Does anyone here actually oppose Network Neutrality?

[Nihilianth]

Conspiracy theories need to be locked down. They are almost exclusively easily proven lies, but if enough people or the wrong people (like congress) believe in them, they can affect change.

Change the lives of people based on lies, deception and ignorance.
No thank you.

Restrict freedom of speech just because you think what someone says is idiotic and "dangerous,"...No thank you! I would much rather an idiotic Young Earth Christian be allowed to voice the nonesense he/she believes in, than to restrict their rights to say it. Especially on the internet. The internet is the closest thing we have to a truly democratic society. (Which is why I support NN.)

 

[RandFan]

Conspiracy theories need to be locked down. They are almost exclusively easily proven lies, but if enough people or the wrong people (like congress) believe in them, they can affect change.

Change the lives of people based on lies, deception and ignorance.
No thank you.

I don't know where you live NoahFence but in America we have a concept in the law called "prior restraint". In America prior restraint is unconstitutional.

One of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the freedom from prior restraint. Derived from English Common Law, the rule against prior restraint prohibits government from banning expression of ideas prior to their publication. The rule against prior restraint is based on the principle that Freedom of the Press is essential to a free society. Attempts by government to obtain a prior restraint have largely been unsuccessful.
The rule against prior restraint was undisputed for much of U.S. history. The landmark case of near v. minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 (1931), finally settled the issue, with the U.S. Supreme Court finding that the First Amendment imposed a heavy presumption against the validity of a prior restraint.
In Near, the Court struck down a Minnesota state law that permitted public officials to seek an Injunction to stop publication of any "malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine, or other periodical." The statute was used to suppress publication of a small Minneapolis newspaper, the Saturday Press, which had crudely maligned local police and political officials, often in anti-Semitic terms. The law provided that once a newspaper was enjoined, further publication was punishable as Contempt of court.
Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, in his majority opinion, called the law "the essence of censorship" and declared it unconstitutional. With its decision, the Court incorporated the First Amendment freedom of the press into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This incorporation made freedom of the press fully applicable to the states.

 

[Francesca R]

I wouldn't want to see NN "properly addressing the competition of ISPs." That wouldn't be the goal. The goal would be to disallow Comcast from charging online businesses money so people can access the websites at the speed that they already paid for.

Furthermore, the whole "fast lane/slow lane" thing; When you say it is "fine and indeed a benefit for customers who want them," I don't think you are talking about the "fast lane/slow lane." What you seem to be talking about is options for customers to choose how fast they want their internet speed to be. Of course there should be options. If I wanted cheaper internet service, I would like to have the option of a 25mb/sec download speed, as opposed to 105. Or vice-versa. That's fine.

No I am referring to a contract with an ISP (fully disclosed) where some content is prioritised by source and other content de-prioritised. I know what net non-neutrality is.

What we mean by a "fast/slow lane," is that, if you are paying $60/month for 105mb/s, that's what you should receive. Period. No net neutrality means that Comcast can LIMIT your d/l speeds to something lower than 105 if you connect to Boobtube, because Boobtube didn't pay Comcast an extortion like Youtube did. So Boobtube automatically gets put on the "slow lane," and Youtube gets preferential treatment ("The fast lane"), even though you are ALREADY paying the agreed-upon price for 105mb/s! That's ********!

And this is an OK example. Suppose a customer has no wish to watch your second (boobtube) provider. An arrangement where it and similar sites are slowed down and youtube is not would suit them. Furthermore because youtube was paying some of the cost of its traffic, the cost to the customer would/should be lower than a neutral contract. (You might not think that would happen if you think corporations always/everywhere have the ability to price-gouge / rent-seek. That's why competition is essential for it to work)

It is also what I keep calling "double-dipping."

Double dipping is a term for a form of rent-seeking. Again, it is less likely to happen (less likely to be possible) given a competitive array of service providers. Don't confuse rent-seeking via double-dipping with the general idea of two-sided markets. Nothing about two-sided markets gives firms greater opportunity to seek rents per se. Uncompetitive markets do that, and they can still do that if they are one-sided (as you wish them to be), not by double-dipping but by increasing the dip they make into your wallet.

