Eh, legislation works, when you have guns. We need to support the engineers to develop robust technology to accompany that legislation. Then maybe we can drop the guns.
The ISP can use whitelists to pass through authorized communications and block everything else. The public relations issues holding them back is but a speed bump. Bypassing the ISP entirely is our only hope for open secure communications. We have to make our own, a real P2P and multicast network, well distributed for robustness against all interference.
AT&T and the railroads had a monopoly over the medium, competition was blocked, either through legislation or plain old shakedown and extortion. Facebook has a monopoly over its channel. Only the ISP can regulate what channels you can see. Facebook can't do that. You just not making any sense. Any attempt to regulate a content provider's channel is censorship.
You cannot apply common carrier regulations to a content provider! It has no monopoly over anything but its own website and its affiliates. This is not the railroad or AT&T or Standard Oil. You're just being silly. In fact I don't like where you're going with it. You're trying to defend censorship and official control of content, and to hell with that!
Nope, Censorship is handicapping the content of communications to conform to arbitrary standards. It's no loss to me if you don't want to accept obvious analogy. It just makes further discussion futile. I can only restate that censorship is merely something to be circumvented, by whatever means necessary. The ISP is the obvious target.
Sez you. Censorship is handicapping. And sometimes the ISP engages in censorship, like in New Zealand. We simply need to route around that.
Great. Support net neutrality.
I do. I demand the dumb pipe, and pay for the bandwidth. Bits is bits. Content is nobody's business but my own. Anything less is not net neutrality. Very simple. If enough people demand the same, we will have it. If they don't, I guess I just have to hope for a technological miracle.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Yeah, whatever, still gotta make the effort. What we have now is "good enough" for the majority, so there's no arguing with them, or you apparently. Technology is all that left. That's where I throw my money. It is the only way to get a robust system that is resistant to the the tyranny of censorship. Then we can argue about important things, like baseball.
No, the ISP might be a monopoly if there is only one to choose from. Facebook is not an ISP, and it sure as hell isn't the internet.. You can connect to the internet without them. It is a single channel on the internet. Just like HBO is a single channel on your cable. It doesn't matter how many people are watching. You got this entirely wrong.
Access to Tor has not been blocked and that's the point.
Not here. And it is cat and mouse. And the connection is still subject to the whims of the service provider.
Again, it doesn't impact the psychologically stable and educated individuals but rather the significant contingent of humanity that is unstable and/or uneducated and impressionable.
I am fully aware of psychological frailties, but appointing the Handicapper General is not the cure.
I'm not suggesting regulating speech, I'm suggesting owners of sites have the right to do whatever they want with their sites because it belongs to them, not you. The fact that they allowed you post to it does not mean you have the right to post to it.
As long as the market is open and universally accessible (dumb pipe), not subject to arbitrary authority, I will go along with that. But as long as anybody has the power to shut them/you down, we need to develop technological defenses against all censorship to avoid even having to discuss the issue of regulation.
It's the disappointment and the democrat charade of faux "liberalism" that set the stage for today's "horrifying shit show", which before, always went on behind closed doors. The republicans came in and washed the lipstick off the pig.
At this point it should be considered more of a common carrier.
No, sorry, common carrier is for the service provider. Facebook is a content provider and messaging board that has no control of your internet connection. There is no reason to regulate content. Let facebook do what it wants. There's more than one channel.
It already exists. Just move your server onto the darknet with Tor.
Hardly! Too easy to track and block. Gotta get around the good old ISP entirely, find a new way to connect, unseen if needed and possible. Philosophizing about it is stupid. It's all about the tech now, so that nobody can "own the medium". Universal, anonymous access for all! Speech doesn't "infect" anybody that doesn't want to be "infected". There is no right to regulate it, outside that derived from the might of heavy weaponry.
It's not even worth discussing. It's a stupid argument. It's not for you or anybody else to decide who can use the medium. So, the cat and mouse game will continue indefinitely. Rights have to be taken to respected. Hopefully we will find the bulletproof tech to circumvent the tyrants, and that will be the end of it.
Slashdot Mirror
The fireman is the arsonist?
Yeah, we'll need decoys and mobility. Extreme circumstances will call for extreme countermeasures.
Eh, legislation works, when you have guns. We need to support the engineers to develop robust technology to accompany that legislation. Then maybe we can drop the guns.
The ISP can use whitelists to pass through authorized communications and block everything else. The public relations issues holding them back is but a speed bump. Bypassing the ISP entirely is our only hope for open secure communications. We have to make our own, a real P2P and multicast network, well distributed for robustness against all interference.
AT&T and the railroads had a monopoly over the medium, competition was blocked, either through legislation or plain old shakedown and extortion. Facebook has a monopoly over its channel. Only the ISP can regulate what channels you can see. Facebook can't do that. You just not making any sense. Any attempt to regulate a content provider's channel is censorship.
