Net neutrality discussion

"
faerwin wrote:
"
tidbit wrote:
random thought... speedtest.net and similar sites.
Could ISP's block/limit the 'neutral' ones and you have to go to theirs. could they then lie (boost your speed/service) about the speed you get? "look, see, you get 16Mb/s! nothing wrong with your internet" when I actually only get 6mb/s everywhere else.
Spoiler
Lying about a product/service is illegal so they shouldn't be doing it.
Wishing and hoping that the powerful corporations won't be bad mans isn't enough. I don't think we need mechanisms that enforce particular ways of doing business, but we certainly need mechanisms that allow reasonable freedom to information regarding the ways ISPs decide to do business. Assuming there's competition from other ISPs, the motive to reveal such information would already be there and well-funded; motive + opportunity = realization.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Dec 16, 2017, 12:47:51 PM
It's another step in the seizing of information control.
"
deathflower wrote:
"
CanHasPants wrote:


This is something I have not seen much discussion over, and is the conversation I think we should all be having. Presently, internet service is viewed as a commodity, but I could see the argument being made that access to the internet should be a fundamental human right. Access to the entire world and history’s worth of information grants a powerful competitive advantage, and those without that access will surely not be able to function as highly as those with it. But other than that, I don’t have an opinion yet.


You do realize we pay for our internet, right? The internet is the greatest information equalizer of our time to those with access to it.

Obviously. Why are you asking me this?
Devolving Wilds
Land
“T, Sacrifice Devolving Wilds: Search your library for a basic land card and reveal it. Then shuffle your library.”
"
CanHasPants wrote:
"
deathflower wrote:
"
CanHasPants wrote:
This is something I have not seen much discussion over, and is the conversation I think we should all be having. Presently, internet service is viewed as a commodity, but I could see the argument being made that access to the internet should be a fundamental human right. Access to the entire world and history’s worth of information grants a powerful competitive advantage, and those without that access will surely not be able to function as highly as those with it. But other than that, I don’t have an opinion yet.
You do realize we pay for our internet, right? The internet is the greatest information equalizer of our time to those with access to it.
Obviously. Why are you asking me this?
There is a difference between a right and an entitlement.

A right is a guarantee to protect a state that an individual would have if they were the only individual in existence; for example, a government can protect the right to freedom of speech, because if you're the only person on Earth no one can censor you. Notice that it's a guarantee to protect something individuals innately have, not a guarantee to provide something they innately lack.

An entitlement, in contrast, is when a government guarantees to provide to one group the result of the work of another group, at a reduced price or no price at all. All entitlements are redistribution of wealth — because someone must pay for the good or service, if one person is paying less and/or using more then someone else must be paying more and/or using less.

There is no such thing as a fundamental human right to internet access, nor can there be. There may, I suppose, be a universal entitlement to it in the future.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Dec 16, 2017, 11:05:47 PM
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:


A right is a guarantee to protect a state that an individual would have if they were the only individual in existence; for example, a government can protect the right to freedom of speech, because if you're the only person on Earth no one can censor you. Notice that it's a guarantee to protect something individuals innately have, not a guarantee to provide something they innately lack.

An entitlement, in contrast, is when a government guarantees to provide to one group the result of the work of another group, at a reduced price or no price at all. All entitlements are redistribution of wealth — because someone must pay for the good or service, if one person is paying less and/or using more then someone else must be paying more and/or using less.

There is no such thing as a fundamental human right to internet access, nor can there be. There may, I suppose, be a universal entitlement to it in the future.


Based on that definition, masturbating outdoor is a right, so is taking a shit or having sex with animals...

Yeah, no...
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
There is a difference between a right and an entitlement.

A right is a guarantee to protect a state that an individual would have if they were the only individual in existence; for example, a government can protect the right to freedom of speech, because if you're the only person on Earth no one can censor you. Notice that it's a guarantee to protect something individuals innately have, not a guarantee to provide something they innately lack.