The core of the problems you are talking about is the monopolistic position of ISPs in the US. This means you need regulations to prevent them exploiting this in myriad ways. Those can work but monopolies + regulation is an inferior combo to competition + less regulation (it is relatively welfare reducing). And of course monopolistic firms will forever seek new ways to earn rents, and will in general find it easier to do than competing ones. IMO there is no good reason for internet service provision to be monopolistic in the US. (Extra cables, eminent domain, seizing property etc are red herrings already dealt with)

 

[Nihilianth]

No I am referring to a contract with an ISP (fully disclosed) where some content is prioritised by source and other content de-prioritised. I know what net non-neutrality is.

When I sign a contract with Comcast at an agreed-upon price, at an agreed-upon speed.....whenb Comcast decides to sign a contract with Youtube to allow Youtube faster d/l speeds than Boobtube....that second contract most definitely was NOT "fully disclosed" to ME.

I agree to pay $60/month for 105 mb/s d/l speed. I did NOT agree to pay $65/month for 105 mb/s d/l speed for whatever content that Comcast deems needs to be slowed down due to other contracts they have signed with certain online companies.

I suppose if you really think about it, Comcast would already be at fault for breach-of-contract in such a scenario.

And this is an OK example. Suppose a customer has no wish to watch your second (boobtube) provider. An arrangement where it and similar sites are slowed down and youtube is not would suit them. Furthermore because youtube was paying some of the cost of its traffic, the cost to the customer would/should be lower than a neutral contract. (You might not think that would happen if you think corporations always/everywhere have the ability to price-gouge / rent-seek. That's why competition is essential for it to work)

It doesn't matter what another customer wishes or does not wish. And I highly doubt that this "other customer" would be "suited" if Comcast gets to pick and choose which sites to slow down. Youtube is only one of a millions other websites out there. The fictional Boobtube is just an example I used of a small start-up whose competitor has been around for a long time and already has millions of visitors each day.

Another customer may continue to prefer Youtube, and I may prefer the new start-up Boobtube. However, that other customer may prefer Joe's Grocery Service over Meals on Wheels. So no. Such an arrangement wouldn't necessarily suit other customers.

And again, I am not arguing against your "more competition would make it work." I have already agreed with this conclusion in that other thread, and in this one. What I am saying, is that NN, right now, this year, is much easier and less time-consuming, and far less intrusive to pass as a stop-gap measure in order to address a problem that is already starting, and could soon get out of hand. "Forcing competition" would require a huge lawsuit, and could literally take years and years of litigation, and cost millions of dollars. And it wouldn't work with a bunch of hot-headed conservatives in office.

Double dipping is a term for a form of rent-seeking. Again, it is less likely to happen (less likely to be possible) given a competitive array of service providers. Don't confuse rent-seeking via double-dipping with the general idea of two-sided markets. Nothing about two-sided markets gives firms greater opportunity to seek rents per se. Uncompetitive markets do that, and they can still do that if they are one-sided (as you wish them to be), not by double-dipping but by increasing the dip they make into your wallet.

This is clearly double-dipping; not a two-sided market.

Facebook is an example of a "two-sided market." It is a social networking site that feeds upon itself through other user interaction. It is not a service I am paying for that requires a certain level of interactive experience.

Whereas, I am paying Comcast for a certain level of d/l speeds, and to provide to me the full power of the internet at my fingertips, what I choose to do. I am not paying them to monitor and discriminate between multiple different type of data.

Now, if Comcast were to guarantee a minimum of what I paid for ($60/month at 105 mb/s,) but decides to charge Youtube a fee in order to allow them to stream video at faster than 105 mb/s to me, then that's fine. So long as they do not slow down websites to less than 105 mb/s to me, that haven't paid their extortion price.

