I find it funny that some people still see Net Neutrality as 'government controlling the internet'. They should take a look at FOSTA if they want to know what government controlling the internet really looks like.
It is government controlling the internet. It's the extent and who that is different. In this case, it's only forcing a fair playing field. Kinda like highways being public vs. toll instead of telling you what cars you are and are not allowed to drive. I'd like a "free" internet, but I still have to admit it's going to cost someone else's "freedom".
No, that implies companies have the same rights as individual people. They do not and should not as they don’t have the same legal constraints as people. There’s no human equivalent to many of the abilities enjoyed by corporations and corporations don’t die and cannot be imprisoned. They’re also able to raise funds in ways humans may not. The list goes on from there.
What I said doesn't imply this at all. I'm just stating that there's a trade-off between the freedom of corporations and the freedom of the people (but different kind of freedoms, ofc)
You're contradicting everything the pro net neutrality people have said for years, namely that without it the ISPs will control the Internet. Part of the premise is that the ISPs do in fact have control over the Internet by acting as the monopoly access point, and that they can do various terrible things accordingly. If you control the ISPs - ie how almost all Americans access the Internet - you inherently do control the Internet.
> They should take a look at FOSTA if they want to know what government controlling the internet really looks like.
Unfortunately, that's not a winning argument from a rhetorical perspective. Almost every single person in both the House and the Senate, of both parties, voted for FOSTA/SESTA.
FOSTA and SESTA are truly abominable bills. They're arguably the most anti-gay bills passed at the federal level since DOMA in 1996. But telling people "net neutrality isn't about controlling the Internet, because it's not as bad as these other bills that received near-unanimous, bipartisan support" isn't going to win over any allies who weren't already in your camp on both issues in the first place.
I made no mention of it 'not being as bad' as other bills. I stand by my statement. Net Neutrality is government regulating ISPs. ISPs are not the internet.
And I think it could convert those in the anti camp. Some are against Net Neutrality because they see it as government control of the internet (it is not). They need to recognize that FOSTA is directly what they perceive Net Neutrality to be (at least in terms of results).
> And I think it could convert those in the anti camp. Some are against Net Neutrality because they see it as government control of the internet (it is not). They need to recognize that FOSTA is directly what they perceive Net Neutrality to be (at least in terms of results).
As someone who's fairly active around both issues, trust me when I say that all this will do is solidify their opposition to net neutrality, and in the worst case, strengthen their support of FOSTA/SESTA.
No, it's not consistent. But it's also not a line of reasoning that will work with opponents of net neutrality. Politics isn't always cut and dry the way we might wish.
In my experience in discussing these issues with people who were pro-FOSTA, this argument has helped them realize that it is violating the first amendment, and an example of government controlling the internet. So I have to respectfully disagree with your conclusion.
> Net Neutrality is government regulating ISPs. ISPs are not the internet.
I've been doing some research on the prelude to Russian revolution and what I discovered is that Communist party of USSR did not start or create the concept of a brutal 'Secret Police'. The Tsar of Russia created the secret police and they had no concept of civil liberties to begin it.
When Communist party took over, they merely used this concept (and bolstered it), in addition to all the other terrible things they did.
Similarly, China didn't end up with a brutal communist party, they had a brutal Emperor, and Chinese communist party just step into that place (preceded briefly by Republic of China).
My point is, generally a tyrannical control of things begins with a more nobler or palpable reason, which eventually is taken over by bad people.
Take for instance, France has ban burqas in public places. You would think that the American right would consider this to be a noble thing and would wanna advocate it, but they won't because this gives the govt power, and eventually this power could and would be used against them.
Today you're claiming that net neutrality is govt controlling ISPs, not the Internet. But can a radical religious govt ban blasphemy on the internet by forcing the ISPs? FOSTA-SESTA were terrible things which passed, without any anti-NN side opposing them, and now nearly everyone in this thread is saying "Oh if you have a problem with NN how come you don't say anything to FOSTA-SESTA".
