Timeline for Net Neutrality and Stack Overflow / Stack Exchange
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
48 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7, 2018 at 4:37 | comment | added | WGroleau | It could be about censorship. Giving ISPs the freedom to throttle traffic selectively makes it easier for them to think up legal (but dishonest) excuses for throttling sources that promote net neutrality. Or promote some other social/political position. | |
| Jul 20, 2017 at 2:35 | comment | added | BVernon | @scriptin No, they don't have the power they need. The courts have already ruled that they don't (google it). It's just that they proceeded against the courts ruling anyway under the Obama administration. It's time for the rule of law to be respected again. | |
| Jul 14, 2017 at 19:50 | comment | added | polkovnikov.ph | @OlegV.Volkov Even though I'm proudly communist, I appreciate your answer. Both European and Russian laws make no sense, because there is no reason to have servers physically located anywhere. They can silently make backups to a server abroad, sell data to foreign companies and do other nasty things without any violation of law. Cryptographic proofs of data location are physically impossible, hence all stupid laws like that cannot be enforced, hence are not laws, but abstruse gibberish. | |
| Jul 14, 2017 at 15:17 | comment | added | Oleg V. Volkov | @RandRandom, yeah, red scare always was most effective tactics, isn't it? Speak tons about US. | |
| Jul 14, 2017 at 14:32 | comment | added | Oleg V. Volkov | @polkovnikov.ph, Linked.in is blocked because it does not adhere to public data storage policy. It will be unblocked once it does. Surprise: EU have laws like this too. Your comment and most of this retarded post is full of liberast spin. | |
| Jul 14, 2017 at 4:23 | comment | added | hcoat | I do not understand why this answer has been up-voted so many times when it is clearly contradictory. If this answer comes down more on one side it would be against Net Neutrality. These votes seem to show that most people voting do not understand the issue at all. | |
| Jul 13, 2017 at 16:56 | comment | added | MolbOrg | @scriptin call them each day and polite eat their brains. Say you will write rospotrebnadzor, and write if they do not move, take your time. Press them, they do not offer you good quality service. Even if they a small provider, and do not have the proper equipment, they can solve the problem. Do not start from an offense, be polite - but they have to solve the problem. Call them regularly. Even the cheapest provider can solve the problem, they may be not able to do so for everyone but they definitely able do things individually, just stimulate them to do that. | |
| Jul 13, 2017 at 9:33 | comment | added | scriptin | @MolbOrg Good for you. There are no better options in my place. | |
| Jul 13, 2017 at 8:31 | comment | added | scriptin | @BVernon Again, as I said, the FCC already has all the power they need, there is no "giving". | |
| Jul 13, 2017 at 8:28 | comment | added | scriptin | @MolbOrg Those sites are blocked entirely because they are blocked by IP. There are indeed only a few pages in the black list, but due to the lack of DPI capabilities of ISPs, this is enough. | |
| Jul 13, 2017 at 3:36 | comment | added | BVernon | @scriptin I am not trying to twist your comments. I clearly said that "to me" your reasoning leads to an opposite conclusion than the one it leads you to. And you yourself just made clear that you do support giving government power when they are doing the right thing. I whole heartedly disagree that "currently doing the right thing" is EVER a basis for which we should give a government more power. | |
| Jul 13, 2017 at 2:00 | comment | added | MolbOrg | The answer is factually incorrect - Tumblr, DeviantArt, blogger.com - are not blocked, however, some pages from them may(which I do not wish to spend the time to check that) - because there is url based filtration too, and it works for non-https. From one of the comment - Linkedin is indeed blocked. But, by any means prevent them in US, in Britain in any place from going any inch forward. If you have means to defend yourself - do that. It starts slow and leads to places you won't be. Is that blocking or speed limitation - no matter how they justify it - do not buy it it is the boiling frog. | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 21:38 | comment | added | Chiramisu | @scriptin You're right. What government so far removed from its founding documents ever treated their precepts with very much regard anyway? "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams. The government is becoming increasingly amoral due primarily to greed and an ambition to be re-elected. :( | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 19:16 | comment | added | scriptin | @BVernon And I am not supporting "giving more power to [your] government." The FCC already has all the power, I just don't want them to abuse it in order to please few people (owners of ISPs) and harm the rest (you and me). Please don't try to distort my intents. If you have any questions regarding my opinion, please ask me. | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 19:07 | comment | added | scriptin | @BVernon The US govt is doing the opposite of ours. So, naturally, I support right things your govt does. Those regulations you currently have are intended to make the internet a better place, while Russian govt is trying to basically destroy it. Your analogy is thus flawed. The right analogy is to compare Russian govt with ISPs in the USA which want to introduce their own control mechanisms. | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 17:54 | history | edited | This_is_NOT_a_forum | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Active reading.
|
| Jul 12, 2017 at 16:24 | comment | added | BVernon | To me this answer is a strong reason to vote to roll back the FCC changes.@scriptin is talking about the abuses of government in Russia, yet supports giving more power to our government here as though they are the ones who can best prevent these abuses of power. Very contradictory in my opinion. | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 13:32 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Jul 12, 2017 at 14:14 | |||||
| Jul 12, 2017 at 11:45 | comment | added | Rohit Suthar | INDIA Govt. TRAI rules in favour of Net neutrality | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 11:22 | comment | added | user338745 | I want to upvote this post 1001 times, and downvote some of this post's comments. Vox Populi here I come! | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 9:30 | comment | added | ibrahim mahrir | This sounds like propaganda. | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 9:07 | comment | added | einpoklum | @RandRandom: With due respect - stoking up anti-Russia fears is not the way to go. If you ask people that they would not think about the IP-based censorship, they would have the image the mass media promotes of all "The Russians" as some devious schemers hell-bent on undermining US society. | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 8:54 | comment | added | divine | its not ok if the same people who say "putin is not a free speech guy" are ok with "trigger warning culture","bocking youtube videos", "blocking users for tweets" | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 7:37 | comment | added | hassan | we are suffering from that in Egypt too, low speed and bad services with high cost | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 6:42 | comment | added | Rand Random | Well, if that isnt the most understandable way to explain it to US citizen how important this issue is. The bottom line just being, "Do you want to end up like Russia?" all are gona say "Hell, no!" | |
| Jul 3, 2017 at 16:53 | comment | added | Nat | @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. | |
| Jul 2, 2017 at 16:43 | comment | added | Alexander O'Mara | @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. | |
| Jul 2, 2017 at 16:37 | comment | added | Jerbot | Net neutrality is a practical need. It is only perception that the only way to get it is through regulation. | |
| Jul 2, 2017 at 16:36 | comment | added | Alexander O'Mara | @SuperJer That's not a perceived need, it's a practical need. Sure, we should roll back those anticompetitive regulations. Then, and only then, should we even considered removing the protection we have in the mean time. Funny how the ISP monopolies and their government tools don't want to do that, though. They just want to take away the protections we do have. | |
| Jul 2, 2017 at 16:22 | comment | added | Jerbot | @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. | |
| Jul 2, 2017 at 16:14 | comment | added | Alexander O'Mara | @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. | |
| Jul 2, 2017 at 16:09 | comment | added | Jerbot | This is a little confusing. It seems as though @AlexanderO'Mara is berating government regulation (in Russia) for being a problem, and then saying that government regulation (in the US) is the solution. | |
| Jul 1, 2017 at 21:34 | comment | added | Peter Turner | @alex I see what you mean, and I'm wrong about Title II. So, I think we agree any Net Neutrality bill that includes references to censorship of any kind should be opposed... I wonder why, if content policing was a provision in every Net Neutrality bill that we even consider the current rules Net Neutrality? | |
| Jul 1, 2017 at 17:35 | comment | added | Alexander O'Mara | @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.]. | |
| Jul 1, 2017 at 2:35 | comment | added | Peter Turner | I think you've got it backwards, net neutrality is censorship. There are many references to "legal" content being ok for the ISPs to not be neutral about. I dont want all the stuff that is categorized as hate speech by relativists winding up getting censored and thats where we would be heading had Clinton been elected. So I'm glad they're taking the weed wacker to Net Neutrality. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 22:32 | comment | added | polkovnikov.ph | @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. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 21:18 | comment | added | iheanyi | @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. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 15:49 | comment | added | Software Engineer | @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. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 15:38 | comment | added | Abyx | A crime happened. A website posted an information (e.g. child pornography) which is not allowed in Russian Federation. A court ruled that while the information cannot be removed from a foreign website, our ISPs can block this information. Collateral damage happened. Certain not-illegal information was blocked as well. Does that mean that we should allow circulation of child pornography in our country? Nay. Obey the law. Those so-called "Internet-freedom activists" are criminals and have to be prosecuted. Do not endorse such criminal activities. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 15:14 | comment | added | polkovnikov.ph | 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. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 15:09 | comment | added | scriptin | @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. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 14:31 | comment | added | Matt | This answer basically boils down to censorship. Net Neutrality is not about censorship. It is about charging, limiting or slowing access, bandwidth, etc by the ISP's. These are different matters entirely and should be handled differently. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 13:39 | comment | added | scriptin | 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. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 13:26 | comment | added | scriptin | @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. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 12:57 | comment | added | Anko | @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. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 12:30 | comment | added | Machavity | 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. | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 21:35 | history | edited | Alexander O'Mara | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
typo
|
| Jun 29, 2017 at 21:20 | history | answered | scriptin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |