indirectly affected, be it through the loss of American sites whose businesses could not survive due to higher prices and payed priortization etc, higher prices for American sites because the businesses passed the costs for using the internet set by their ISPs to their consumers or even other countries doing the same. Businesses outside of America may also be affected their American audiences (which makes up a significant part of the Majority of English sites' audiences) declining due to blocking and slowing doen by American ISPs. So Americans need to put pressure on Politicians and ISPs and Non-Americans should put pressure on Americans to do that. And just because your internet is functioning fine tomorrow (if you are in America) does not mean that it will functioning fine in 5 years. ISPs will only be making changes when you become more complacent, so not doing that may at least postpone those changes.
You forgot the "h" in your link.
And God damn is this a bad situation.
The FCC completely failed to do what they exist to do. I sincerely hope whoever replaces Ajit attempts to fix this mess.
Musicality_Minister45 wrote:I am not worried about this because whatever happens just happens, and I am sure that it's all gonna be fine.
That being said, I don't really believe in politics that much and it impacting me in a severe way.
That sort of attitude towards politics could really leave you vulnerable to a nasty surprise. Especially because the US has a president that has like done nothing good.
Okay, I meant to say that I don't think that Net Neutrality would really effect me.
And also, I don't really mind Trump being president.
If you don't mind your ISP blocking or slowing legal content or increasing prices, then each to his own. If it is because executive orders or laws are being passed in your state, the ISPs and lobbyists are suing states that are doing this. And you should pay attention to Trump, even if you don't find him to be problematic.
This is some serious shit! The FCC have voted to repeal NET neutrality, but you can still help state a disapproval if you are American:
All right, all this "ISPs will do awful stuff cause they're EEEEEEEEEVVIIILLLLLLLLLLL" garbage is really getting on my nerves. Why, exactly, weren't they charging $1000/month for mediocre speeds in 2014 before the FCC suddenly decided the internet was a phone service and that ISPs had to beg them to be able to change their pricing models? Title II was only implemented in 2015. The internet had been around for what, 20 years then?
There isn't much competition in the ISP field, but it generally keeps a check on them. And they know that if they do something stupid it will just rationalize the attempt to regulate the crap out of them again. And ISPs generally can't afford to be the ideological echo chambers that Google and Facebook are. Why aren't there nearly as many panicked calls to regulate those competition-less companies to stop them from distorting access to ideas?
The government's erosion of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act with SESTA is a much larger threat.
eh, tbh I don't really care for NN that much. surprisingly I used to be a supporter up until Dec. 14th, which was when I heard the other side of the story. For the longest time, all I had heard was Net Neutrality kept ISPs from blocking sites, throttling speeds, charging tons of extra fees, and we would have to buy random packages just to get a few of our favorite websites.
But here's the thing... Have ISPs throttled speeds or blocked sites/programs in the past? Yes, but it was a temporary effect. The ISPs got in trouble, and soon enough, things went back to normal. Nothing they did was permanent. Did they charge us tons of extra fees? Yes, but also no. While ISPs didn't charge us a bunch of extra fees just to use the internet, we basically had to pay for our internet in general just like everything else in life. Use more water, pay more money. Use more electricity, pay more money. Use more gas, pay more money. Use more internet, pay more money. Weird thing is ever since the 2015 Title II NN protections were put in place, our internet bills have increased, not decreased. Apart from that, whether NN was around or not, through my personal experience, along with my parents', we've never had a problem with our internet, and neither have our friends or family members. Now for the big one. Have we ever had to pay for a bunch of random packages just so we could access normal websites like Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc., and then pay even more money just to get fast lanes? Absolutely not. We've always been able to access any website any time. As for the so called "fast lanes," that depends on the provider you're paying for. If your internet speeds are always slow every day of every year, try getting a different internet provider that gives you faster speeds, even if it costs just a little bit more (but sometimes it could cost less). Now going back to the earlier incidents mentioned, these happened rarely compared to how long the internet has existed. Sure, they happened, but they didn't happen often, and the effects were always temporary. So my point is, if ISPs didn't cause permanent damage to the internet by continuously charging us extra fees, blocking our favorite websites and programs, throttling our internet speeds, and if ISPs never had us buy random packages and fast lanes, why would they do that now? The internet was fine before 2015 Net Neutrality was put in place, and it will be fine now. And if anything does happen, just remember it's only temporary and will go back to normal really soon.
