Title II Net Neutrality applies censorship laws to the internet.
Notice how the pro-Net Neutrality posters always talk about the possibility that Comcast or Verizon will "censor" certain content. What they fail to mention is that the Law that the FCC reinterpreted and applied to ISPs in 2015 and called "Net Neutrality" actually contains obscenity laws and speech codes that explicitly censor "obscene" or "annoying" content.
What the FCC is calling "Net Neutrality" is actually just a massive regulatory move that will give the FCC extremely high control and authority over what kinds of communication are allowed and disallowed on the (until now) open internet. Let's not forget the FCC's horrible track record on our First Amendment rights.
(a) Whoever-- (1) in interstate or foreign communications-- (A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly-- (i) makes, creates, or solicits, and (ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;
...
(C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;
...
(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Let's get something else straight: it's not just ISPs that have a dog in this fight. Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Conde Nast, all of whom censor content, are pro-Net Neutrality. The idea that Title II will somehow prevent censorship is insane - we already have censorship on the internet and Title II will do absolutely nothing to stop Google/Facebook/Twatter/Conde Nast from censoring whatever they feel like censoring.
In fact, the "Net Neutrality" passed down by the FCC does exactly what people say it's supposed to prevent - censorship - and it's important to cut through the bullshit and expose what's really going on here, which is one corporate lobby (websites) astroturfing public opinion to get a different corporate lobby (ISPs) to do them a favor by not throttling their traffic.
Yes! I remember hearing discussions about net neutrality long before it got co-opted by the streaming video arguments and isp's.
I couldn't remember exactly where and what I'd heard, but I knew it was not a good thing like it got made out to be.
Let's be open and honest and rational here for a few moments. There isn't a "ISPs will MAYBE direct me to content where content providers have paid a premium to send me to these content providers." It's a Guarantee.
Here's the difference:
Excellent addition to the discussion. Given that many of us have only one provider of broadband internet available to us, the ISPs need to be prevented from restricting our use of the net. Unfortunately, this is already done. We can vote with our feet to avoid Gargle, Fakebook, and Twatter, and I do, and as that censorship becomes less tolerable, more people that care about censorship will join us.
However, there are plenty of people that don't care. Oddly, a lot of people actually prefer to be in echo chambers, and I have recently abandoned Ars Technica, where I have contributed to the fora for almost two decades, because it has devolved into a snarky popularity contest unsuitable for scientific debate.
I entered into a debate on a science issue there this week, and counted a ratio of about 30 insults and ad homina comments per actual substantive datum.
I reckon Steemit will have to settle for only the best content creators, instead of those who only want to hear from like minds, as Steemit can't offer them much of an echo chamber, being uncensored.
Oh, well. I can live with that. As long as my ISP lets me.
Well stated.
The FCC is a public institution run (ideally) by people accountable to the American public at the voting booth. If we lose Title II (aka net neutrality) status for the internet, there will be no mechanism to stop censorship of independent content. Your argument completely ignores the accountability question. I think we can both agree that censorship is bad, no matter who applies it-- the FCC or your ISP. The difference between us is that you don't recognize the value of the public-run FCC. At least make the argument that an ISP who has a monopoly on its products will undoubtedly censor content given the legal mechanism to do so... And this is bad for consumers, no matter how you spin it.
Hi! I am a robot. I just upvoted you! I found similar content that readers might be interested in:
https://pastebin.com/4Dk92wGp
Excellent post dude, just want to say what a great job you're doing and to keep putting the truth out because that's our best weapon against the criminal banking cartels that own our governments and the majority of media. Without people like you doing this work we would never here the truth, we would just here lies and propaganda. Many people appreciate your posts.
Congratulations @thatsnumberwang! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPWell put Titus. It always confuses me when people are afraid that ISPs are going to censor content, so they want the FCC (or gov in general) to be in charge of the content.
The government is far more likely to start censoring than any ISP. For this reason, I've always been against "Net-neutrality" if it means giving more power to any government agency.
It appears to be a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't', scenario. If we fight to keep Net Neutrality, then our ISP's can't throttle us on certain sites, but if we get rid of Net Neutrality, IPS's can charge us more just to go where we want to go. It's like the utility companies; without the Gov't stepping in, they could charge the crap out of us. So considering this, I am more 'for' Net Neutrality, than against. It has been working well for many years, and if we get rid of it, we will go back to being at the mercy of the ISP's rate hikes, and censorship. This is indeed a perfect example of when Laws are helping the people, not hurting them. You must take the good with the bad. I don't mind a little Gov't, if it is keeping ISP's in check. So I am PRO Net Neutrality. It gives the little guy the same ability to use the internet as the big guys, because he can't be overcharged just because he wants to go to a particular site. The wealthy won't care, because they will be able to afford the higher costs.
Great article about an important issue. Upvoted, resteemed and followed =)