The core of the problems you are talking about is the monopolistic position of ISPs in the US. This means you need regulations to prevent them exploiting this in myriad ways. Those can work but monopolies + regulation is an inferior combo to competition + less regulation (it is relatively welfare reducing). And of course monopolistic firms will forever seek new ways to earn rents, and will in general find it easier to do than competing ones. IMO there is no good reason for internet service provision to be monopolistic in the US. (Extra cables, eminent domain, seizing property etc are red herrings already dealt with)

Again, as already explained, I am not arguing against you regarding monopolies vs. competition. I am arguing in favor of NN for various practical reasons. And no, those reasons are NOT red herrings. It is the entire reason BEHIND the concept of NN! And again, right now, at this moment, the USA does not have the political willpower to force competition. We need to have less radical conservatives in Congress and on the bench to even begin that process. And even then, it would still be a long, costly, litigious process. With Faux Snooze in the mix, you would have a huge portion of the population screaming bloody murder about "COMMUNISM!" and "HITLER!!" and "THE END OF CIVILIZATION OMGWTFBBQSAUCE!?!???!

We already get that with NN, but what the hell. It's still much easier to do, than to break up a vast, region-based monopoly with brand new legislation in order to introduce more competition. We have two years to go still before our next major national election. Might as well use Obama while we still have him, even though he is essentially a lame-duck.

 

[Mudcat]

Yup, all disabled people have exactly the same set of physical disabilities, and have no problem getting out and around to the shops. Not at all difficult to get transportation and/or parking, navigate crowds, coordinate some sort of assistance, and so on. Not like there's anyone that has challenges that are not easily resolved by special ramps and doors, nope, none at all. As long as there are ramps and doors, there won't be any difficulty at all for any kind of disabled person.

Yeah, people with physical and/or mental disabilities are really incapable of rising to those challenges. Guess someone should inform Steven Hawking.

Which is completely irrelevant, and not even close to what I said. Most of them allow you to return items for exchange or refund if they do not fit; amounting to effectively the same thing. I've availed myself of that service multiple times.

That is in no way "effectively the same thing", and you know it. And this brings up another argument against online shopping: I go to a outlet store for a jacket, for an example. I find one I like and try it on to see if it fits. It does. I buy it and walk out of that store that day without any special fees for expeditated delivery.

You don't get any of with online shopping, and you know it.

Effectively, yes; since you're treating the advent of the Internet as if it's some great world-destroying monster because people are allowed to say things you disagree with.

Nope. People aren't allways allowed to say or do whatever they like, freedom of speech none withstanding. And they shouldn't be, either.

Huh? This makes no sense. Are you saying that almost no one believed in conspiracy theories and "alternative" medicine prior to the Internet?

No, did you think I was?

Just funny that people said exactly the same thing you are saying about the Internet, about pretty much every single communication technology ever created; and yet the world is getting better, not worse.

Define 'better'.

This is patently nonsense. But assuming it's true, I'd say it's good; because shining a light on nonsense is always an important step to refuting it.

Forcing it to wither away in darkness is better in my opinion.

The answer to bad speech isn't censorship, because censorship never works.

Good thing I'm not endorsing censorship then.

Better to get all the nonsense out into the light where it can be seen clearly for what it is, and critically examined and refuted.

Unfortunately, many people aren't inclined to critical thinking. Otherwise religion would be treated with the same dismissal as phone-a-psychic are by most of the population.

The answer to bad speech isn't censorship; the answer is more and better speech.

Nope. It's holding people accountable for their speech.

Let's have an example that I'm rather fond of: I go out and publicaly accuse you of being serial kidnaping rapist and killer, but it isn't true. I can be held accountable for that, and I should. That isn't free speech protected by the first amendment nor is it censorship if I was to be committed to an asylum for going further and saying that you were Jack the Ripper come back from the dead thanks to alien pixies from an alternate past in the future.

That's looking after the members of society, not censorship.

Now, I go out and publicaly accuse you of being in on the 'controlled demolition' of the World Trade Centers with nanothermite or some other insidious device. And that should be allowed to pass? Why?

Why?