An entitlement, in contrast, is when a government guarantees to provide to one group the result of the work of another group, at a reduced price or no price at all. All entitlements are redistribution of wealth — because someone must pay for the good or service, if one person is paying less and/or using more then someone else must be paying more and/or using less.

There is no such thing as a fundamental human right to internet access, nor can there be. There may, I suppose, be a universal entitlement to it in the future.


If I wanted to nit pick, I would say rights cost money to enforce. Governments have their own priority on which to enforce. Government can say we don't have to save someone's life because it cost too much. That is their priority right there.
"
deathflower wrote:
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
There is a difference between a right and an entitlement.

A right is a guarantee to protect a state that an individual would have if they were the only individual in existence; for example, a government can protect the right to freedom of speech, because if you're the only person on Earth no one can censor you. Notice that it's a guarantee to protect something individuals innately have, not a guarantee to provide something they innately lack.

An entitlement, in contrast, is when a government guarantees to provide to one group the result of the work of another group, at a reduced price or no price at all. All entitlements are redistribution of wealth — because someone must pay for the good or service, if one person is paying less and/or using more then someone else must be paying more and/or using less.

There is no such thing as a fundamental human right to internet access, nor can there be. There may, I suppose, be a universal entitlement to it in the future.
If I wanted to nit pick, I would say rights cost money to enforce. Governments have their own priority on which to enforce. Government can say we don't have to save someone's life because it cost too much. That is their priority right there.
I don't consider that a nitpick. Of course it costs money for government to protect rights, and someone needs to pay for it. But there is a difference between a law that states "you can't take stuff from other people without their permission," and a law that says "that class of people must give stuff to this class of people." It's important to keep in mind that government is inherently a coercive enterprise — it makes laws then punishes those who don't comply — and thus is naturally more suited to "don't do this" rules than to "you must do this" rules, especially in terms of cost of enforcement.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
I don't consider that a nitpick. Of course it costs money for government to protect rights, and someone needs to pay for it. But there is a difference between a law that states "you can't take stuff from other people without their permission," and a law that says "that class of people must give stuff to this class of people." It's important to keep in mind that government is inherently a coercive enterprise — it makes laws then punishes those who don't comply — and thus is naturally more suited to "don't do this" rules than to "you must do this" rules, especially in terms of cost of enforcement.


I certainly didn't agree to paying taxes, these laws exist before I was born. Government don't specifically ask your permission, politicians make laws on your behalf and you have to comply... And other politicians that you didn't vote for make laws that you never agree to. You also have to comply to those too.
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
There is a difference between a right and an entitlement.

A right is a guarantee to protect a state that an individual would have if they were the only individual in existence; for example, a government can protect the right to freedom of speech, because if you're the only person on Earth no one can censor you. Notice that it's a guarantee to protect something individuals innately have, not a guarantee to provide something they innately lack.

An entitlement, in contrast, is when a government guarantees to provide to one group the result of the work of another group, at a reduced price or no price at all. All entitlements are redistribution of wealth — because someone must pay for the good or service, if one person is paying less and/or using more then someone else must be paying more and/or using less.

There is no such thing as a fundamental human right to internet access, nor can there be. There may, I suppose, be a universal entitlement to it in the future.

Fair point, and I also suppose I over emphasized when I said “the conversation I think we should all be having.” What I meant was “a conversation I think may have more merit than the Facebook meme talking points.” As usual, when I say I think, I don’t mean I believe or have strong convictions, just had the thought.

To that end, I ask: is information fundamental to the pursuit of life and liberty, and if so, is there a clear path for those that seek it to be able to obtain it?
Devolving Wilds
Land
“T, Sacrifice Devolving Wilds: Search your library for a basic land card and reveal it. Then shuffle your library.”
Getting rid of net neutrality might end up resorting in more ISPs imposing stricter data limits. That's not good for anyone who uses the internet regularly.

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info