Leftists Want To Ban Speech...

[Cow Poke]

Conservative commentator Candace Owens was banned by Twitter for re-tweeting some of the racist comments Sarah Jeong has posted in the past^[1] while Sarah Jeong was never banned for posting them in the first place. And do you think there is a chance in... well you know where, that someone like Louis Farrakhan has to worry about any of the social media giants banning and deleting his stuff no matter how loathsome some of the stuff he has said is?

What's "funny" is how some of the same folks who were wringing their hands just a few months ago about net neutrality allowing corporate entities to stifle speech are now cheering their decision to suppress Jones.




1. and was forced to apologize and reinstate her 12 hours later due to the backlash for doing so

It's like somebody getting blasted for saying the "N" word when directly quoting somebody who actually used it, but that person gets a free pass.

[One Bad Pig]

What's typical is how some of the same folks who were wringing their hands just a few months ago about net neutrality allowing corporate entities to stifle speech are now cheering their decision to suppress Jones.

Fixed that for you.

[carpedm9587]

Conservative commentator Candace Owens was banned by Twitter for re-tweeting some of the racist comments Sarah Jeong has posted in the past^[1] while Sarah Jeong was never banned for posting them in the first place. And do you think there is a chance in... well you know where, that someone like Louis Farrakhan has to worry about any of the social media giants banning and deleting his stuff no matter how loathsome some of the stuff he has said is?

What's "funny" is how some of the same folks who were wringing their hands just a few months ago about net neutrality allowing corporate entities to stifle speech are now cheering their decision to suppress Jones.

1. and was forced to apologize and reinstate her 12 hours later due to the backlash for doing so

Umm... "net neutrality" has nothing to do with "free speech."

[firstfloor]

Apart from the last three words, which may be dismissed as a strange, another time detail, Galatians 3:28 is anti-facist, anti-Trump and anti-Christian-right wing evangelicals. Amen.

[One Bad Pig]

Umm... "net neutrality" has nothing to do with "free speech."

Um,
freespeech.JPG

Just sayin'.

[Cow Poke]

Apart from the last three words, which may be dismissed as a strange, another time detail, Galatians 3:28 is anti-facist, anti-Trump and anti-Christian-right wing evangelicals. Amen.

This is new! Not only do we rip a verse out of context we, we chop off the part we don't like! Good job, sir!

[carpedm9587]

Um,
[ATTACH=CONFIG]29701[/ATTACH]

Just sayin'.

So, my area of expertise is telecommunications and telecommunications policy. There are a lot of misconceptions out there about "net neutrality," so it does not surprise me to find articles like this. But net neutrality is a fairly simple concept that states that no traffic can receive preferential treatment, or have its treatment denigrated, by a service provider. Linking this to "free speech" is somewhat like saying, "if we eliminate the rule that all cars on the highway have an equal right to be on the highway, we will impact free speech because it will make it possible for people to deny people access to the highway if they want to go to an pro-Trump rally."

If you squint, and push the concept to its extreme interpretation, maybe. I would consider that an extreme view that is tangentially related at best. The real concern is that ISPs will use the freedom to treat traffic differently to enhanced the performance of their own services and denigrate the performance of competing services.

It is a technical solution to a political/economic problem - and it has a lot of negative side effects. Personally, I am glad it is gone. The problem it is trying to solve should/could be solved in other ways.

[Sparko]

So, my area of expertise is telecommunications and telecommunications policy. There are a lot of misconceptions out there about "net neutrality," so it does not surprise me to find articles like this. But net neutrality is a fairly simple concept that states that no traffic can receive preferential treatment, or have its treatment denigrated, by a service provider. Linking this to "free speech" is somewhat like saying, "if we eliminate the rule that all cars on the highway have an equal right to be on the highway, we will impact free speech because it will make it possible for people to deny people access to the highway if they want to go to an pro-Trump rally."

If you squint, and push the concept to its extreme interpretation, maybe. I would consider that an extreme view that is tangentially related at best. The real concern is that ISPs will use the freedom to treat traffic differently to enhanced the performance of their own services and denigrate the performance of competing services.