Because we live in a society and must agree to certain restrictions on our so-called freedoms in order to allow it to function peacefully? Granted on the Internet we don't all necessarily live in the same society, but it would be a far better Internet if everyone agreed to behave like decent human beings, don't you agree?

 

[RandFan]

Yeah, people with physical and/or mental disabilities are really incapable of rising to those challenges. Guess someone should inform Steven Hawking.

Because exceptions are the rule.

 

[Nihilianth]

Yup, all disabled people have exactly the same set of physical disabilities, and have no problem getting out and around to the shops. Not at all difficult to get transportation and/or parking, navigate crowds, coordinate some sort of assistance, and so on. Not like there's anyone that has challenges that are not easily resolved by special ramps and doors, nope, none at all. As long as there are ramps and doors, there won't be any difficulty at all for any kind of disabled person.

Yeah, people with physical and/or mental disabilities are really incapable of rising to those challenges. Guess someone should inform Steven Hawking.

Perhaps you can inform Stephen Hawking himself that he is actually able to "get out and around to shops, [and that it would] not at all be difficult [for him] to get transportation and/or parking, navigate crowds, coordinate some sort of assistance, and so on. [It's] not like those challenges are easily resolves by special ramps and doors. As long as there are ramps and doors, there won't be any difficulty at all for [Stephen Hawking.]"

Yup, I wanna see you get on that, informing Mr. Hawking that he has no difficulties getting around whatsoever.

That is in no way "effectively the same thing", and you know it. And this brings up another argument against online shopping: I go to a outlet store for a jacket, for an example. I find one I like and try it on to see if it fits. It does. I buy it and walk out of that store that day without any special fees for expeditated delivery.

You don't get any of with online shopping, and you know it.

This, I must say, I completely agree with. I don;t like online shopping, precisely because I don;t like shopping. If I want/need clothes, I literally wait until the very last minute, where my shirts or pants are completely in rags. I do like to walk into a store, try on a pair of jeans or a new shirt, see how it looks on me, and how it fits. Then walk out then and there with my new clothes. I really do not want to wait around 3 days for clothes to arrive at my doorstep, just to try them on and discover they do not fit, or do not look good on me, then have to restart my shopping all over again. Better to get it done and over with in one day.

Nope. People aren't allways allowed to say or do whatever they like, freedom of speech none withstanding. And they shouldn't be, either.

Ugh. Except that people ARE allowed to say whatever they want, so long as it is "protected speech." And there are very sound, logical reasons why certain speech is not protected: Because such speech can intrude on others' rights.

Forcing it to wither away in darkness is better in my opinion.

Do, pray tell, how do you FORCE such speech "away into darkness?" And who is to decide what is "speech that is crazy enough to warrant an outright ban for it?" You? The President? Congress? Who, exactly?

Good thing I'm not endorsing censorship then.

Yes. You are.

Unfortunately, many people aren't inclined to critical thinking. Otherwise religion would be treated with the same dismissal as phone-a-psychic are by most of the population.

Oh well. Freedom of speech is the hallmark of our western liberal democratic societies. Unless you prefer to live under a dictatorial regime not unlike that of Ahmadinajhad.

Nope. It's holding people accountable for their speech.

Let's have an example that I'm rather fond of: I go out and publicaly accuse you of being serial kidnaping rapist and killer, but it isn't true. I can be held accountable for that, and I should. That isn't free speech protected by the first amendment nor is it censorship if I was to be committed to an asylum for going further and saying that you were Jack the Ripper come back from the dead thanks to alien pixies from an alternate past in the future.

Right. You can be held accountable for making up utter ******** about another individual private citizen. You are interfering with their rights to "pursue happiness." But even then, you wouldn't be arrested and thrown in prison. You would be sued.

That's looking after the members of society, not censorship.

Yes. It is censorship. I think you need to look up the term "censorship" before you continue using it.

Now, I go out and publicaly accuse you of being in on the 'controlled demolition' of the World Trade Centers with nanothermite or some other insidious device. And that should be allowed to pass? Why?

