Okay I must begin by saying that Parler being blocked gives me joy. For months the liars on this conspiracy and hate platform had been stoking emotions among people. And last week it led to a terror attack on US capitol. And people here have been wrongly trying to invoke the 1st amendment which prevents the GOVT from blocking someone to speak or publish. But what about Net Neutrality? AWS can block anyone they want. Okay. Can then offer a higher tier of service and charge more? Yes they can. In fact they do. Why can’t Verizon or AT&T do the same? Why can’t they limit services and charge more for higher bandwidth to serve traffic to Google or FB? Wasn’t that the whole NET NEUTRALITY debate? Using internet to spread genocidal or terrorism propaganda is unacceptable and requires some serious policy reform as well as implementation standardization. I was thinking on the topic that Parler cannot even move to baremetal as even if they invest, it’s only till the ISPs block their public IPs or domain names. Hmm but engineers at the hate websites know this. Certainly it’s possible to play a cat and mouse game where hate sites prop up, and engineer their way so that they become harder to take down. This will become a cat and mouse game and might create ENORMOUS CENSORSHIP! An American firewall no different from the Chinese one.
Net neutrality would be nice. Too bad the Republicans at FCC and Congress have been relentlessly attacking net neutrality regulations and legislations. Republicans made their bed and now have to lie in it.
Fuck you. You self righteous prick. You’re not the judge and jury of the internet. Fuck off.
Didnt Ajit pai with republicans reverse a few things? OP, your argument is far from what net neutrality means. His argument back then: https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/14/16777626/ajit-pai-net-neutrality-speech
True free speech where all ideas are laid out there and debated on merit and evidence only works in an educated society that has critical thinking skills. Pretty clear that doesn’t exist in the US.
It should be regulated. Section 230 passed into law in 1996 and it’s a Stone Age of Internet. It’s horribly outdated. And other laws are just irrelevant: Twitter has ~4.6k employees but users are posting 6k tweets per second. There’s no way Twitter could moderate them all. @jack, Zuckerberg or Sundar should not make political decisions, it’s a politician’s job. The problem is not that FB or Twitter are evil, the problem is that Senate and Congress are slacking.
Why not? When you allow corporations to lobby , allow them to spend on candidates and elections, then why should they remain apolitical? Corporations are considered legal persons in US constitution.
Thank Trump and Ajit Pai for burning down net neutrality as well. Karma is a bit*h
This all when loser lost by landslide😹We should come back after 4 years and revisit. Republicans in power must bring down evil taxes to zero.
Ehhh so basically this post is against the evil internet giants censoring the persecuted right wing? Ok boomer. As an aside I think net neutrality only covers access to the internet. Based on your argument YouTube cannot charge a premium service with no ads either or Netflix cannot charge extra for 4k streaming. The difference is between access to the internet itself and services hosted via the internet. I think websites will still want to provide more options for those who want to get more services which is why you can have paid apps on the app store for more features or pay for more storage on Google drive above the free tier. Nothing about that violates net neutrality it's just basic business.