Net Neutrality

[TSGames]

Hi! I've been a long time member of these boards and I haven't posted anything in a while, so I thought I'd take the time and ask my fellow playgrounders about Net Neutrality.

Here's the wiki for those who don't know what it is: Net Neutrality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality).

I'm curious: do playgrounders support Net Neutrality, or oppose it? Is there any reason why I should feel strongly one way or the other? I don't have much of an opinion on it right now, but I'd love to hear what you have to say. Net Neutrality, yay or nay?

[raitalin]

I support it wholeheartedly, but I have a feeling that the topic is political enough that this thread won't last long.

[TSGames]

I support it wholeheartedly, but I have a feeling that the topic is political enough that this thread won't last long.
I suppose I could see it dying due to politics, but I don't feel that it's a political topic. There is legislation and politics concerning Net Neutrality, just as there is legislation and politics concerning homosexuality, but that does not ban discussion of the topic; rather only discussion of the political aspect is forbidden.

I have great confidence that the playgrounders can have a civil, intelligent, and non-political discussion of the topic at hand.

Although, I would like to know, if you don't mind sharing, why is it that you support Net Neutrality, rather than oppose it? (Frankly I just can't see much of a reason to care either way.)

[Yora]

It's a nice idea, but only to a degree.

I think it's absolutely required to be able to prevent access to sites advocating crime and prejudice. But as usual you have to problem who is to make the descision where the line is to be drawn. It's difficult to do any a huge challenge for a society to solve.

But stating that because it's difficult to solve, you'd just make everything open and restrict nothing, seems to be clearly the same way.

It's okay to believe that humans are inherenitly good beings. But it's an illusion to think that there would be no bad ones, and a very dangerous one too.

[Cobra_Ikari]

I think it's absolutely required to be able to prevent access to sites advocating crime and prejudice.

...why?

I'm very much against censorship of any kind, but this kind in particular bothers me. It seems to suggest that ignoring a problem or making it impossible to find out about a problem will make it go away. I definitely subscribe to the "know your enemies" train of thought. >.>

[kamikasei]

It's a nice idea, but only to a degree.

I think it's absolutely required to be able to prevent access to sites advocating crime and prejudice.

Why?

I don't want anyone policing what I'm allowed to see and read. If it's illegal for me to look at something, arrest me for doing so, not my mailman for bringing it to me.

[Yora]

I don't want hate speech that calls for the lynching of minorities to be publicaly available to everyone.

True "arresting the offender and shuting down his site" would be a wonderful thing. But I can't really see how this will ever become reality.

If they are outside our juristiction and have a server in a small remote country that does not care for our internal laws, the content can remain up indefinately. And if it is possible to at least meke that content accessible in one place, I think it's better than not doing anything.

I agree, it's a very difficult thing to get clear and publicaly accepted rules what content is okay and what not. But as I see it saying "we could do something wrong, so let's do nothing and pretend there is no problem" is criminal neglect to me.


Of course, the ISP can not have full knowledge of what content is going through its cables, and I don't think that could be considered an offense in any way. But once you know, I think it's neccessary to react to it in some way.

And of course, limiting access by an ISP to get economical advantages against competitors is clearly a completely different thing.

[kamikasei]

I don't want hate speech that calls for the lynching of minorities to be publicaly available to everyone.

Then we have a fundamental disagreement of a political nature.

[good_lookin_gus]

I thought this (www.itif.org/files/netneutrality.pdf) was an interesting compromise. I was about to chime in on the censorship aspect but realized how polarizing it is for me (and probably many others). Unless you want this thread locked with the quickness, I would steer away.

[valadil]

I think it's absolutely required to be able to prevent access to sites advocating crime and prejudice. But as usual you have to problem who is to make the descision where the line is to be drawn. It's difficult to do any a huge challenge for a society to solve.


And this is why it has become a political issue. If ISPs start censoring they'll get sued for infringing on free speech.

I don't want anyone censoring me. I don't want anyone reading my communications even if I'm not being censored. No matter what happens though, I don't trust any government to censor or throttle the web correctly. They'll just piss off the hackers who bypass it all anyway.

[RS14]

And this is why it has become a political issue. If ISPs start censoring they'll get sued for infringing on free speech.

I don't want anyone censoring me. I don't want anyone reading my communications even if I'm not being censored. No matter what happens though, I don't trust any government to censor or throttle the web correctly. They'll just piss off the hackers who bypass it all anyway.

No, they won't. "Congress shall make no law," not "AT&T shall make no policy." Now I hold it to be abhorrent when ISPs do so, but it's not against the law in the US as far as I am aware.

They might run into trouble with other laws, but what specifically, I don't know.

[BritishBill]

Having complete freedom on the net is a very bad idea. I mean theirs already enough kiddie porn as it is... we dont need more of that ****.

[SoD]

Having complete freedom on the net is a very bad idea. I mean theirs already enough kiddie porn as it is... we dont need more of that ****.

I'd argue that complete freedom is a good thing. I mean, in real life, people are free to make kiddie porn if they want. There's nothing stopping them. However, they need to face the concequences of their actions, which they should also need to do on the internet. Freedom to commit crimes, freedom to pay for them.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: While there is a technical issue here, and it could be limited to private acts by private actors, it seems impossible to address the issues involved without addressing political issues. For example, already mentioned are the U.S. Constitution, a fundamental political disagreement about the nature of freedom of speech, and censorship. This just doesn't seem to be discussable without addressing political issues.