No. And you cannot equivocate restricted speech with something that isn't restricted. There are obvious differences between making BS up about another individual private citizen, and the freedom to tout creationist BS as the truth.

Because we live in a society and must agree to certain restrictions on our so-called freedoms in order to allow it to function peacefully? Granted on the Internet we don't all necessarily live in the same society, but it would be a far better Internet if everyone agreed to behave like decent human beings, don't you agree?

Um, no. It would be a hell of a lot more boring, for one. And for another, the internet is this crazy, chaotic, place that is the most democratic institution ever invented by mankind. It is both tangible, and intangible at the same time. It is controlled by no one, and it is controlled by everyone. It is wild, and it is amazing. We need to keep it that way.

 

[RandFan]

That is in no way "effectively the same thing", and you know it. And this brings up another argument against online shopping: I go to a outlet store for a jacket, for an example. I find one I like and try it on to see if it fits. It does. I buy it and walk out of that store that day without any special fees for expeditated delivery.

You don't get any of with online shopping, and you know it.

I'm disabled and I don't have a car. I live in a rural area where rent is cheap. To take a bus to the mall or a grocery store requires hours on the bus. Online shopping is a god send for me. I only need to go to the store once or twice a month. I don't understand why you think everyone's experience with online shopping is the same as yours. I like choices and I like to let people decide how they will pursue happiness. Why is your view of the world the only right one?

 

[Francesca R]

When I sign a contract with Comcast [ . . . ]

I'm not referring to your contract with comcast, at all. I never have been so I don't know why you think I would be now.

I refer to the advantages to some of non neutral contracts in a competitive environment, and how two-sided markets (competitive ones) are not "double dippers", . . . . and that failure to deal with the competition angle carries risks that you just lay on more and more regulation (such as NN) and companies still find more and more ways of getting around it.

In other words, nothing different to what I have said before.

 

[Minoosh]

My question is probably not directly connected to Network Neutrality but people seem knowledgeable in general. A long time ago when my city was deciding which company should be allowed to lay TV cable it wanted concessions from the company, including funding public access. There was much concern about creating a monopoly. But when broadband started, exactly the same company already had a default monopoly and the charges IMO are excessive.

Is anyone concerned about this?

Another question: I actually pay for dial up every month just because I have a dial up email address I don't want to lose. The service has a web mail feature but it's not as good.

I don't know if it's even possible now to use my dial up. I'd be tempted to drop cable and broadband because it's expensive - and I am also paying for a smart phone data package - a couple of hundred a month seems insane, but I don't really know what to drop. The land line is an obvious choice. I could do without TV. But for job searches the broadband seems kind of necessary.

ETA: I also pay for Netflix which is fine, at $8 a month, even though I don't use it much. It's an account I get on any device and the fee is reasonable.

 

[Minoosh]

^
Mods, if you want this to another category feel free. Possible new thread, broadband monopolies

 

[Mudcat]

Perhaps you can inform Stephen Hawking himself that he is actually able to "get out and around to shops, [and that it would] not at all be difficult [for him] to get transportation and/or parking, navigate crowds, coordinate some sort of assistance, and so on. [It's] not like those challenges are easily resolves by special ramps and doors. As long as there are ramps and doors, there won't be any difficulty at all for [Stephen Hawking.]"

He would have a hard time getting around in shops for reasons completely unrelated to his disability, you know. Point still stands, anyone can overcome their situation if they apply themselves and not make excuses. It might not be easy, per say, but they can. But I suppose it's easier just to sit around feeling sorry for one's self.

Ugh. Except that people ARE allowed to say whatever they want, so long as it is "protected speech." And there are very sound, logical reasons why certain speech is not protected: Because such speech can intrude on others' rights.

.....

Right. You can be held accountable for making up utter ******** about another individual private citizen. You are interfering with their rights to "pursue happiness." But even then, you wouldn't be arrested and thrown in prison. You would be sued.

