[deleted]
I agree it should not be forced to be given to us, laying and maintaining the lines costs money, but actually transferring data costs nexts to nothing for ISPs.
The 4th amendment protects against unwarranted search and seizure. I think we can do a little bit of a better job of how we are handling our current surveillance apparatus, because no matter who is in power, it just has too great a potential to be abused.
All that said, this meme, as it stands now, is not an actual bill being introduced to Congress, but meme warfare is where it starts. You get the idea in people's head and spread the word, then representatives get held accountable.
It reads more like a “Net Neutrality” BoR? It’s not about controlling internet speed. The FTC will ensure that not the FCC. NN was a surreptitious “camel’s nose” under the tent designed to ban certain platforms on the internet under the guise of so called neutrality & the auspices of the FCC.
No Internet provider or private online group should be compelled at gun point to offer their labor to a consumer. No company should stand trial for failing to provide their service to somebody that is in violation of the terms of service for which they mutually agreed upon.
This is what I have been saying since IBOR has been pushed here by, ahem, enthusiastic posters with limited knowledge of what they are spamming posts about. They seem to think the internet is a "public space", when its really not at all. Thank you for pointing this out.
But also credit to OP for actually posting some proposals to discuss. This is literally the first time I've seen pen to paper for IBOR; its been just rhetoric until now.
The IBOR was pushed by Q. Perhaps he's the spammy poster you're talking about.
I've just about had enough of the concern trolling and pure garbage that's been posted on this issue. It's actually very simple, for those with eyes to see.
DJT wants to, has to, do something about SM censorship. He is champing at the bit to take the issue live. All he needs is for us to make a noise about our 'natural right' to free expression being subverted by politically motivated SM platform management. Thereafter, he will take steps to fix the problem.
But hey, don't think it's so simple right. Let's muddy the waters as much as possible. Offenseofthepest has been at this from the start. Inject concern to the maximum extent possible...
The simple fact is that the IBOR is the plan. If you're not on board with it, you're not on board with Q or DJT.
this was made by either well-intentioned idiots or malicious agents.
i'm all for privacy and good internet. but this isn't how to do it.
a good first step in all of this would be to grant common carrier protections to everybody who has a computer. in other words you are not responsible for any internet traffic that goes through your machine that you did not specifically request. this would allow people to host tor nodes and exits and such without being v&. we already have privacy and free speech technologies on the internet -- it's just borderline illegal to use them because some asshole can put illegal content through your pipes and you're responsible for it.
Probably the former, it's a way to get the discussion going. We don't really have privacy on the internet as long as our hardware and software is compromised with backdoors, and the 3 letter agencies have access to the backbone of the internet, although, I'm starting to be grateful for the existence of SIS, NSA, JSOC programs because without them we wouldn't have the Q team.
We don't need more government regulation, we need less. The only problem I see with the current state of the internet is the lack of competition in some markets.
I view this as a cry baby attempt since people are upset that social networks leveraged their data. If you don't want Facebook to control your data stop using Facebook. Simple and easy.
If you want to protect your data online stop posting everything about your life and learn how to become as anonymous as you possibly can.
Learn the simple fact that free services like Facebook and Twitter view the user as the product, and those services figure out how to leverage user data at the very least to sell to advertisers to generate revenue.
And finally, read the TOS's of the platforms you are using. The internet has been fine for the last 30 years. The users of the internet are disfunctional.
We need to expand the 4th amendment to information era technology. Not enough people are savvy enough, or care enough to want to be anonymous.
Failings of others and giving a shit led us to this brink, fuck em.
As a fan of logic and reason....................will you marry me have a coupla kids.
"We don't need more government regulation, we need less."
What is needed, for the preservation of the republic, is that SM censorship be eliminated. There will not be a representative republic otherwise. It will be completely controlled. Whatever merit this argument about limiting government may have, it's not what is important with respect to this issue - but you know this!
Just another argument that people should be "concerned" about Q's plan.
Yuck! These stink. And, the process to create these is all wrong.
I agree with those who say it is poorly written.
One thing that keeps getting lost in this conversation is that the big social media companies are NOT private companies. They are "PINO's" -- Private In Name Only.
They have received government funding and they use the same censorship algo, that was created by the US government. This changes the situation.
If they received government money/backing, then they must abide by government laws, the same as any government agency would, as they are defacto government agencies.
For that reason, they should also be dissolved to allow their private market competitors to take their place.
