42

Its time that everyone on devrant for the sake of our own dignity and self respect took a stand to protect net neutrality. Net neutrality is a set of laws and sadly just status quo that allows us to exchange information on the net how and when we see fit. That threatens governments and companies who make a living off of controlling the way we use the internet.

I should mention one of the reasons big companies and governments are fighting against net neutrality is tor. They want to be able to deny people access to the internet who aren’t willing to give up all their privacy, as that is what a non neutral net would allow them to do. It would also allow them to make partnerships with other interested parties and affect change on our rights as a result of those agreements. They might get away with it too since they’re not forcing you to use the internet technically, just forcing you to play by rules that screw you royally if you want to use it, and lets face it— most of us have to. For that matter, it’s really anything that doesn’t play into their web they want to be able to forbid traffic to. That’s the point of net neutrality. To allow people to share info how and when they choose. Be it encrypted or otherwise. Too many people who grew up without the internet see it as a privilege rather than a right, but as technology has made so many aspects of our lives dependent on it, it can’t be looked at this way, since there are innumerable tasks that cannot he reasonably accomplished without the internet, and this is even if you go as extreme as I did and got rid of my phone and everything for a few years.

This wouldn’t be that different than if they agreed to provide internet services at our house provided we never used https. It’s really only a hop away from the proposed changes to net neutrality.

So if you don’t want to be a digital slave then you need to call your congressman now and explain to them why allowing ISPs to dictate what we are and are not allowed to send over the internet and how and why we are allowed to do it is a form of anti consumer terrorism and a practice like that can’t coexist with your inalienable rights. It’s one thing if it wasn’t a cornerstone of civilization, but as it pretty much is for the technological universe, we would basically be stripped of dignity if forced to live in a world without net neutrality.

Comments
  • 4
    I completely agree. The moment we lose our net neutrality is the moment we lose our freedom.
  • 6
    The only reason we ever have to fight to protect our freedom is because there’s people that are fighting against it.
  • 1
  • 2
    I'm so fucking with you.
  • 2
    @Lasagna that’s an interesting idea. I both accept your premise and conclusion, and dig your username. Any one of those is rare let alone all three.

    Really what I want to regulate is contractual bullying etc. If somebody has to abuse their customers to stay in business it might be better if they went out of business.

    Someone loses if we lose net neutrality and it worked this far. As long as I can run tor and use encryption, Comcast can do what the fuck it wants (I have them and I hate them)
  • 0
    Well put. IMO, the only reason you could be against net neutrality as an end user is a lack of knowledge.

    That's why technical education is so important.
  • 2
    @Lasagna is right, and that's the battle the small ISPs are up against now. And to top it off, the larger ISPs are in bed with the powers that be, and trying to gobble one another up as it is, to become a single master conglomerate.

    The state of interest access in the US (a superpower and "leader" of the first world) is a joke as it is. If what's described above happens, we're in trouble. And that would just be the beginning in this country. The state of privacy and civil rights is already a shit show and this would add to it.

    I am pretty sure the US Constitution gives its citizens the right to remove the government should it no longer be working in the interests of the people. If only we as a society hadn't become so fat, dumb, and happy...
  • 0
    While I agree with net neutrality I feel like it would make developers jobs a pain in the ass. We literally would need to remake every networking concept made before. Plus ALL the vulnerabilities that would show up would be insane.
  • 1
    The completely legitimate angle that nobody seems to take, and it absolutely floors me, is that a loss of net neutrality in any country would cost that country unbelievable numbers of very good jobs. That's real. That's something old people and iPhone-toting luddites can wrap their brains around. Yet nobody's saying it.
  • 1
    Is it really about privacy?
    Where I live mobile data is quite expensive but right now my wife on her mobile plan gets free streaming to selected services. Isn't net neutrality about stopping that?

    For example if you are wanting to provide a competing video streaming service it would suck. Who is going to use your service if they can get free bandwidth when using the other.

    I live under a rock and I dont really know what country you are in or what laws are being passed there so maybe there is more to it?
  • 0
    @spacem the net is supposed to be neutral now. But yeah there’s liberties that providers are taking and it’s ambiuous what is allowed.
  • 1
    @MissDirection you’re right of course, but once the internet becomes something that we don’t have a choice to use, it basically becomes holy territory. People can’t give their customers an offer they can’t refuse. IMO there should be regulations on internet service providers to protect our freedom, but there are a lot of unnecessary regulations in place for other corporations that could probably be dropped.
  • 2
    @spacem Net neutrality is not foremost about privacy. But yes, it is about stopping the kind of contract you're wife has.

    Net neutrality means, no ISP (nor government or anyone else) can decide how you should use the internet - neither by making some services less expensive nor by blocking services (except for legal reasons).

    This is the main reasons why not having net neutrality would be a bad thing:

    The offers made by ISPs to favor a service will always help big companies who can afford it. Smaller companies might be limited to be available (at a reasonable speed at least) locally in certain areas, which annuls one of the big advantages of the internet. This is bad for the economy, but also for the end user, because it helps monopolies to form.
  • 1
    @theCalcaholic that is the correct definition. There is a part b to it though, and that’s that you may see a dramatic uprising in services that you simply cannot use without voluntarily giving up your personal info, because the good options to keep things private will be easily bulldozed. So it is a side effect.
  • 1
    @runfrodorun Yes. Also - depending on specific implementations deep packet inspections can be required which additionally compromises privacy (the German Telekom tried something like that once, I believe).
  • 1
    @theCalcaholic yup. Because the thing about a non neutral net is you can be required to accept colonoscopies in exchange for your right to use the internet at all, so that’s another dimension.

    Hey long time no see welcome back.
  • 1
    @runfrodorun Thanks. :)
Add Comment