Exactly the point I'm trying to get across, you know. Falsely accusing someone of being in on 9/11 violates that person's rights, exactly the same way as falsely accusing them of being a child kidnapping rapist and murderer. Yet the latter is very correctly prohibited while the former is permitted under the guise of "protected speech", sorry but I'd rather have people held accountable.

Yes. You are.

.....

Yes. It is censorship. I think you need to look up the term "censorship" before you continue using it.

You say so, so it must be.... Nope, still not.

Oh well. Freedom of speech is the hallmark of our western liberal democratic societies. Unless you prefer to live under a dictatorial regime not unlike that of Ahmadinajhad.

So, expecting people to be held accountable for their words and actions is equivalent to endorsing a dictatorial regime? That's news to me.

Besides, it's not like we're talking about the rights of innocent people here. Snake oil salesmen pushing woo like homeopathy, holistic medicine, natural healing, et cetera are responsible for an unimaginable amounts of damage.

They cost people their lives, destroy their good health, ruin the public trust in licensed professionals, bleed people dry of their money and then turn around continue on to their next marks with all the remorse of a sociopathic serial killer. Locking them up and silencing them is a public service, not censorship.

No. And you cannot equivocate restricted speech with something that isn't restricted. There are obvious differences between making BS up about another individual private citizen, and the freedom to tout creationist BS as the truth.

You are aware that in 2005 the Supreme Court decided that ID/creationism is not proper science and can not be taught in public schools, correct? Must be censorship!!!11!!!One-Eleventy!

...Or the fact that free speech is not unregulated, and for good reason.

We need to keep it that way.

This isn't the Wild West, hell the Wild West wasn't the Wild West either.

 

[Nihilianth]

I'm not referring to your contract with comcast, at all. I never have been so I don't know why you think I would be now.

I refer to the advantages to some of non neutral contracts in a competitive environment, and how two-sided markets (competitive ones) are not "double dippers", . . . . and that failure to deal with the competition angle carries risks that you just lay on more and more regulation (such as NN) and companies still find more and more ways of getting around it.

In other words, nothing different to what I have said before.

Ande yet again, it DOES concern my contract with Comcast!

If I am paying for A, I expect A. Not A sometimes, and B other times.

Again, for the 15th time, if I have a contract for 105 mb/s speed, I EXPECT 105 mb/s speed. I do NOT expect Comcast to go around "double-dipping" by charging Youtube money so they can stream at 105 mb/s speed to me. I am already paying for that service, and I expect that service from Comcast!

I also expect the same service if I go to Boobtube instead. I do NOT expect to receive 85 mb/s speed just because I went to Boobtube, and Boobtube did not pay the extortion that Youtube did. I am PAYING for 105 mb/s speed! Period. End of story. It really is that simple.

"Regulation?" Ya know, this monopoly can really go cry me a friggin river. I don't give a crap about a billion-dollar company. I want what I pay for. Especially if said billion-dollar company is taking me for a ride of over $100/month! I pay 105 megs per second, I expect 105 megs per second. I do NOT expect 105 megs for Youtube, and only 85 for Boobtube. I am under contract to recieve 105 megs! Period! So bring on the regulation!

Also for the 15th time, there is no competition for cable internet service! And that competition is neither coming anytime soon, nor is it going to be easy or cheap to obtain!

What, exactly, is so hard about this concept?

 

[Nihilianth]

My question is probably not directly connected to Network Neutrality but people seem knowledgeable in general. A long time ago when my city was deciding which company should be allowed to lay TV cable it wanted concessions from the company, including funding public access. There was much concern about creating a monopoly. But when broadband started, exactly the same company already had a default monopoly and the charges IMO are excessive.

Is anyone concerned about this?

Another question: I actually pay for dial up every month just because I have a dial up email address I don't want to lose. The service has a web mail feature but it's not as good.

I don't know if it's even possible now to use my dial up. I'd be tempted to drop cable and broadband because it's expensive - and I am also paying for a smart phone data package - a couple of hundred a month seems insane, but I don't really know what to drop. The land line is an obvious choice. I could do without TV. But for job searches the broadband seems kind of necessary.

