Timeline for Net Neutrality and Stack Overflow / Stack Exchange
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 13:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jul 17, 2017 at 19:27 | comment | added | Wildcard | The more I read up on it, the more I think the Title II classification is a bad thing. It's certainly orthogonal from Net Neutrality itself. Tech Policy Corner has an admittedly partisan depiction of the distinction, supporting that conclusion. | |
| Jul 17, 2017 at 19:24 | comment | added | Wildcard | @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. | |
| Jul 17, 2017 at 14:47 | comment | added | Brian | @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? | |
| Jul 13, 2017 at 20:00 | comment | added | Wildcard | @Brian, did you read the article? That question is addressed. It's not a one-sided article; that's the whole point of why I cited it in the first place. | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 14:54 | comment | added | Brian | 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. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 17:49 | comment | added | user362183 | @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/… | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 17:48 | comment | added | user362183 | @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. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 17:47 | comment | added | Wildcard | Bottom line: You can say what you like about Scientology or Freedom Magazine, but their journalistic standards are excellent. I stand by my original statement: The article clearly explains the case in favor and the case against Net Neutrality, gives actual quotations from articulate and high-profile proponents and opponents, and does not attempt to force the reader into agreeing with one side of the issue. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 17:41 | comment | added | Wildcard | @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. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 13:34 | comment | added | Servy | @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. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 9:35 | comment | added | Wildcard | @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). | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 8:29 | comment | added | user362183 | 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. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 6:44 | comment | added | Ben Collins | Hmm....I...dunno either :-) | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 6:21 | comment | added | Wildcard | @BenCollins thank you. I can't work out what the "too" in your comment is in reference to, though.... | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 5:47 | comment | added | Ben Collins | I appreciate your answer too, @Wildcard. Disagreeing with people like grown-ups just shouldn't be all that hard. | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 1:56 | comment | added | Nathan Tuggy | @Wildcard: Drop the first word. urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=for%20great%20justice | |
| Jun 30, 2017 at 1:44 | comment | added | Wildcard | @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? :) | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 23:36 | comment | added | Shog9 | 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. | |
| Jun 29, 2017 at 23:28 | history | answered | Wildcard | CC BY-SA 3.0 |