Posted on 12/14/2018 2:18:33 PM PST by DiogenesLamp
How did this happen? Big Tech lobbyists orchestrated the quiet insertion of a seemingly innocuous provision (Article 19.17) into the deal that is based on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230, much beloved by big tech, and an essential building block of their monopolistic dominance, holds that platforms like Facebook cannot be held liable as a "publisher or speaker" of their users' content.
(Excerpt) Read more at acecomments.mu.nu ...
I understand the argument and the bandwidth/netflicks issue Palmer, I think we have discussed this before. But with no regulations against censorship they will. We have to remember the integrity and track record of the companies who provide this access. They are crooked as hell and will if they can.
Time will tell... When we start getting deceptive “cannot access website” pages when trying to come to the FR when we absolutely know it is up and working, we will come back to this. I know for a fact AT&T is already doing it.
But... My question would be the premise of Facebook, Twitter and Google needing to make a such a big deal about controlling content on their sites.
“holds that platforms like Facebook cannot be held liable as a “publisher or speaker” of their users’ content.”
If this is true, And they can’t be held responsible, then why is what being posted such a big deal to them that it needs to be so micromanaged?
Seems they are spending a whole lot of time, effort, and money to prevent something they can’t be held liable for in the first place. This would only be done if there was a background profit agenda worth these all these extra efforts.
I've reviewed all of the times that censorship was done by ISPs. Every single one was an error, or was intentional but reversed in a day or two. Censorship is very easy to understand if you look at China: https://www.howtogeek.com/162092/htg-explains-how-the-great-firewall-of-china-works/ There are a mere handful of cases where ISPs in the US blocked IPs. Those were quickly reversed after an outcry. The DNS is not controlled by US ISPs and although they provide their own DNS servers to their customers there's absolutely no reason to use theirs rather than a neutral third party DNS server (which can't be stopped, see blocked IPs).
The rest of China's censorship measures are laughable. One they don't mention that US ISPs can and will do is throttle types of content like streaming video. That's because throttling is not censorship, it's more like shadow banning, so the Chinese don't bother with it. There are quite obvious legimiate reasons to throttle for traffic management. The legitimate gripe is when an ISP is throttling for purely monetary reasons (to favor their own service, to extort money from other providers, etc). There are well established legal processes and remedies for that. We don't need more trial lawyers cashing in and paying part of those winnings to Dems.
In short, if you want to go to FR, type the URL in your browser. Your DNS server (you can choose from thousands or run your own for $5/month) will give you back an IP. Your browser will access that IP. If you are concerned about your ISP spying on you, then use a VPN. You set up your own personal VPN on a server for $5/month (the same server that runs your DNS, your mobile sync, etc). There will be ever more and ever cheaper and easier ways to avoid any kind of lock-in, censorship or throttling.
The only thing the $5 server won't do is provide HD Netflix in real time. Putting the internet under the control of liberal / leftist bureaucrats for real time HD streaming is really dumb.
I do believe you are absolutely on top of this. Like I say I get it and understand it. I have a couple domains of my own. I also now have my own VPN tunnel server set up on a linux virtual machine through a static IP address service to use when I need it.
But I also understand the lack of integrity of these corporations like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Etc. have and they will eventually “condition” everyone into what they want to do. These companies will do whatever they can get away with even if it is illegal. They already have.
Allowing Google and other mega giants to control speech is sensible because it "harmonizes" regional NAFTA rules with US law?
What is that even supposed to mean?
And you ignore my point. I told you that when a company is big enough, the lines between it and government blur. This ability to tamper with legislation is a perfect example of what I mean.
This time it was the legislative branch that did their bidding. Bureaucrats in the executive branch will also do their bidding.
On second thought, just go back to sleep. May you have pleasant dreams of "free" markets and such.
I dunno. Seems to me a law that says "If you censor, you get a massive fine" should work pretty well.
What is the standard for proving they censored? A complaint from anyone claiming they were censored. Yes, this could be a potential nightmare for Google and other such companies, but I am willing to suffer the problems this will cause them. :)
You're welcome. I'll try to remember your interest in this particular topic should any other articles or information on it come out.
