Net "Neutrality" was always a false object for the masses. If you read the wording, you realize just how insidious it really is.
Everyone got excited about it meaning "no censorship." But the way it was worded was very, very jewy. It aimed to eliminate interference with "lawful content." Lawful and legal are two similar, yet very different things.
If something is legal, it means there is no law preventing it. If something is lawful, that means it is expressly allowed by law. If something is lawful, it's legal by default. But just because it's legal doesn't mean it's lawful.
So by the wording of the proposed regulation, it would protect lawful content from interference, which is to say content expressly authorized by the government. Content that is merely legal (meaning not prohibited, but not expressly authorized) would not have been protected. It would mean free-reign to alter, delete, silence, ban, or otherwise censor anything for any reason. And companies would have taken that ball and ran with it, getting rid of anything not expressly "lawful" using the argument that "unlawful = bad, even if completely legal."
tl;dr - The way Net "Neutrality" was proposed was anything but neutral. It would have officially codified censorship of anything not explicitly deemed "goodthink," and the government would get an end-run around the First Amendment to become the sole arbiter of what is and isn't allowed to be published online.
Yeah definitely getting the same feeling about this situation. I didn't know anyhting about NN but I knew that every politician that I distrusted supported it. I just remember reddit freaking the fuck out over it. Subs that had only a few hundred subscribers would have a NN post that would have like 5k upvotes. There was clearly some fuckery going on. The best part about that whole situation was when this chad pissed all the normies off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFhT6H6pRWg
You need to embrace the turn-around. That exact thought is what prevents NPCs from believing any truth, except that you are better for having identified the problem.
Basically it was called "Neutrality" while being not the slightest bit neutral (think "Patriot" act...). It would have handed the government a mandate to step it up to enforcement, which means the government now needs to invade your ISP, check what websites¹ YOU are visiting and how fast you are served the content.
You are absolutely right now in holding blanket doubt about government regulation. There is something to be said for protecting consumers against ISPs charging users and/or websites extra for handling connections to popular ones, though even that is defeated by owning a VPN node, and is susceptible to a better ISP writing it into the contract that all data is priced equally.
¹ IP addresses at least, given that SSL means the data handler cannot see directly what domains or content you requested, only infer it by checking the IP and TCP packet headers.
The vast majority of people campaigning for net-neutrality had no idea what it meant. Actually the majority still don't, they think it has something to do with favoritism and censorship.
[ - ] RoBatten 1 point 3.3 yearsMar 12, 2022 16:42:23 ago (+1/-0)
That's the thing. On the face of it, it seems like the correct thing to do. But alas, it's .gov . . . They can fuck up a school lunch. Or college tuition. We need muh diversity in university, so loans for everyone! Obamacare, everyone needs insurance. Health at every size! My premiums have exactly tripled since then . . .
The "net neutrality" policy was incorrect on so many different levels, but the short and long of it is that the people that would be using up most of the bandwidth (mainly Google) didn't want to have to pay for it.
[ - ] Wahaha 1 point 3.3 yearsMar 12, 2022 17:24:19 ago (+1/-0)
Bandwidth is free, though. Cable usage is what one is being charged for. Google even tried to just lay their own cables about a decade ago or so, but was prevented for some bullshit reason that amounted to keeping the monopoly on Internet cables. Star Link got around it by not using cables.
Btw. Internet prices in the US are very outrageous because of the whole monopoly thing. In other parts of the world you can get unlimited high speed Internet for like $30 per month.
The maximun amount of data that can be passed across a channel in a certain period of time has a thresh hold and most certainly is not free. Packets are already assigned a prioroty based on labels using the MPLS protocol. The net neutrality rules would have targeted the priority assignment conventions so that companies like Netflix and google that provide services based on transferring huge amounts of data could easily satisfy customer demand without paying a premium to ISP's. As for actually laying the physical fibers as google tried to do and has stopped doing is because of the cost and the fact that the existing ISP's began began developing their infrastractures faster and with better upgrades. You can still use the google fiber in the 11 cities they deployed in. Cities and local governments also began changing the rules to make it easier for ISP's to build because google exposed how much red tape their was. As for internet prices in the US being outrageous that just really isn't that bad compared to how reliable the connectivity is. Anyway, that is an issue that net neutraity would not have even touched on. Net neutrality would have made the market less reliable because it would disincentivize any infrastracture development. On top of that, you would be getting packet loss like crazy because of bandwidth usage from large companies.
[ + ] uvulectomy
[ - ] uvulectomy 5 points 3.3 yearsMar 12, 2022 14:44:34 ago (+5/-0)
Everyone got excited about it meaning "no censorship." But the way it was worded was very, very jewy. It aimed to eliminate interference with "lawful content." Lawful and legal are two similar, yet very different things.
If something is legal, it means there is no law preventing it. If something is lawful, that means it is expressly allowed by law. If something is lawful, it's legal by default. But just because it's legal doesn't mean it's lawful.
So by the wording of the proposed regulation, it would protect lawful content from interference, which is to say content expressly authorized by the government. Content that is merely legal (meaning not prohibited, but not expressly authorized) would not have been protected. It would mean free-reign to alter, delete, silence, ban, or otherwise censor anything for any reason. And companies would have taken that ball and ran with it, getting rid of anything not expressly "lawful" using the argument that "unlawful = bad, even if completely legal."
tl;dr - The way Net "Neutrality" was proposed was anything but neutral. It would have officially codified censorship of anything not explicitly deemed "goodthink," and the government would get an end-run around the First Amendment to become the sole arbiter of what is and isn't allowed to be published online.
[ + ] Teefinyomouf
[ - ] Teefinyomouf 2 points 3.3 yearsMar 12, 2022 15:37:07 ago (+2/-0)
Seems this says the opposite. E.g. legal fraud is unlawful. Felony murder isn't murder per se but it is legal murder, and unlawful.
[ + ] renown_charge
[ - ] renown_charge 2 points 3.3 yearsMar 12, 2022 16:52:44 ago (+2/-0)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFhT6H6pRWg
[ + ] SithEmpire
[ - ] SithEmpire 2 points 3.3 yearsMar 12, 2022 14:35:48 ago (+2/-0)
Basically it was called "Neutrality" while being not the slightest bit neutral (think "Patriot" act...). It would have handed the government a mandate to step it up to enforcement, which means the government now needs to invade your ISP, check what websites¹ YOU are visiting and how fast you are served the content.
You are absolutely right now in holding blanket doubt about government regulation. There is something to be said for protecting consumers against ISPs charging users and/or websites extra for handling connections to popular ones, though even that is defeated by owning a VPN node, and is susceptible to a better ISP writing it into the contract that all data is priced equally.
¹ IP addresses at least, given that SSL means the data handler cannot see directly what domains or content you requested, only infer it by checking the IP and TCP packet headers.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 2 points 3.3 yearsMar 12, 2022 14:27:26 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] RoBatten
[ - ] RoBatten 1 point 3.3 yearsMar 12, 2022 16:42:23 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] dalai_llama
[ - ] dalai_llama 1 point 3.3 yearsMar 12, 2022 15:08:35 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Wahaha
[ - ] Wahaha 1 point 3.3 yearsMar 12, 2022 17:24:19 ago (+1/-0)
Btw. Internet prices in the US are very outrageous because of the whole monopoly thing. In other parts of the world you can get unlimited high speed Internet for like $30 per month.
[ + ] dalai_llama
[ - ] dalai_llama 1 point 3.3 yearsMar 12, 2022 20:01:02 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] 7
[ - ] 7 0 points 3.3 yearsMar 12, 2022 15:23:22 ago (+0/-0)