Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Chairman Keeps Up Assault on Social Media (axios.com)

Posted by msmash on from the no-turning-back dept.

Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is doubling down on his critique of tech companies, asking whether social media is "a net benefit to American society" in remarks at the Media Institute on Wednesday. "Now, I will tell you upfront that I don't have an answer." From a report: What he said: Pai made the case that social media has been key to the politicization of many aspects of American life. "Everything nowadays is political. Everything. ... This view that politics-is-all is often made worse by social media," he said, per his prepared remarks.

9 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. Benefit to American society? by DickBreath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I might be able to agree that social media is not a net benefit to American society. But for entirely different reasons than Ajit Pai.

    Ajit Pai doesn't like it because people can express opinions -- oh my!

    I think it is simply a huge black hole for time that could be productively used for employment, study, personal enrichment, and trolling slashdot. With the additional benefit of avoiding more ads. Don't get me started about TV.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    1. Re:Benefit to American society? by WheezyJoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it is simply a huge black hole for time that could be productively used for employment, study, personal enrichment, and trolling slashdot. With the additional benefit of avoiding more ads. Don't get me started about TV.

      True this. But let's not start sounding like our grandparents, blaming the fall of Western Civilization on that blasted idiot box. We survived. So will the kids who grew up with the Internet.

      Big Picture, Mr. Idiot Pai is simply performing a pivot; attempting to duck the controversy about Net-Neutrality with a head-fake toward the boogeyman of mean, mean social media (and the rich, nasty, West-Coast libs who own it). Let your mind go soft and go "Gosh, maybe the Internet would be nicer if ISP's could charge more against nasty social-media sites and newspapers that pick on helpless political hacks like Pai and his sweet dear leader." Think nice thoughts while Pai's FCC junks Net-Neutrality and Title II with a party-line vote to open the floodgates to vast new opportunities for ISP profits. I wonder which of his relatives is flush flush flush with Verizon and Comcast stock, ready to take off once they finally have the right to get a piece of every successful internet business' action.

      Put simple, you wanna stream that Disney movie? Not on Comcast's wires you won't, not unless Disney pays Comcast a little extra for that bandwidth. Money money money that will eventually trickle out of you. Oh, sure, you can just pirate from a torrent... but wait! without Net-Neutrality, your ISP can shut that off, completely. VPN? Now they're calling it a business application, costs extra to carry those packets. The possibilities for new fees are as boundless as the Internet itself, with that silly Net-Neutrality out of the way.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    2. Re: Benefit to American society? by Rakarra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have to pay more for faster connection, why shouldn't Disney operate under the same cicumstances?

      They do. Don't they pay for their bandwidth connection? And doesn't the end customers pay for their bandwidth connection?

    3. Re:Benefit to American society? by Xyrus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is anyone really surprised? Did anyone honestly not see the parallels between the Great Orange Hitler and the original?

      One of the keys of Hitler's rise to power was the control of information. We now have the head of the FCC drawing upon "fake news" and "alternative facts" to push an agenda to give absolute control of information to a handful of major corporations. Once given, these corporations will be able to filter and manipulate any information flowing through them to their own gain. They'll be able to favor candidates, block news sites, charge ridiculous amounts of money for services, and it will all be perfectly legal.

      It's the perfect end-around of the first amendment. The government can't do anything in regards to freedom of speech, but no such stipulation exists for companies. And without net neutrality, those neo-fascists pricks that run the big ISPs can censor and filter and push whatever they like. They'll be able to freely block candidates that don't support their agenda. They can censor out videos and information they don't like. And if you try to work around their restrictions they'll label you as a criminal or a terrorist.

      This is what these assholes have been dreaming of for years; corporate fascist control of information ensuring that only their candidates remain in power. You'll see, hear, and read only what they want you to. The US will develop it's own great firewall so that all of those "bad influences" don't get in. It'll be done "for your protection". It will be done "for our freedoms". And just like Hitler's Germany, the people will cheer this on as the last vestiges of democracy are destroyed.

      Anyone want to take any bets when the modern day equivalent of the Reichstag is going to take place?
       

      --
      ~X~
  2. Irrelevant by xbytor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "whether social media is "a net benefit to American society" is irrelevant to any discussion of Net Neutrality.

    Whether Twitter is biased is irrelevant to any discussion of Net Neutrality.

    This is just more deflection. Pai has jumped the shark. Anything he says anymore does nothing to contribute to informed discussion.

    Makes me miss Wheeler: he turned out to be far more reasonable than I ever expected and than Pai ever will be.,

    1. Re:Irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is just more deflection. Pai has jumped the shark. Anything he says anymore does nothing to contribute to informed discussion.

      It's worse than that, and Americans should be alarmed and outraged by this.

      You should be alarmed and outraged because he's pas the point of "informed discussion". He's literally counter-attacking the people who have pointed out his lies about net neutrality.

      This is full on Soviet-era deflection, more or less insinuating that you shouldn't listen to Twitter when they say net neutrality is good, because after all, what Twitter does is evil and sketchy and they're probably enemies of the state.

      He has outright decided that facts and informed discussion are pointless, so he's going straight to trying to portray them as not being "net benefit to American society". He's basically threatening them in public that if they continue to disagree with him, things could get messy as they pursue other options to beat them down.

      This is naked thuggery, and people actively refusing to engage in informed discussion. This is making thinly veiled threats at people who point out you're a lying sack of shit.

      If America has reached this point, we're deeply fucked. Because this administration is pretty much showing it will do anything it wants, and if you oppose them they're going to come at you ... basically he's going at Twitter the same way Trump the idiot attacks everyone else on Twitter.

      This is appalling, and pretty much means civility and reason are dead in America. This is essentially an explicit tactic, it's not just some clown who is making false equivalents ... he is deliberately suggesting that Twitter is a bad entity to then say "so don't listen to them when they point out I'm lying".

      He hasn't jumped the shark, but America is in the middle of doing so.

  3. Re:Why are social media sites so non-neutral? by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Net neutrality is about bandwidth allocations by upstream ISPs. Stop trying to conflate that with platform's own rules for content moderation. Furthermore, you're a bad person for trying to claim this only happens to "leftist" content or that "leftist" is even a thing.

  4. Re:Why are social media sites so non-neutral? by DickBreath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Net Neutrality is not only about bandwidth allocation but also about WHAT you are allowed to connect to. It is none of my ISP's business nor concern whether my packets are going across the state or across the planet. The source and destination (and contents) of my packets are none of the ISPs business beyond simply routing the packets.

    This is true whether my packets to go a so called 'social' network (they do not) or to elsewhere.

    Net Neutrality is about my connection to the internet and my choices to connect to sites of my liking. Not about what is allowed or not allowed on those sites. I can choose the sites for myself. I don't want my ISP choosing for me.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  5. Re:Also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    His policy ideas? I am not sure they are really his. I remember very similar ones from 80's Bulgaria.

    The government had become very interested in "Non-formal social groups", and was looking very hard at which ones were beneficial to Communist society, and which one were not. The leader of 'non-beneficial groups" would find themselves harassed and 'counseled' if they were innocuous enough, or set up, compromised, and possibly expelled/fired/reeducated if they were deemed threatening.

    I did not expect to see the same thing happen again when I made a life for myself in the United States. But on the bright side, I guess the criteria by which targets are judged will be different in Trump's America compared to Communist Bulgaria. Although I bet at least two things will not change. There will be a lot of subjectivity involved and Muslims will be on top of the shit list.

    I'm curious as to which operations will end up having been conducted with more skill and success.