ETA: I also pay for Netflix which is fine, at $8 a month, even though I don't use it much. It's an account I get on any device and the fee is reasonable.

You're paying for both dial-up and broadband? Get rid of the dial-up. It's useless. If the email you use is directly tied in with your dial-up service, just go to live.com/microsoft.com or gmail. Make sure you create your new account before getting rid of your old email address. That way, you can just copy-paste all your contacts over, and save any important emails you may have.

Netflix is a great alternative to the package deals provided by cable ISPs. (which is exactly why cable ISPs want to get rid of internet neutrality, and why NN regulations are so important. Comcast does not want to have to compete directly with Netflix. I say: "Screw Comcast, keep Netflix" for your television shows and movies. Comcast or whatever local monopoly you are served by, may be necessary for your internet connection.)

Oh, and get rid of your landline phone as well. Just keep a basic internet connection, with your cell phone service through Verizon, ATT, or whoever you currently have. I would just get the basic internet option available, one of the slower speeds if you are not terribly concerned about how fast your d/l speed is. Keep it nice and cheap.

 

[Nihilianth]

He would have a hard time getting around in shops for reasons completely unrelated to his disability, you know. Point still stands, anyone can overcome their situation if they apply themselves and not make excuses. It might not be easy, per say, but they can. But I suppose it's easier just to sit around feeling sorry for one's self.

Oh my.

Exactly the point I'm trying to get across, you know. Falsely accusing someone of being in on 9/11 violates that person's rights, exactly the same way as falsely accusing them of being a child kidnapping rapist and murderer. Yet the latter is very correctly prohibited while the former is permitted under the guise of "protected speech", sorry but I'd rather have people held accountable.

Oh my

No, accusing someone of being a child kidnapping rapist murderer, if untrue, is NOT "protected speech." And neither is accusing someone of being in on 9/11!

Neither of those two things are exactly the equivalent of a creationist saying that the earth was created in 7 days, 6,000 years ago.

You say so, so it must be.... Nope, still not.

Perhaps, sir, you may want to look up the word "censorship" in order to continue this conversation. When you say: "but it should be illegal speech, therefore, not censorship!" is....baffling to say the least. "Illegal speech" is the very definition of censorship!

So, expecting people to be held accountable for their words and actions is equivalent to endorsing a dictatorial regime? That's news to me.

Yes. You were claiming that they [creationists] should be "shut up." That is exactly what a dictatorial-type regime would attempt to do: Shut up a viewpoint or ideology they deem to be "dangerous."

Besides, it's not like we're talking about the rights of innocent people here. Snake oil salesmen pushing woo like homeopathy, holistic medicine, natural healing, et cetera are responsible for an unimaginable amounts of damage.

They cost people their lives, destroy their good health, ruin the public trust in licensed professionals, bleed people dry of their money and then turn around continue on to their next marks with all the remorse of a sociopathic serial killer. Locking them up and silencing them is a public service, not censorship.

Now you are getting into false-advertisement issues. I am not sure where you are going in this conversation.

First, you gave example of young-earthers and creationists posting false BS on the internet. Then somehow you moved onto violations of individual rights (slander/libel.) Now you seem to be moving onto false-advertisement.

Here's the thing with false advertisement, though: If you make a claim while selling a product, and that claim is proven untrue, then yes; you should be held accountable on a legal standpoint. However, if you are making a claim and you are NOT selling a product, then no; you should not be held accountable on a legal standpoint.

And yes, even false-advertisement laws are a form of "censorship." No, it is not a "public service." Because you are not providing a "service" to the public, such as transportation.

You are aware that in 2005 the Supreme Court decided that ID/creationism is not proper science and can not be taught in public schools, correct? Must be censorship!!!11!!!One-Eleventy!

...Or the fact that free speech is not unregulated, and for good reason.

And now you are talking about yet another type of speech: Teaching creation/ID in public schools! Man, how the goal posts keep shifting.

