Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

44
  • 54
    I'm not surprised by this (Putin isn't exactly a free speech guy). But saying that Net Neutrality is about censorship is a gross mischaracterization of this issue. In fact, outright censorship would be illegal in the US (Constitution and First Amendment). And it should be noted that the EU (which has Net Neutrality) is also a growing proponent of Internet censorship. Let's not conflate censorship with Net Neutrality.
    – Machavity
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 12:30
  • 82
    @Machavity I read this as a warning of "it's a slippery slope, and it starts here". The border between "censorship" and "protecting your customers' interests" is fuzzy and hard to argue about. It's a different battle, but to my understanding net neutrality is currently the main restriction on ISPs that prevents that battle from starting.
    – Anko
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 12:57
  • 94
    @Machavity Censorship is directly forbidden by Russian Constitution as well (article 29, part 5: "Цензура запрещается." / "Censorship is prohibited."). But guess what? They say it's "for protecting the children". So they block everything left and right. How can you protect children by blocking LINE messenger, for example? (And now they want to block Telegram.) It was already shown that blocking sites selling illegal drugs did not lead to a decrease of illicit drug use among teenagers, so their "reasons" are merely excuses.
    – scriptin
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 13:26
  • 26
    As for Putin, you may mistakingly think that he's a rare exception, but I imagine that many ISP companies in the USA can possibly have their own smaller putins who would like to do, if allowed, anything what benefits them. Power corrupts.
    – scriptin
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 13:39
  • 59
    @Matt Net Neutrality is about censorship too. Yes, my answer is about censorship. But it's still relevant. Throttling can be used as a "mild" censorship as well, but it's not the point. What I wanted to say is, once you give anyone control over what you see on the Internet, they will abuse it for their benefit. For example, most social networks do that by suggesting you the posts which you are most likely to like/share, not those that will inform you about most important things. In the long run, for a large number of people, it's a big deal. Fewer things like that you have, the better.
    – scriptin
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 15:09
  • 13
    They blocked Github at least 2 times, and for quite prolonged period of time. Linkedin is blocked to this day. To those who claim it's the problem of Russia only, I should remind that US banned all of US-based services in Crimea, from GMail to Docker.
    – polkovnikov.ph
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 15:14
  • 20
    @Abyx - a crime happened. A website user posted child porn (which is illegal pretty much everywhere btw). Punishing people who had nothing to do with this is counterproductive and isn't harming the people who perpetrated the crime. We should force our governments to fund a UN special unit to provide investigators to find the culprits and do horrible things to them so that it can not happen again. We do have international police and ways of dealing with international crime. We do have international courts. We can find and we can prosecute these people, then do horrible things to them.
    – Software Engineer
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 15:49
  • 2
    @Matt The OP literally calls for answers that expand upon the topic. That means answers can focus primarily on one aspect to the exclusion of others.
    – iheanyi
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 21:18
  • 7
    @Abyx We have an example of country that is fine to kill millions for the sake of prosecuting one Iraq leader for disobedience. If collateral damage happens, it cannot be called law.
    – polkovnikov.ph
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 22:32
  • 7
    @PeterTurner I know we have it forwards. It appears you have it qɐɔʞʍɐɹps ⅋ ndsᴉpǝpoʍu. Title II explicitly disallows censorship, and makes no exceptions for your beloved hate speech. You might try checking your facts [redacted unnecessary and speculative insult --ed.].
    – Alexander O'Mara
    Commented Jul 1, 2017 at 17:35
  • 2
    @SuperJer It's only confusing if you don't know the difference between regulation (to prevent censorship by ISPs) and government censorship. I actively oppose things like SOPA, which could have been misused for censorship.
    – Alexander O'Mara
    Commented Jul 2, 2017 at 16:14
  • 3
    @AlexanderO'Mara My point is, the perceived need for net neutrality regulation here in the US is actually the result of a complex system of other regulations that should be rolled back instead. These other regulations effectively establish monopolies, prevent competition, and disable the consumer's ability to hold the companies with which they do business from effectively holding them accountable. Net neutrality regulation adds another layer of complexity that will have far-reaching unintended effects that are obscured by the wash of causes already in place.
    – Jerbot
    Commented Jul 2, 2017 at 16:22
  • 3
    @SuperJet Sure, but that's not really what we are discussing here. There are only two options present in the immediate future. Net neutrality by regulation, or lose net neutrality entirely.
    – Alexander O'Mara
    Commented Jul 2, 2017 at 16:43
  • 5
    @PeterTurner Net neutrality means no censorship. It sounds like you want even more net neutrality than we have now, not less. The FCC's basically doing the opposite of what you want. That's what everyone's upset about.
    – Nat
    Commented Jul 3, 2017 at 16:53
  • 3
    This sounds like propaganda.
    – ibrahim mahrir
    Commented Jul 12, 2017 at 9:30