It is a technical solution to a political/economic problem - and it has a lot of negative side effects. Personally, I am glad it is gone. The problem it is trying to solve should/could be solved in other ways.

It's a bit more than that.

It is about ISPs being able to control what information is available and what you can access, or share. They could decide that they want to slow down conservative feeds, or eliminate them, or make people pay more to access them.

This article is pretty good:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/0...ck-free-speech

But then instead of ISPs doing that, it seems the various services themselves are determining what information we can get. Take the recent ban of Infowars. Technically as private services they can do so with impunity. But when they become such a widely used platform that they are practically the defacto communications channels on the internet, the case can be made that they must allow free speech unhindered. I am on the fence about it right now though.

[rogue06]

Umm... "net neutrality" has nothing to do with "free speech."

I'm not saying that it does, but some of its supporters, who now think shutting down Jones is great, do.

Source: An Attack on Net Neutrality Is an Attack on Free Speech

Several US senators spoke out this week on the importance of net neutrality to innovation and free speech. They are right. The Internet has become our public square, our newspaper, our megaphone. The Federal Communications Commission is trying to turn it in something more akin to commercial cable TV, and we all have to work together to stop it.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

Source: DEFEND NET NEUTRALITY NOW | American Civil Liberties Union

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Source: The First Amendment Red Herring In The Net Neutrality Debate

By leaning on the First Amendment, the progressive left suggests that net neutrality is about the suppression of speech. Under this framework, the big threat is broadband providers inhibiting access to controversial websites (such as discussions of the Black Lives Matter movement) or sites with which they disagree (such as the hypothetical www.comcastsucks.com).


Source

© Copyright Original Source

[rogue06]

So, my area of expertise is telecommunications and telecommunications policy. There are a lot of misconceptions out there about "net neutrality,"...

You are missing the point which was "What's 'funny' is how some of the same folks who were wringing their hands just a few months ago about net neutrality allowing corporate entities to stifle speech are now cheering their decision to suppress Jones." IOW, many of those who think that net neutrality is a free speech issue and worried about large corporations taking over and suppressing free speech (irregardless of whether it is true or not) are the same folks who are cheering the large corporations suppressing free speech.

[carpedm9587]

It's a bit more than that.

It is about ISPs being able to control what information is available and what you can access, or share. They could decide that they want to slow down conservative feeds, or eliminate them, or make people pay more to access them.

This article is pretty good:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/0...ck-free-speech

But then instead of ISPs doing that, it seems the various services themselves are determining what information we can get. Take the recent ban of Infowars. Technically as private services they can do so with impunity. But when they become such a widely used platform that they are practically the defacto communications channels on the internet, the case can be made that they must allow free speech unhindered. I am on the fence about it right now though.

As I noted in my previous post - yes - it is possible. Likewise, drivers could be denied the road because they are going to a Trump rally. But just because something is "possible" does not make it either likely or shown to have occurred. What IS likely, and HAS occurred, is that ISPs enhance traffic to services they have a fiscal stake in (television feeds, etc.) and degrade traffic from competitors. Net Neutrality was primarily (and badly) intended to address that issue. It's the wrong tool for the job because of its other consequences. It appears some free speech advocates are looking to drum up FUD to get their political base motivated (mostly on the left), and it is a fairly silly argument, IMO. Where we see free speech issues is not the networks carrying the traffic; it is the websites supporting social networking and news/comments.

[carpedm9587]

I'm not saying that it does, but some of its supporters, who now think shutting down Jones is great, do.

Source: An Attack on Net Neutrality Is an Attack on Free Speech

Several US senators spoke out this week on the importance of net neutrality to innovation and free speech. They are right. The Internet has become our public square, our newspaper, our megaphone. The Federal Communications Commission is trying to turn it in something more akin to commercial cable TV, and we all have to work together to stop it.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Source: DEFEND NET NEUTRALITY NOW | American Civil Liberties Union

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Source: The First Amendment Red Herring In The Net Neutrality Debate

By leaning on the First Amendment, the progressive left suggests that net neutrality is about the suppression of speech. Under this framework, the big threat is broadband providers inhibiting access to controversial websites (such as discussions of the Black Lives Matter movement) or sites with which they disagree (such as the hypothetical www.comcastsucks.com).