In all honesty, ISP controlled internet is a lot safer and a lot less scarier than Government controlled internet. Yes, Net Neutrality is Government controlled internet. While ISPs can't do all those terrible, horrible, downright atrocious acts, the Government can do the same thing, but because it's one of the highest powers in the entire country, they won't get in trouble for it, and nothing would be set back to normal. Not saying it actually has happened, but there's a possibility it can happen. Really Government controlled anything isn't really the best idea. Sure, there's a few Government controlled things that are fine, but they shouldn't be involved in every single thing in the country. Having ISP controlled internet is as free as internet freedom can get.
Anyways, sorry if I got all political there. There's just been some stuff on my mind I felt like I had to get out. NN is kinda boring and annoying tbh, both as a topic and a thing that actually exists.
Yeah, I hear you... it's particularly frustrating because I can't even browse these forums without someone shoving their massive propaganda banner in my face. If my comment came off as caustic, that's part of the reason why.
Because platforms don't want to risk the possibility of criminal charges by any overly aggressive district attorney, and are pressured to shut down services that could be abused entirely. Craigslist took down personals very quickly, and several subreddits were shut down. It's bad precedent, now we have to watch for other laws that put liability on platform owners for other things. There has to be some other way to go about dealing with this.
Craigslist and Reddit should take those down because they promote prostitution. The bill prohibits sites from knowingly assisting, supporting, or facilitating in sex trafficking done by force, fraud, or coercion. A state attorney general should be able to bring up civil action against these people for breaking federal law. Prosecutors would have to prove knowledge and negligence for any action to be taken against sites. That's not unreasonable at all.
Do you expect that well-known companies like Craigslist and Reddit would have intentionally facilitated known "sex trafficking done by force, fraud, or coercion"? Because by your own claims that would be the only way they'd be liable. The fact that they took those down shows that the threat itself is a problem. Do all internet personals "promote prostitution"?
Yes they would, and it's implicit when they knew where exactly to shut down parts of their platforms that are in violation of federal law. By moderating this they are no longer intentionally facilitating it which is a good thing. Anywhere that is used for commercial sex is promoting prostitution, and if there's evidence a site owner knows about the abuse then something can now be done about it in court. Women are far more likely to be murdered in the "sex industry" and nobody should be facilitating it which does go for all personals. SESTA allows civil action to be brought up, and removes the barrier for criminal law enforcement to be enacted against people engaging in sex trafficking. Decriminalization helps by letting victims report crimes to police and helps people out of the "industry" without enabling it. The enabling and the crime enabled has to stop.
...What? If these companies knew what could be construed as "sex trafficking done by force, fraud, or coercion", why, instead of clamping down on that specific thing, did they shut down certain sectors entirely, disallowing their use for any other purpose?
How is that good? Are personals never used for legitimate reasons, or do you think that the loss doesn't matter? Are entire categories of discussion to be preemptively scrubbed off the web because of a remote possibility of "enabling" something that could already be prosecuted using the information available from these sources, or not even illegal (Nevada)?
They got rid of them entirely because they facilitate in sex trafficking. The only "clamping down" that has ever happened just pushes it to other areas of the sites and doesn't resolve the problem of having an open platform for sex services like it were legal in US states. Nevada is the only place in America where counties have decriminalized/legalized the work but hasn't legalized sex trafficking so there's no conflict. Enabling is giving a platform for commercial sex exploitation, so there are no real losses with the removal of these platforms.
It stops where the law does. Categories that enable trafficking is where the scope of the law is, and when they're not facilitated that's an improvement. Just targeting certain sites or sections just moves them into other parts of the site that allow the behavior. Sites like Backpage can't exist legally now, and law abiding sites are not negatively impacted so there's no similarity to the "clamp down" half measures and illicit behavior is actually reduced and liable for civil action.
18 U.S.C. §2421A does not merely limit commercial speech. The words “promote or facilitate” do not, on their own, suggest a transaction. In U.S. v. Williams, the Supreme Court noted that “[w]hen taken in isolation,…‘promotes’ and ‘presents’ are susceptible of multiple and wide-ranging meanings.” U.S. v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 294. The Court relied on the statute’s “string of operative verbs – ‘advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits’” to contextualize the prohibition on “promot[ing]” certain material. Id. Here, of course, there is no such context: “promotes” and “facilitates” are isolated, causing the prohibition to reach beyond merely transactional (much less commercial) speech.
"law abiding sites are not negatively impacted"
Again, Craigslist and Reddit. It is not possible to ensure such vague demands are met without overbroad banning.
"Just targeting certain sites or sections just moves them into other parts of the site that allow the behavior."
If Craigslist were able to reliably prevent "sex trafficking done by force, fraud, or coercion" they would do so in all sections. Craigslist shut down all possible use of some sections instead... so, is that still not enough then?