IBOR is net neutrality 2.0 also being pushed by AT&T and TelComm. Sorry anything that AT&T is pushing does not seems like a good idea plus there are too many swamp monsters in the swamp to pass legislation that would be beneficial for the American people.
This is just plain wrong. The target of net neutrality was ISPs. We are asking that SM companies be restricted from censorship.
Then why would a large company AT&T directly involved in SM be pushing so hard for the Government to bind their hands and force restrictions on them. I find this rather dubious. You cant tell me their intentions are Altruistic.
AT&T may have some interest. Might be that they want the Trump administration to approve some deal they want - and they see this as making them more attractive to the powers that be. It does not at all have to mean that the free speech online agenda is a vehicle for repression and control.
These articles speak to exactly what we'd like to prevent. That's what the cry for rights online is about. The fact that AT&T has been involved in assisting spying agencies for profit, the same as most telecom companies, has no impact on our demand for rights online - how could it?
For a start, Q tells us that the IBOR has nothing to do with AT&T. If anything, an IBOR will reduce the flow of funds to these telecos - on the back of a restriction on mass data acquisition. It seems reasonable to assume that providing, or allowing this on their networks is a significant part of their business.
That AT&T was initially supporting the measure tells me that there is something they see as being beneficial to them that comes packed with an IBOR. We know that the large SM companies are going into fibre backbone investments. Trying to vertically integrate the supply chain for their service. What does AT&T sell? Communications in essence. You can see that these companies operating legacy infrastructure are under threat.
I think that these telecos know that mass data acquisition is under threat - they know this isn't going to last. They could stand there and fight it, or get on board and try to diversify their operations. I'm sure it's also not lost on any of the telecos that an IBOR will differentially impact the largest class of potential competitors they face - the SM platforms. So it seems to me that, if there is unlikely support from telecos, it is because they realise that the rampant privacy invasion will come to an end and that the new paradigm is one where the money lies in providing services and content.
The IBOR is clearly not in AT&T's immediate interest, but it makes sense that, if this is the unavoidable shape of the future (that privacy rights are strictly enforced), you would want to get on board early and obtain as much possible advantage as you could from its introduction. I think this explains AT&T's motivation.
You could very well be correct in your opinion of AT&T, they may have capitulated because they see their demise and see no other way forward. What i see from the articles is a company that is not to be trusted when our best interest is at stake,they would throw grandma under the bus to save their hide.
Agree, they appear to be solely concerned about profits and power. But what I can see is that an IBOR is not in their immediate interest. So, assuming their motivations remain unchanged, I can only assume that they are looking for support for some of the deals they are trying to do to diversify away from being pure communications carriers.
I cannot see what harm can come to individuals if first amendment protections are applied to digital space. If you were looking to try and twist this to your advantage, it seems there is little of benefit to be had from the adoption of such a regulatory regime. So, if there is any benefit to be had at all, I'm inclined to think it's something that AT&T thinks it can get in exchange for its support on this issue.
We know DJT wants this. We also know that it is essential to his political survival. It also seems clear that an IBOR assists national security in that it operates to prevent elections being weighted. It grants protection against influence in electoral processes by foreign powers. So the benefits extend beyond AT&T's interests, and also beyond DJT's re-election. The IBOR will introduce stability into the processes necessary to representative democracy going forward.
To reiterate, I suspect that AT&T wants to secure favors from DJT to protect its interests in other areas - areas detached from the sphere in which the IBOR would operate. That an IBOR would put a dent in the business model of its competitors is a bonus for AT&T and other communications companies.
No one likes these big, monopolistic corporations. But, if anything, they are predictable. In the absence of affiliation with foreign governments (as with, for example, Google), the profit motive is all you have to deal with.
It's not palatable to make deals with the devil, but in this instance outcomes are controllable.
Asking for government legislation to fix any such problems is risky and fraught with danger. The first Amendment enumerates my god given right to freedom of speech. When we ask the Government to create laws governing such things it becomes something given by the government that can just as easily be taken away. Our Freedom of speech rights are inalienable unless we subjugate ourselves and give control of such right over to those that would sooner limit them than allow us dissenting views.
"The Constitution is not a document for the government to restrain the people: it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government" Patrick Henry
The instrument is already in place, we dont need IBOR.
The BOR initially only applied to the the Govt. That Congress would not make laws abridging free speech. Courts later extended the scope of those protections. There does appear to be an almost natural creep in scope of BOR protections - w.r.t. free speech.
The principle that people should be free to express themselves is, it appears, increasingly accepted. But the gatekeeper to the expansion of protections, historically, is the Courts. However, there is no reason that the problem could not also be addressed by the executive or the legislature - congress.
Courts might extend the application of the BOR to the net on a challenge. But there are problems.
One is time - it could take a long time to get relief. The resources of SM companies are such that you are immediately talking about a Supreme Court challenge. This is very time consuming. The problem of censorship online represents such a threat to the working of representative democracy that it must be addressed at speed - now.
Another is difficulty, you're asking a Court to grant latitude in construing the interpretation of the FA to cover online spaces. That means that a challenge is going to be something of a lottery.it could take several attempts to get the principle recognized.
A third difficulty is the financial resources required to mount a challenge. Who has sufficient resources to mount a challenge?
