Oh no they banned a law that has existed for 2 years whatever shall we do

?

@Kryptic0 net nutrality, sorry for the spelling, got a really bad case of bronchitis :/

Underrated rant. I’ve tried to keep quiet on this, but man, the hysteria is a bit mind boggling. Declaring the internet dead. That’s going to look awfully silly a year or two years from now when nothing has changed.

@dfox i mean yeah it sucks and i got the mandatory $4/month vpn, but mobile carriers here are already selling plans where fb/yt/stuff like that do not count towards data limit, so i dont see the point in panicking.

@dfox i have a question for you: do you have any point against Net Neutrality that it needs to be removed?

I can't understand why people don't understand the need for law that ensures their freedom. Government's and corporates makes law for people to live by so that society / businesses won't be in turmoil. So Why the hell there can't be a law for corporates to abide by so that internet won't be in turmoil?

@HoloDreamer I don’t personally have a preference. I see both sides of the arguments and I’m not going to buy into outrage that I believe is fueled by propaganda on both sides.

The regulation rollback will have 0 affect on me. I have options for ISPs and if anyone of those options were to decide to do something inappropriate I would immediately cancel my service. The rollback side of the argument is government regulation is bad. I agree completely with that. What has me on the fence is that ISPs aren’t much better, but I’d rather put my faith in competition and development of new technology than a governments ability to rule the internet.

For people with fewer options, my hope is this leads to more competition and alternate ways for ISPs to be formed.

Also, there is literally no such thing as internet “freedom.” As another devRant member pointed out in a way much more elegant than I can here, every single company that had an economic interest in keeping net neutrality engages in censorship in one form or another.

Internet “freedom” has nothing to do with ISPs, never has and never will. The internet is not a free place and won’t be until people are willing to admit that companies like Reddit, Google, Amazon, etc. all engage in forms of censorship, some to a ridiculously obvious agenda.

@dfox Your argument that rollback won't have any affect on you is invalid because you say it based on your present state and assumption that there will be another ISP don't do anything inappropriate.

By internet freedom, what I mean in this context is the freedom to access internet sites like the way it is, without restrictions from the medium of access ( ISP ).

Censorship within websites is another subject of matter and it may depend on laws in a particular country or their business strategy or their pure greed. But I don't see how that makes stand against NN just because of agenda of some companies supporting it.

That is like saying ice cream is bad if hitler / some known evil guy liked ice cream. Doesn't make sense at all!

@HoloDreamer that’s how the free market works though. You can’t just say “pretend free market economics don’t exist.” They do. I can pick from 4 ISPs. They try to steal each other’s customers all the time. I get multiple offers every week trying to get me to switch providers.

Also, you should read up on the actual law/what this means. Even with net neutrality gone, ISPs still have strict legislation stating they can’t do anything anti-competitive. Almost every other business falls in that boat. You can’t price fix or collude. Those laws are not going away, and they definitely shouldn’t.

I’m not saying censorship means we shouldn’t side with the companies pushing for net neutrality. I merely want to know though, and want them to tell me, why I should not be concerned with their censorship and why I should be concerned with the 2015 internet being restored. It’s hypocritical and makes no sense.

When will those companies tell me where I can sign up to get them to stop censoring ideas they find offensive? They are the biggest culprits of anti-internet-freedom. Not ISPs.

@dfox The reality is, it is not a free market in any way because it is a controlled, heavily licensed monopoly market that had very little competition and is getting more centralized everyday.

You seem to have forgotten that it is a 2 way street between us and the internet companies, just like the way it is in real life. It is their servers and property and they have every right to protect it from abusing it ( which obviously varies for each ). They have Terms and Conditions which we have to agree to because they also got rules and regulations to follow by - maybe due to rules of a particular country they are based in, maybe to protect minors / adults from what they shouldn't see or any harmful acts. Google blocks blogs about aneroxia because it is forbidden is some countries.

You can't just walk into a business store and do whatever the hell you want. You can't walk around calling names or talking shit about something and expect to not get banned from certain places.

@HoloDreamer I’m talking about my specific case. And it absolutely is a free market. I live in NYC. I’ve spoken extensively to people who work at fiber-optic startups here. Fairly low barrier to entry and there are companies doing it. Like I said - areas vary, but here the ISPs compete for you. That’s a free market. Saying it’s not doesn’t make it so. It is. Not all free markets have the same barrier to entry. Many require a good amount of capital and that in no way means it’s not a free market. This is simple economics.

As for censorship, I assure you, in the cases I’m referring to the law has nothing to do with it. The United States has more or less no limitation on free speech, so any censorship that’s done to U.S. citizens or with U.S. territories is strictly by the company itself. In terms of politics, the internet companies mentioned have almost exclusive censored based on the political beliefs of their management/founders.

And just to add to that to answer your original question - why would I spend my effort fighting for a law that went into affect in June 2015 that has no impact on me when I could spend that effort instead lobbying a company like Reddit to stop censoring people en-mass?

The worst part is, unlike ISPs, Reddit is under no obligation to share their extreme political bias, and there is 0 consumer transparency. Even with the net neutrality rollback, one thing that is in place and required is that IPSs be transparent about who they favor and what they might be doing in terms of speed boosts or throttling. I wish Reddit, Google, etc. would be required to do the same.

Edit: I just wanted to add that I agree 100% with you on the point that private businesses should be allowed to censor. But, I personally think if they are a large enough company they should have to clearly disclose somewhere the groups that are being censored and be transparent about that. Just like ISPs will need to be transparent.