I use mine at work. Inevitably that kind of thing becomes more widespread and cheaper. The ultimate solution is agents in the cloud doing your bidding and sending you the data you need. No chance whatsoever that your ISP will be able to stop that.
I've posted a few threads on censorship over the years, here's one Cloudflare CEO on Terminating Service to Neo-Nazi Site: 'The Daily Stormer Are XXXholes' and if you google the daily stormer now they have an uncensored domain name (if anybody can't resolve their name in their DNS, please let me know). They have an unblocked IP (again let me know if that's not true). Furthermore they have top Google search listing. I suspect that Google secretly likes sites like Daily Stormer so they can claim a need for antifa who they probably secretly fund. Or maybe even openly fund.
I agree that such regulation needs to be carefully designed.
It means that those protections for social media sites are already in US law and have been for some time.
All this does is make sure they get the same treatment in Canada and Mexico.
This time it was the legislative branch that did their bidding.
No, the US Congress made this law over 20 years ago.
It was the Executive Branch negotiators who made sure it was applied to our partners in the new NAFTA.
These companies will do whatever they can get away with even if it is illegal. They already have.
***************
A little off topic but since you mentioned illegalities by tech companies do you think they are surrepticiously monitoring conversations on cell phones? On Friday I was talking to someone about tools and low and behold an advertisement for a tool pops up on my computer this morning. This is becoming both annoying and disturbing as it certainly appears that we are being spied on. There is no question they have the capabilities to do this but its highly unethical, if not illegal, in my opinion. But as we well know, the tech companies are in bed with the government. Any thoughts on this?
Absolutely... Your camera and location too. All those nice handy smartphone tools are monitoring everything you do. And Alexa type apps are designed purposely to do this if you have it.
You can prove it for yourself, While most are pretty stealth about their cookies that utilize these, Youtube is not quite yet. If you don’t have Ghostery for your computer download it.
Then go to youtube, while on youtube click on the little “i” symbol in the far left of your top URL bar for the current website you are on. You will find that even though you are NOT SIGNED INTO youtube they have access to your camera, microphone and location by default which have to be manually blocked with Ghostery and will show up as now blocked in your top URL address bar.
They should NOT have access to these in their cookies by default at all if you are not signed into their website. Legally you have not agreed to this until you actually sign into their service. Now experiment with that on other sites and you see that not all of them like the FR here are doing this. Other big tech do the same thing but are just better at hiding it from tools like Ghostery.
I think many organizations would pay very well for this hidden access including the government. In no way can you give these big tech corporations the benefit of the doubt.
Or the government. I have trouble understanding why everyone has already forgot what Edward Snowden has shared with the world. Just because they call him a traitor does not mean they stopped monitoring EVERYTHING about EVERYONE with every tool available to them.
I watched that mess as it went down. I have a curiosity on another topic kind of related to the communications discussion if you don’t mind. Are you at all knowledgeable with Sat bent pipe technology?
I have a project in mind but need some input from someone who is better versed than I am on how much up/down capacity and etc. can be utilized through a couple satellite bent pipes. If not would you know someone who might?
Lots of bad stuff snuck into this replacement of NAFTA.
Kushner strikes again.
Lol... No, but I found something interesting about satellites when I went back to big dish FTA C band and Ku band that could be utilized if done properly depending on the bent pipe data transfer capacities of the transponders. I have done quite a bit of research but need some extensive personal knowledge at this point.
I will explain the concept if you like, May I PM you about it?
Many thanks for the reply. I will definitely try Ghostery.
I have a mic block app on my cell phone but not sure how effective that really is. It may just be a false sense of security.
Harvesting massive amounts of data about personal activities is far too profitable for big tech and too valuable (from a control standpoint) to big government for them to give it up. Congress is on the take so there’s not much hope they will ever do anything to protect citizens’ personal information or respect their privacy.
In general, if there’s a way to make money or get an advantage over someone, you can be sure legal constraints will be no barrier. They will just do it and find a way shield themselves from exposure and/or liability. Its dirty business and most of the public has no clue what is going on.
Yep... You nailed it. Can’t give them ANY trust or benefit of the doubt at all. Is there motive? Absolutely...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.