Is anyone else concerned that reddit inc has yet to come out with a statement in support of net neutrality (as they did with SOPA/PIPA in collaboration with Aaron Swartz's group Demand Progress)?
39 2017-06-06 by AssuredlyAThrowAway
When SOPA/PIPA was presented, reddit inc led the charge in ensuring that the policy makers did not threaten the open internet.
5 years on, and there is a deafening silence from the reddit administration regarding this issue. If this platform cannot come together to be on the front lines of an issue as important as net neutrality, then the very core of the medium has been compromised from within.
/u/kn0thing (u. know. nothing. Get it?) has visited our sub on more than one occasion to discuss issues relating to a meeting he held with startfor under the umbrella of his corporate consulting firm "Antique Jetpack", and his very first submission to the platform when it was first brought online was a link to the infamous "Downing Street Memo"- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo
In that regard, perhaps /u/kn0thing would indulge us with a policy discuss as to why there has yet to be an announcement regarding net neutrality from the admins on either the blog or via /r/announcements.
30 comments
n/a Red-Vagabond 2017-06-06
Net neutrality is a myth.
n/a AssuredlyAThrowAway 2017-06-06
Assigning ISP's as title II common carriers to ensure they don't discriminate based on the content of traffic on their networks is a myth?
n/a Red-Vagabond 2017-06-06
Do something interesting. I bet the CIA pays you a visit like they did me.
n/a AssuredlyAThrowAway 2017-06-06
I have no idea how what you just said relates to the question I asked you though?
n/a Red-Vagabond 2017-06-06
Simple. Net neutrality is a myth to make you feel better.
n/a AssuredlyAThrowAway 2017-06-06
About what? Not having to pay for tied internet access for different sites? That's not a myth, that's something I don't want to do.
n/a Red-Vagabond 2017-06-06
What? payment? Your payment is information. Are we on different pages here? I am not sure what you are arguing.
n/a AssuredlyAThrowAway 2017-06-06
You realize if the US doesn't mandate net neutrality ISP's can charge you for access to different websites based on the "tier" of services you have?
n/a Red-Vagabond 2017-06-06
My point is that it does not matter. Net neutrality is a myth because everything you do is recorded. The term net neutrality is butchered. Do you think pedophilia is allowed?
n/a IntellisaurDinoAlien 2017-06-06
What he said.
n/a Red-Vagabond 2017-06-06
Well taking on 2 moderators will be tough but here we go; If you think that reddit has never favored any products or services you are out of your mind.
n/a IntellisaurDinoAlien 2017-06-06
Sure, I agree. But paying for an 'Internet fast lane' to the exclusion of smaller sites isn't going to benefit us, and that's what this is all about really.
n/a Red-Vagabond 2017-06-06
Is this situation not theoretical though? Even with the internet of today, is net neutrality not a dream? I guarantee it is not a reality. Perhaps I am a absolutist.
n/a IntellisaurDinoAlien 2017-06-06
It sucks already, I agree, but making it even worse isn't the answer.
n/a yellowsnow2 2017-06-06
State run internet yah! Theresa May would be proud.
n/a AssuredlyAThrowAway 2017-06-06
How is mandating all traffic be treated the same tantamount to a state run internet?
Corporate run internet is what you should worry about here, not state mandated neutrality.
n/a yellowsnow2 2017-06-06
Just look at where Theresa May wants to take regulating authority over ISPs. Net Neutrality was the frame work for internet censorship. Making it State run internet.
I will keep reminding everyone that state run internet is not a good, thing until my fingers bleed.
n/a WikiTextBot 2017-06-06
Common carrier
A common carrier in common law countries (corresponding to a public carrier in civil law systems, usually called simply a carrier) is a person or company that transports goods or people for any person or company and that is responsible for any possible loss of the goods during transport. A common carrier offers its services to the general public under license or authority provided by a regulatory body. The regulatory body has usually been granted "ministerial authority" by the legislation that created it. The regulatory body may create, interpret, and enforce its regulations upon the common carrier (subject to judicial review) with independence and finality, as long as it acts within the bounds of the enabling legislation.
[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information ] Downvote to remove
n/a AssuredlyAThrowAway 2017-06-06
I'm talking about the USA though.
n/a yellowsnow2 2017-06-06
You think the US doesn't want to censor the internet? Obama's net neutrality. Obama admin used government agencies to target/censor political opponent groups.
Do you think it is by chance that the internet worked just fine for decade then now that the dinosaur news has lost control over the minds of the masses now the government wants to regulate and control the information medium that currently holds the minds of the masses?
n/a AssuredlyAThrowAway 2017-06-06
Mandating title II is a way of ensuring ISP's don't discriminate on network traffic, title II does not imply anything beyond that in terms of government enforcement.
Let's look at it this way; why do you think ISP's shouldn't be classified as Title II common carriers?
n/a yellowsnow2 2017-06-06
Because that allows the government, politicians, and bureaucrats full authority to regulate, remove, and censor when ever there is an event they can us to justify such action....Just like Theresa May
n/a AssuredlyAThrowAway 2017-06-06
Do you think ISP's should be able to sell you access to different websites for different prices based on your subscription tier?
n/a yellowsnow2 2017-06-06
I think with 2,556 internet service providers in America if a service provider does something to piss off their customers the customers with show them the errors of their ways by taking their business to their competitor.
n/a AssuredlyAThrowAway 2017-06-06
In my area, and many others, are are two options; comcast and verizon.
Do you think the government has a duty to break up market monopolies if they undermine the market and harm consumers?
n/a yellowsnow2 2017-06-06
Yes yes I have heard this talking point before. And I always call bullshit.
I live in the most rural backwoods of mid america and have 6 residential, 5 mobile, and 2 satellite ISP choices. How about you? I want a screen shot. http://broadbandnow.com/
n/a AssuredlyAThrowAway 2017-06-06
I literally have only two options in my city (and no I will not doxx myself); it is something many people talk about on my local subreddit.
Would you be open to title language that specifically mandates that the only thing the government may do is force ISP's to treat all traffic the same way?
Why do you dislike regulation so much? Would you have been in favor of Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 1999, even though it opened the door to investment banks betting against their own deposit holders via micro transactions no one knew about?
How is that instead of allowing the market to correct itself by forcing those companies into bankruptcy, they were given corporate welfare to survive?
Oh yea, because government is only bad when it helps consumes in the eyes of a corporatist . :(.
n/a yellowsnow2 2017-06-06
You can mark out the zip code in your screen shot. Until then this discussion is over.
n/a tedsmitts 2017-06-06
Remember how the reddit warrant canary disappeared some time in the past few years?
n/a mastigia 2017-06-06
Not really. Reddit went to the darkside long ago, if they weren't fruit of the deep state to begin with.
n/a Red-Vagabond 2017-06-06
What? payment? Your payment is information. Are we on different pages here? I am not sure what you are arguing.
n/a AssuredlyAThrowAway 2017-06-06
Do you think ISP's should be able to sell you access to different websites for different prices based on your subscription tier?