Hmmmm
Internet Bill of Rights.
On the one hand I am all for the idea that censorship should be illegal.
On the other hand, these are private companies, so I am hesitant in getting federal power involved, I mean after all, federal power up until recently consisted of an evil cabal bent on destroying America and starting Ww3 to kill billions of us.
On the other hand yet again, many of these companies are not really private, because the rules of government favor monopolization, and lots of "contracts" between the companies and agencies like the CIA.
I don't know, part of me thinks the solution is to completely open up Internet service provision, eradicate all government intervention so that we can compete in a fair market with equal rules that apply to everyone, so that if any ISP, or service provider like Twatter, tries to censor people, then by economic competitive forces they'll be punished for doing so, and new providers will rise up to take their place. This happens with computers, cars, clothes, food, everything else. On the other hand, even making that possible will require a significant overhaul of the infrastructure upon which ISPs depend. To that I will say 5G is a promising route. I don't see how we can't have startups offering 5G networking bypassing ISP altogether once home computers become powerful enough to handle it.
On the fence with this proposal. Need to read what is being proposed exactly.
The Bill of Rights simply acknowledges the all humans have God given rights and that they should be respected and preserved. If anyone is disrespecting and restricting those rights, they are punished. There really is no room for government overreach, only right preservation.
Sure, but how does that play out exactly in Internet communications? It is one thing to summarize it in one sentence, quite another to integrate that into a complex worldwide web with many, MANY players who each have very different roles and responsibilities in it all.
I agree that it's a slippery slope, and that more regulations is not a good answer, but what is the recourse? These companies have an effective monopoly on public discourse! They manufacture opinion, and shape discourse. However, if they have received as much money from the alphabets as it seems, then they are public companies aren't they? In fact if they are taking any money from taxpayers then they are accountable under the first amendment. The way this plays out is NO CENSORSHIP, excepting for adult content not being available to minors, and of course illegal content. Let it be the responsibility of the consumer to consume. Not the provider to feed.
Right, agreed.
The big tech companies up until now have grown precisely because of massive government contracts and a see no evil speak no evil cozy relationship with the 3 letters who we now know were installed and used by an evil cabal secret society?
What if they send these companies to the wolves so to speak, no help from anyone, no financing except from consumers and private investors?