BTW, yes. This, too, is censorship. And by your apparent use of exclamations, ones, and "one-eleventy," you are attempting to turn the word into something ultra-evil that it is not. Again, you need to look up the word "censorship," then get back with me.

(And btw, the use of censorship can be abused by a morally-bankrupt society and/or government. Luckily, we live in a liberal democratic society with laws and a justice system based on sound, logical reasoning, where proper censorship is used as a tool in order to ensure the rights of individuals.)

This isn't the Wild West, hell the Wild West wasn't the Wild West either.

Oh my.

 

[RandFan]

Besides, it's not like we're talking about the rights of innocent people here. Snake oil salesmen pushing woo like homeopathy, holistic medicine, natural healing, et cetera are responsible for an unimaginable amounts of damage.

Then regulate those products and services. Not speech.

If someone is engaging in illegal activity then prosecute the illegal activity.

 

[Francesca R]

What, exactly, is so hard about this concept?

It's straw as far as I am concerned.

I made the case for ISP competition. You do not have this. Then you go on to say how the other party to your (monopolistic) contract allegedly rips you off. That would not surprise me. It's aligned with what I argue and always have.

 

[blutoski]

Then regulate those products and services. Not speech.

Unfortunately that doesn't mean anything.

The violation is in the spoken claim about the product. Healthfraud is a great example. Green coffee a legitimate beverage. It is not a legitimate weight loss product. The legality of the transaction is linked to the vendor's claim.

Rocks are not criminalized. Claiming a special rock will cure cancer and selling it to cancer patients is criminalized.

If someone is engaging in illegal activity then prosecute the illegal activity.

Yep. Often the illegal activity is misrepresenting a product, which happened when the person spoke.

 

[Nihilianth]

It's straw as far as I am concerned.

I made the case for ISP competition. You do not have this. Then you go on to say how the other party to your (monopolistic) contract allegedly rips you off. That would not surprise me. It's aligned with what I argue and always have.

*forehead smack.*

No, it is not straw. Yes, you are arguing for ISP competition. I get that! I agree with your argument! I am not arguing against the IDEA of competition!

You aren't hearing what I am saying. WHY NN is necessary. The fact that we do NOT have competition, and the fact that it is NOT going to be easy, cheap, nor quick to obtain said competition, I am resorting to the next best thing: Regulation as a stop-gap measure to ensure fair use of the internet until we can get to that point!

Take this analogy as an example:

If you are unemployed and ready to be kicked out of your apartment, you get any job you can obtain as a stop-gap measure. That means a minimum-wage job at McDonald's. Getting that high-salaried professional position or your own business is neither easy, nor quick. You worry about that once you have your McDonald's job.

Now, what you are arguing, is "but why have a McDonald's job when you can own your own business, and become a millionaire. That will solve all of your financial troubles."

Yes, I agree. Being a successful millionaire business owner will most definitely solve all of your financial troubles. But you aren't, currently, a successful millionaire business owner. You are ready to lose your house. Attempting to become a millionaire is useless in the short term. You can work on that, but it will take a lot of time, money, and effort in order to maneuver yourself into obtaining that position. That is time, money, and effort you do not currently have when you are about to be booted onto the streets.

Also, the topic of this thread is:

"Does anyone here actually oppose Network Neutrality?"

It is not:

"Does anyone here actually think that competition is better than Net Neutrality?"

 

[blutoski]

No I am referring to a contract with an ISP (fully disclosed) where some content is prioritised by source and other content de-prioritised. I know what net non-neutrality is.

I think the reality is that ISPs would hedge their bets in contracts like this, the way they do today. Today, they only guarantee 'up to' a certain speed. ie: they fully disclose that things will change, but that it's not am excise to dissolve the contract.

In this spirit, when it comes to packet shaping, they would reserve the right to change their supplier agreements at any time. Channel packs with TV and credit card points at points of sale are a good analogy today. Web services like NetFlix or Google will evolve into the equivalent of content packs that the carrier will shuffle every few months to accommodate their constantly shifting supplier/partner strategy.