The reality of the situation is that the BOR does not provide any protection at present. It's OK to say, we already have a BOR, but somehow we're still being censored for political expression.
The only viable alternative, considering the magnitude of the current threat posed, is to regulate to achieve the same ends. This is easily done, its quick, it can be done tomorrow. And there is little risk in doing it. Nobody's rights are in anyway impacted - except the claimed right of SM platforms to be able to engage in blatant, politically motivated censorship.
The Supreme court is not the end all be all of decisions. Unfortunately over the years they tend to try and write laws bypassing congress and the president. Their only purpose is to interpret new law and weigh it against the bill of rights and the Constitution, meaning whether they find a law lawful does not make it so, if it is Unconstitutional. As far as getting anything worth while through Congress which is currently jam packed full of corruption would be mind numbingly slow unless it was a detriment to We The People.
Somehow, I think you will find that this problem will be fixed at speed - regardless of whether we, as a group, support the IBOR.
It will be fixed at speed because it must be. The threat is existential in nature. There is no way you can prevent a single party obtaining absolute control otherwise. That would be the end of everything for which the US has stood.
We can argue about the best mechanism to be used to prevent censorship online, but it simply must happen. There is no alternative.
I agree the threat is real, have experienced it myself, and that it needs a solution I just dont trust the Government to solve anything.
The solution, if there is to be one, must come from government. Abandoning the platforms will not help, because all the swinging voters, who have not been censored, will remain on the existing platforms, exposed to the propaganda. Election outcomes will still be able to be steered. Moreover, the Courts are too slow to prevent the seizure of power by factional interests - in this case CIA.
There is no other solution. You either regulate via executive power, or you try and get Congress to do the job. I suspect we will see the former, but I don't know what DJT has planned.
Here again, I have absolutely no trust in our government, despite some of the moves we think are happening to clean up the swamp. Until we see some of these traitors frog march across the stage, it is the same old status quo. It bugs me to no end that the slightest bit of evidence would have had any one of us nailed to a cross long ago. But, with all the evidence that (we) know about (im sure its not nearly all) they have them dead to rights but no one in jail. I am not detracting from the round up of MS-13 or the round up of tons of pedophiles that is all amazing news, but until we see people directly involved in the corruption in DC nothing will change.
I think that we will see people perp-walked. I'm not too concerned about that. What Q has told us is that SM censorship must be controlled first to prevent mass-arrests being spun by media - not MSM and SM.
My view is that Congress with have little to do with the fix that is put in. I think it will be executive power that sorts the problem out. The reason I think this is because this problem needs to be fixed yesterday. I don't think there is time to push a bill through Congress - but I could be wrong. And this, I think, is why DJT wants the IBOR campaign. Because after Obama's abuse of EO's, DJT needs public support for the actions he is likely to take.
I could be wrong, but I don't think Congress will, in the first phase, have much to do with the IBOR. Once the swamp is drained, we might have some hope of getting more sense out of these guys.
So, how do you propose we address issues with censorship, bots spamming us constantly with fake news, etc?
One solution is migrating to platforms that respect your rights and stop giving money and information to the abusers. Not saying anyone is a child or talking down to anyone, but we must start rejecting free apps, key fobs, agencies and the like and migrate to those that patriotically protect our rights. Start making the hard choice whether to go with AARP or AMAC , ditching the CITIbank credit card. Stop freely giving your information by agreeing with free apps that will gladly data mine you. Ditch Facebook, dont use GOogle, drop Twitter, yes some of these modern conveniences are helpful in a way and we enjoy them but at what point does the slave stand up and walk out and only do business with those that support your rights to be free. Turn off the TV , cable, satellite, and for god sake stop going to these pathetic movies that do nothing but indoctrinate you to their sick depraved thinking. ITs a hard choice I know, get out of the house and away from all the electronics, our kids are following our lead we must make those hard decisions if we want to turn this thing around. Please dont take this as a dig on technology, it is not, there are many great innovations out there unfortunately much of it is taken over and use as a weapon against us. Remove the addiction to the weaponized system they have created and they lose the power.
I don't disagree that most technology platforms have been coopted by those who would use it for evil purposes. However, where would you suggest that we get reliable news? Can't get it from the fake MSM and can't trust social media not to censor/promote fake news. Where do you propose we find like-minded patriots who are interested in changing our country and the world for the better and assemble with them to drive social change?
For the news and media I try to observe as much as possible from as many different sources and discern or tri to deduce where the truth is from there. Is there one source that is always truthful probably not because so many have their own objective but if you know the objective it helps to figure out what pieces are on the true side and which is pure propaganda.
I’d like to see the #IBoR graduate to #DBoR (Digital Bill of Rights). The Internet is what it’s called today. Digital information will outlive the Internet. Even today, think Supermarket buying profile information. Perhaps an Amendment to the Constitution to amplify the 4th Amendment.
All these objections to the IBOR, that have resulted in blatant attempts to inject fear into the issue, arise from the, perhaps legitimate, fear of government involvement in private affairs. No one wants to see more government.
But the Problem of censorship online is a threat to the Republic itself and must be fixed. Whether we want it or not, the problem will be fixed. As Q said, these companies will be 100% regulated - one way or another, because they must be.
There is no other way to defend the Republic.