The internet needs something better to get past nations bans.
Yes it does. Whaddawe gonna do?
You cannot apply common carrier regulations to a content provider! It has no monopoly over anything but its own website and its affiliates. This is not the railroad or AT&T or Standard Oil. You're just being silly. In fact I don't like where you're going with it. You're trying to defend censorship and official control of content, and to hell with that!
A crypto, P2P, onion routing network that's able to escape any gov lists and bans.
Still has to go through your ISP. They can block the protocols, ports, etc.
Nope, Censorship is handicapping the content of communications to conform to arbitrary standards. It's no loss to me if you don't want to accept obvious analogy. It just makes further discussion futile. I can only restate that censorship is merely something to be circumvented, by whatever means necessary. The ISP is the obvious target.
Sorry, ignore that post. This threaded shit is confusing...
*sigh* You are being obtuse, but, whatever, you win the internet.
Um, I'm not the one complaining about facebook. They can put into the pipeline anything they want.
All I want is an open unfiltered connection that allows me to compete if the desire arises. The devil is the ISP
Nobody is being handicapped.
Sez you. Censorship is handicapping. And sometimes the ISP engages in censorship, like in New Zealand. We simply need to route around that.
Great. Support net neutrality.
I do. I demand the dumb pipe, and pay for the bandwidth. Bits is bits. Content is nobody's business but my own. Anything less is not net neutrality. Very simple. If enough people demand the same, we will have it. If they don't, I guess I just have to hope for a technological miracle.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Yeah, whatever, still gotta make the effort. What we have now is "good enough" for the majority, so there's no arguing with them, or you apparently. Technology is all that left. That's where I throw my money. It is the only way to get a robust system that is resistant to the the tyranny of censorship. Then we can argue about important things, like baseball.
No, the ISP might be a monopoly if there is only one to choose from. Facebook is not an ISP, and it sure as hell isn't the internet.. You can connect to the internet without them. It is a single channel on the internet. Just like HBO is a single channel on your cable. It doesn't matter how many people are watching. You got this entirely wrong.
Access to Tor has not been blocked and that's the point.
Not here. And it is cat and mouse. And the connection is still subject to the whims of the service provider.
Again, it doesn't impact the psychologically stable and educated individuals but rather the significant contingent of humanity that is unstable and/or uneducated and impressionable.
I am fully aware of psychological frailties, but appointing the Handicapper General is not the cure.
I'm not suggesting regulating speech, I'm suggesting owners of sites have the right to do whatever they want with their sites because it belongs to them, not you. The fact that they allowed you post to it does not mean you have the right to post to it.
As long as the market is open and universally accessible (dumb pipe), not subject to arbitrary authority, I will go along with that. But as long as anybody has the power to shut them/you down, we need to develop technological defenses against all censorship to avoid even having to discuss the issue of regulation.
Silicon Valley regards them as deplorable.
Not at all. We are a basket overflowing with money, can't spend it fast enough. Need more upgrades, right now!
shit! That was me. Forgot to turn off the AC
oh dear! he thinks I'm a republican! You so funny! Try reading the post, without your silly tribal partisan blinders this time!
Do you understand the word "monopoly?"
Yes, and Facebook isn't one. Your ISP, on the other hand, might be. Facebook isn't needed to connect. It is only one channel.
It's the disappointment and the democrat charade of faux "liberalism" that set the stage for today's "horrifying shit show", which before, always went on behind closed doors. The republicans came in and washed the lipstick off the pig.
At this point it should be considered more of a common carrier.
No, sorry, common carrier is for the service provider. Facebook is a content provider and messaging board that has no control of your internet connection. There is no reason to regulate content. Let facebook do what it wants. There's more than one channel.
Ah, very good then
And the dish ran away with the spoon...
this puts the Republicans on record as opposing Net Neutrality.
Exactly... and that's the point.
What point? If politicians were judged on their voting records, reelection rates would be 20% or less, instead of the present day 95%
2020 is coming along with another blue wave.
LOL! Yeah, followed in 2021 by another disappointment like in 2009, 1993...
*sigh* the wishful thing never ends. The same mistakes will be repeated, and different results are to be expected, again...
It already exists. Just move your server onto the darknet with Tor.
Hardly! Too easy to track and block. Gotta get around the good old ISP entirely, find a new way to connect, unseen if needed and possible. Philosophizing about it is stupid. It's all about the tech now, so that nobody can "own the medium". Universal, anonymous access for all! Speech doesn't "infect" anybody that doesn't want to be "infected". There is no right to regulate it, outside that derived from the might of heavy weaponry.
It's not even worth discussing. It's a stupid argument. It's not for you or anybody else to decide who can use the medium. So, the cat and mouse game will continue indefinitely. Rights have to be taken to respected. Hopefully we will find the bulletproof tech to circumvent the tyrants, and that will be the end of it.