Source

© Copyright Original Source

What is being missed here is that net neutrality deals with how the traffic in the net flows. It does NOT deal with how website owners/managers manage it. The Internet has three constituent elements: servers that host information, the network that carries traffic, and the clients (laptops, phones, etc.) accessing the information. Net neutrality is about the network and its providers. I know of no provisions in the net neutrality rules that require a company that runs servers (i.e., websites) to neutrally provide access to those servers.

As a parallel, if net neutrality were about the traffic, it would be about the equal access all vehicles should have to the roads. It would NOT be about, "anyone should be able to go to business X." Business X still has the right to put a guard at the door, deny access to some and grant it to others. But the highway system would not be allowed to deny the road to people who want to "do X" (e.g., take a vacation, sight-see, go to work, run a business, etc.).

[carpedm9587]

You are missing the point which was "What's 'funny' is how some of the same folks who were wringing their hands just a few months ago about net neutrality allowing corporate entities to stifle speech are now cheering their decision to suppress Jones." IOW, many of those who think that net neutrality is a free speech issue and worried about large corporations taking over and suppressing free speech (irregardless of whether it is true or not) are the same folks who are cheering the large corporations suppressing free speech.

That I cannot speak to. I have no idea who has said what about Alex Jones. The man is a troll and I don't waste time with trolls. It's why I don't spend much time listening to Trump anymore.

[Sparko]

As I noted in my previous post - yes - it is possible. Likewise, drivers could be denied the road because they are going to a Trump rally. But just because something is "possible" does not make it either likely or shown to have occurred. What IS likely, and HAS occurred, is that ISPs enhance traffic to services they have a fiscal stake in (television feeds, etc.) and degrade traffic from competitors. Net Neutrality was primarily (and badly) intended to address that issue. It's the wrong tool for the job because of its other consequences. It appears some free speech advocates are looking to drum up FUD to get their political base motivated (mostly on the left), and it is a fairly silly argument, IMO. Where we see free speech issues is not the networks carrying the traffic; it is the websites supporting social networking and news/comments.

again, we are not even talking about "likely" - we are just pointing out what people were claiming to be afraid of with regards to Net Neutrality being stopped. They were fighting for "free speech" and nobody controlling what information they could find on the internet. It doesn't matter if that was something that might never happen even if NN was repealed. Those same people are cheering when the various large internet communications services are controlling what information they can now get.

[carpedm9587]

again, we are not even talking about "likely" - we are just pointing out what people were claiming to be afraid of with regards to Net Neutrality being stopped.

Yes, I know. And, as I said, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of what "Net Neutrality" is about. And if we see a rash of articles tomorrow about how abandoning "Net Neutrality" will mean fishermen will start attacking the fishing nets of other fishermen, that will ALSO be a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of "Net Neutrality."

They were fighting for "free speech" and nobody controlling what information they could find on the internet. It doesn't matter if that was something that might never happen even if NN was repealed. Those same people are cheering when the various large internet communications services are controlling what information they can now get.

Actually - it really is not about the "information." As I noted, it's about the services. SuperISP sells television services. Amazon sells (and resells) television services. SuperISP wants to sell their own services so they prioritize television feeds from their own services and degrade the feeds from Amazon. There is a significant overlap between the two television services, because both are reselling content from a 3rd party. SuperISP isn't trying to control what information I see - they are trying to control who makes money from it. Hence the Net Neutrality rules. Unfortunately, the rules were bad because sometimes traffic needs to be prioritized because the application in question will not work well (or reliably) without that. Telephone services are a great example. So the Net Neutrality rules make it impossible to offer a consistent, reliable, Internet-based phone service because the voice traffic cannot be prioritized over the data traffic.

Maintaining a competitive environment can be accomplished without forcing the technology in a particular direction. Our politicians (and most people) don't get that, so they made bad policy.