|
|
|
|
|
|
by pharrlax
3310 days ago
|
|
|
The obvious response to his comment on the Title I vs. Title II definitions is that he ignores the word "capability". Of course ISPs offer a "capability" to do things like electronic publishing. I'm using that capability to do it right now! The word "capability" implies a handoff to third parties where the actual publishing occurs; it doesn't imply that ISPs offer publishing tools themselves. As comments on this piece note, this question has already been tested at the Supreme Court, which has found it ambiguous enough to grant the FCC the discretion to classify ISPs under Title I or Title II, so this line of argument is not only specious but irrelevant. Net neutrality won't be saved on a technicality; it'll only be saved if enough people are convinced on the merits and make a big enough stink about it. |
|
|
Not to underplay the absolutely shitty stuff Pai is doing at the FCC, but I seriously hope this is a wake up call for other countries to stop relying on America to be the benevolent overseer of the internet.
America contributed enormously to the development of the internet as we know it today, but it's quite clear that American political interests are aligned against the consumer now. Couple this with the fact that you have countries like the UK who will likely heavily censor the internet should the conservatives win a majority (which seems likely) and I think we should all expect the global internet to change in the coming years.
China showed it's possible to censor the internet on a massive scale. America is about to show it's possible to sell out equality for money. UK will likely sell out privacy for "security"
The current model of internet governance is incompatible with freedom and privacy.