Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Vice: Internet Freedom Is Actively Dissolving In America (vice.com)

Posted by timothy on from the which-part-of-the-elephant dept.

An anonymous reader points out Vice's rather dark view of the state of Internet freedom, the author of which posits that "one fact about the internet is quickly becoming clear this year: Americans' freedom to access the open internet is rapidly dissolving." As evidence, the writer points out negative trends in broadband adoption, legal moves to weaken encryption, industry consolidation that means fewer competitors in some areas, increasing use of data caps, and increasing reliance by many (especially poorer) Americans on mobile phones as their only internet-connected devices. (On the other hand, it's worth pointing out that there are now free encryption-centric apps for voice and text communication that give ordinary people privacy options, and both unlocked phones and inexpensive data plans are far closer to the American norm than they were a few years ago.)

8 of 150 comments (clear)

  1. Muckraking by retroworks · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Some of the best journalism comes from Muckraking. Still, it's pretty easy to see that the main advantage of the internet is that it provides education / information to billions of people who never had access to it before, and the growth in that penetration is a bigger story than the limits to educating and informing people. The main disadvantage is when the internet provides miseducation / false information to billions of people. The nuance is that misinformation has been readily accessible to the billions of people for eons. The optimist thinks that misinformation will find it more difficult to compete with truth, and that attempts to curtail it will tend to blowback on churches, governments and corporations which try to wedge against it.

    --
    Gently reply
  2. Loss of content by DCFusor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm not so sure Vice is all-negative, after all, they did a pretty cool and positive feature on my fusion work. You can search youtube on my username for it if you care.
    What does concern me is that it used to take me almost all day to read everything new that day on the 'net - and now it takes only an hour, if that, and I don't really read faster than I used to.
    .
    While it seems even the tinfoil hat crowd aren't talking about explicit censorship, either the world is kind of going dead, or something like hidden chilling effects are happening. I really don't like that one bit - no matter which it is - the creeping lack of new worthwhile content doesn't bode well at all. Yes, I read more widely on more topics and specialties than most so maybe it's more obvious to me, but gee, it's a huge change over the last few years. Seems as though society is just giving up, whatever the reason.

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    1. Re:Loss of content by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What does concern me is that it used to take me almost all day to read everything new that day on the 'net - and now it takes only an hour, if that, and I don't really read faster than I used to.

      It is funny, I open tabs of pages of data that I want to consume, but defer because it is not topical to what I'm researching, and then later I can go back and read those tabs. But they grow too fast, and I only have the same 25 hours a day as everybody else. So I finally end up with firefox getting bloated, so I give up and just toss the unread tabs... by then it is usually a few thousand. I do read probably 25% of what I set aside to read.

      If your internet data sources are shrinking, you're almost certainly stuck in a silo of your own making.

      It is the same problem the people crying about censorship have. They lack motivation to participate in meaningful speech, and they blame invisible gatekeepers.

      The difference between the internet now and 15 years ago is that now there is just more data, and most of it sucks. The noise is increasingly difficult to filter. But that should present itself as a different problem; excess crap, excess data. If you're short on data you've got severe bottlenecks. I use noscript and ad blockers, and can'trefuse to consume much of the available data, and there is still significant excess. There is no way to trim that down without restricting speech, so building silos might be a good answer. But perhaps they become less useful if they're seen as something evil that is being imposed by invisible beings.

  3. The worst censorship is not from governments. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You and the GP blame "governments", but it's much more than that.

    The worst censorship we witness online isn't done by governments, or those acting on behalf of governments.

    The most insidious censorship is that done by the people running the discussion forums, or their minions. Look at places like reddit, or Hacker News, or Stack Overflow. If you don't hold exactly the right viewpoints and opinions, then you will most likely be silenced and banned.

    Slashdot isn't as bad as those aforementioned sites, but it's still susceptible to very abusive and incorrect moderation, too.

    The real threat here is Millennials. They're an entire generation of people who've deluded themselves into believing that they stand for freedom and openness, yet in practice they're actually among the most virulent perpetrators of censorship and the suppression of free expression.

    If you express an opinion that they dislike, they don't engage in discussion. They just shut you down, typically using a system that's without any sort of an appeal process, or due process of any sort.

    At least governments tend to be subject to at least some judicial oversight, no matter how minor or ineffective it may be. There is absolutely no resource against online moderators who engage in oppression.

    1. Re:The worst censorship is not from governments. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I wouldn't blame a generation wholesale. Millennials got handed a pretty shitty world. However, I do see a lot of head-scratching stuff, similar to the apolitical German back in the 1920s/1930s. The infinitile "safe rooms" at universities for example, or during a class, a female accusing others of "verbal rape" when they disagreed with her viewpoint.

      I see the censorship coming from the left. If I post on a right-wing gun list that I am atheist, at worst, I might get someone asking me to reconsider my beliefs. And trust me, the right wing gun lists are pretty far out there.

      However, I got kicked out of my city's Democratic party (where I did a lot more "walk the walk" when it came to canvassing and volunteer work) when they were scoffing at the furor over the right and the UN Small Arms treaty... and I reminded them of ACTA, the DMCA, and the TPP... and how a treaty popping up and getting ratified can happen out of nowhere.

      It isn't the far right that is demanding censorship and "individual responsibility for opinions". No, the far right has its own issues (giving carte-blanche to corporations, the attitude of if you are not rich, you don't deserve to live), but I just find it ironic that the "ammosexuals" have far more tolerance for a former Democrat than the Dems had for someone in their ranks for decades who points out an obvious fact that differs from the same drivel cycling in their echo chamber.

      As for censorship online... Try Wikipedia. I've brought new evidence and sources many times to articles from peer-reviewed journals I had access to when I was in college. No matter what I did (and no, this wasn't mindless trolling), the changes I did were reverted with either no reason, or a generic "vandalism" revert. When I message someone about clarification, I'd get no response. There is no way for the average person to have an impact on Wikipedia because the editors will just give you the middle finger unless you manage to get into the good ol' boy club somehow.

      Even Slashdot is similar. Yes, there are issues with too much surveillance under current governments, but people on the streets are not getting a knock on the door and disappearing without trials right after they click "Submit" on a thread...{#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER

  4. rookie mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If your society requires anonymity for freedom of speech, then that society is not free to begin with.

  5. Not when they are all rooted it isn't by shaitand · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "(On the other hand, it's worth pointing out that there are now free encryption-centric apps for voice and text communication that give ordinary people privacy options, and both unlocked phones and inexpensive data plans are far closer to the American norm than they were a few years ago.)"

    Mobile phones are rooted by both the carrier and/or your employer and provide a direct backdoor to the government. There is absolutely no security/privacy on a mobile phone. There isn't much point in encrypting your voice/text when they have the key.

  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion