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.

18
  • 31
    Quoting for great justice: "A call to action without a commensurate call to get informed, I would regard as a disservice." - this is something that never ceases to annoy me about many, many articles I've seen on the topic. In particular, if you're writing a story about a rule or proposal and don't link to the canonical source you're doing a massive disservice to readers who wish to become more informed; they're left to either take you on your word or (as I suspect is often the case) discount everything you've said and leave in disgust.
    – Shog9
    Commented Jun 29, 2017 at 23:36
  • @Shog9, I've never encountered the phrase "quoting for great justice" before and a google search turns up nothing much enlightening. Could you please define it? :)
    – Wildcard
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 1:44
  • 3
    @Wildcard: Drop the first word. urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=for%20great%20justice
    – Nathan Tuggy
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 1:56
  • 3
    I appreciate your answer too, @Wildcard. Disagreeing with people like grown-ups just shouldn't be all that hard.
    – Ben Collins
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 5:47
  • @BenCollins thank you. I can't work out what the "too" in your comment is in reference to, though....
    – Wildcard
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 6:21
  • Hmm....I...dunno either :-)
    – Ben Collins
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 6:44
  • 58
    Freedom Magazine is not a reliable source. It is (as explicitly stated on the website) a publication of the Church of Scientology, with no neutrality of its own, and the CoS is an organization with its own vested interests in promoting regulation and censorship of the Net.
    – user362183
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 8:29
  • 3
    @user362183 I was wondering how long before someone showed up with an ax to grind against Scientology. You make an odd choice of attack on a group that literally pioneered use of the FOIA to shed light on corrupt government practices and promote greater transparency. As you say, the affiliation is explicitly stated—better already than most "news" sites—and if you actually read the magazine, you would see that they are emphatically against censorship, but instead are strong proponents of responsible reporting (i.e., old school journalism, where "facts" are verified and bigotry avoided).
    – Wildcard
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 9:35
  • 42
    @Wildcard You mean to argue that the organization that committed the largest infiltration of the US government in a criminal conspiracy to censor information on the organization that they felt showed it in an unfavorable light is in fact an organization that might actually be interested in supporting censorship? No, it's not an odd choice to bring it up at all.
    – Servy
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 13:34
  • @Servy, the illegal activities of certain members of the Guardian's Office (disbanded in 1983) were a distortion of the actual program; even Wikipedia, for all its overwhelming bias against Scientology, admits that the original program called for legal action and defense only. This doesn't negate decades of work since then by actual Scientologists in advocating freedom of information. Nor is it relevant to the article linked.
    – Wildcard
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 17:41
  • 27
    @Wildcard The CoS has a track record of suing ISPs to take down specific information, suing ISPs to unmask anonymous internet users, harassing journalists, and criticizing web anonymity. I'm not sure how they come across as unbiased in this.
    – user362183
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 17:48
  • 18
    @Wildard Freedom Magazine does not maintain high standards of journalistic integrity, and has been roundly criticized for its lack of journalistic standards, e.g. uni-marburg.de/fb03/ivk/mjr/pdfs/2001/articles/…
    – user362183
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 17:49
  • 3
    The argument that I keep seeing against NN is that it gives the FCC "potential for overreach" or, as the article you quoted says, "a bigger window for overregulation". Why aren't the people who are concerned about this also concerned that without NN the ISPs have a much larger potential for overregulation and censorship with far fewer checks or ramifications? Removing neutrality from any major communications system would open the Pandora's box of first amendment violations.
    – Brian
    Commented Jul 12, 2017 at 14:54
  • 1
    @Wildcard I did read the article, and that's what lead to my question. Could you please clarify which part of the article answers it?
    – Brian
    Commented Jul 17, 2017 at 14:47
  • 1
    @Brian, the part I directly quoted is relevant to that question. Also (especially) the quotes from David Farber in the same section of the article. To comment upon your question directly, the key is that the FCC has adequate tools for prevention of the dire scenario you portray without reclassifying the internet under Title II. As David Farber mentions, the FCC Chairman at the time said they will forbear from the types of draconian control that Title II classification allows...but future FCC chairs (including the current one!) are not bound by that in any way.
    – Wildcard
    Commented Jul 17, 2017 at 19:24