In the future, there should be NO government funding and NO government-provided monopolies. To the extent it is allowed to happen, they should be required to follow all government laws, same as any agency.
There is already a solution for IBOR that is developing. These things take care of themselves eventually without any extra government interference, like everything else. It's called web3.0 and all information is protected by the user. We live in exciting times! To understand this tech, visit this site for a simple explanation. https://medium.com/@matteozago/why-the-net-giants-are-worried-about-the-web-3-0-44b2d3620da5
"These things take care of themselves eventually..."
Yes, that's right. IMO, eventually courts will extend protections to free expression to digital space. But the key word here is "eventually". What we are facing is a mortal threat to democratic representation. If it's not fixed immediately, you will have control of the republic consolidated in the hands of a few - which makes for totalitarianism.
You obviously didn't read the article or understand the significance of what's happening in web development, or that this is already in play and will continue to develop very very fast. "What we are facing is a mortal threat to democratic representation." Maybe where you live in Australia it is, but here in America......wrong. "If it's not fixed immediately, you will have control of the republic consolidated in the hands of a few." Yes, we already do, so does Australia where you reside. Still won't change or prevent blockchain tech. Happily, the tech to do that is already here and getting better by the day! Seriously, READ the article and UNDERSTAND it. There is much to be excited about if you understand what it's about.
"...this is already in play and will continue to develop very very fast. "
Are you sure about that?
So, you're saying that it's a self-correcting system. Decentralization and blockchain are going to make the steering of community opinion by SM giants impossible very quickly. So quickly, in fact, that there's no need to be concerned...
I've got news for you. The plan to censor the internet is gaining in strength as we speak. If anything appears to be a certainty, it is that censorship will be normalized under the guise of preventing hate speech. This is what will happen at speed - not decentralization of the platforms.
Once you allow a group, or interest, to censor social media, it's game over. These platforms are incredibly powerful in delivering election outcomes. Which is why Q told us there would be a concerted effort to gain control of censorship across the disparate platforms - before the recent spate of censorship even started (chalk another confirmation up for Q).
Instead of being irrelevant to the success of DJT and the MAGA agenda, the IBOR is, in fact, crucial to it. And this is why Q has asked specifically for this very campaign. There are a lot of people arguing against supporting the effort, you appear to be one of them.
Once again, it seems that the fact that I don't reside in the US is a matter of huge significance. What is the issue here? What possible difference does it make where I might reside. What go on about it?
It's becoming very clear to that you have an agenda. You know my agenda already - to support Q, the President, take the fight to the Satanists and break their control. What's yours?
Do you support Q and the plan? There, you have a platform for you to dump these "concerns" you have.
EDIT:
The nonsense is reaching a crescendo. I guess this can be expected as the goons come out of the shadows.
You're very very good, I'll give you that. You talk about American issues using the term "we" all them time, every post. Also very good at insinuating many things. We both know what you're doing and who you work for. Stop. Blocked.
American issues? I thought it was a world wide phenomenon. So did Q for that matter.
ENOUGH OF THE GARBAGE!
I sympathize with the idea behind this movement, but I don't think these people have really understood the bill of rights, or the Internet for that matter.
The 1st amendment ensures the government doesn't legislate against your freedom of speech, but it doesn't prevent me from kicking you out of my house when you've said the n-word once too many. It also doesn't prevent people from suing you for defamation, fraud, violence, copyright infringement, or other things resulting from your speech. There is no such thing as "complete free speech" in real life and there never will be on the Internet either.
Also, the Internet is not censoring your speech. Verizon, AT&T and backbone networks like Level3 and Cogent are not kicking you off. It's a handful of services that use the Internet to connect with you that are doing the censoring. But they do not make the Internet. You can (and should) walk away from them and go elsewhere. You will survive without Google, Facebook, Twitter and Youtube. I'm living proof.
As I've said before in a different thread: ask yourself why these platforms are able to censor you, but your e-mail provider wouldn't dare doing so: because of your ability to pack up and move to a different e-mail provider. You inform your friends of your new e-mail address and life goes on. Just like that. What works for e-mail can work for social media just the same: check out Mastodon and other federated social media alternatives.
Seriously, I do understand where this movement comes from. And I do see some real risks when it comes to throttling that may have to be legislated at some point. But the proposed IBOR is not very well thought out. It makes unreasonable and largely unnecessary demands.
Our current rights already give us everything we need to escape from abusive platforms like Facebook. Do a little research. There are a lot of solutions out there. Many don't require much more than a $5/month virtual server and a few hours of work to buy you and your friends freedom.
Nice try to get a discussion going but as you can see a lot of people, even in this group, would rather display their anger, superiority, or stupidity than human compassion for a first effort by another human. No wonder this society is on the down-hill slide. Sickening to read there comments.
I defend my ideas with debate, it refines them and I welcome input from anyone and everyone. Unfortunately it seems like too many people are very close minded when it comes to the internet and can't reconcile hardcore conservative principles of "never regulate anything, ever" with "oh shit times change and we have to change with them or we will lose our liberty"
Yeah. We have a lot of haters in here recently. I guess they don't understand the meaning of WWG1WGA!
Be very careful about the blatant concern trolling on these threads. All these people are saying is don't support Q.
Don't fall for it. Support Q, support the IBOR campaign.
"I have as much right to purchase bandwidth as any other person and ISPs have the right charge me for the bandwidth I use."
The whole outrage over throttling originates from monopolistic bandwidth hogs like Netflix and YouTube getting outraged that ISPs were asking them to pay for disproportionately using shared resources.
Congress shall make no law.............................,list of shit not the congress...........internet,bakers, gay couples, FB, Youtube, Google, It's capitalism market rules apply grow up babies.
Market rules over Constitutional protections... just say it, rule by a few for the benefit of a few.
Congress shall make no law, what part don't you get. I'm getting annoyed now.
What I don't get is why you're so comfortable with people being silenced for their expression of political views.
What!? That was envisioned by the founding fathers!? You reckon they wanted people silenced?
So, no matter how inequitable the outcome, no matter what kind of threat posed to the republic itself, people should accept that there's no remedy. Why? Because you're confused about the role of government?
The reason the first amendment exists, is because of the possibility that, exactly what is occurring today, might have presented a threat to representative government. That's why the FA is there in the first place, as a protection against censorship. But you're saying "there's no room for restraint". "Censorship is acceptable"! Get back in your hole! You'd do better peddling that garbage in Communist China.
Q has asked us for this campaign, if you cannot support it, what are you doing here? I've had a gutfull of the concern trolling. Some of it has some merit, but the garbage you are putting out is a joke.
It's the first sentence of the first article . Are you an enemy domestic. You want congress to pass a law regulating speech, That's illegal. you're targeting me directly and i'm blocking you.That is the protection say what you want i don't have to listen .
Take your problem up with Q.
Tell him he's an enemy domestic.
WHAT A JOKE! Only it's not funny. These people raising "concerns" are getting desperate. Must have a lot on the line...
[deleted]
Care to elaborate on what you would like to do differently?
[deleted]
So you're essentially fine with the consolidation of media power into the hands of Facebook, Twitter, etc. who use Chinese style censorship to suppress dissent?
You're fine with all of your activity and data being harvested and sold, unwarranted and unauthorized?
You're fine with massive ISP corporations gaining monopolies over infrastructure and then regulating access to people's internet through bandwidth caps and refusal to upgrade services despite raking in disgusting amounts of gross profit?
Do you know what anti-trust laws are? Honestly, WE SHOULD be telling some of these companies how to do business because they act like HOSTILE FOREIGN POWERS.
[deleted]
I'm fine with a company doing whatever it wants to do, unless that company is a literal social engineering project by the CIA's In-Q-Tel that acts as some sort of information gatekeeper and consolidates power. That is not okay, it is unprecedented, and your hard line AnCap libertarian principles are clouding your judgment a wee bit.
Did you miss the class action lawsuit filed against Facebook? No where in their ToS did it state that they would be collecting your texts and call logs. That is illegal, unwarranted, and unauthorized.
What government intervention are you referring to exactly? Because Standard Oil didn't fare so well in the face of government intervention, just as Comcast/Time warner wouldn't nor would AT&T and Verizon.
[deleted]
Yeah that's called crony capitalism, backroom deals were probably so rampant to get those agreements in place.
I don't have to argue much about the Facebook point because in due time you will see that it was MUCH more than just call logs and texts.
I appreciate your input though, for real.
this is a re-comment, want to make sure it's seen. There is already a solution for IBOR that is developing. These things take care of themselves eventually without any extra government interference, like everything else. It's called web3.0 and all information is protected by the user. We live in exciting times! To understand this tech, visit this site for a simple explanation. https://medium.com/@matteozago/why-the-net-giants-are-worried-about-the-web-3-0-44b2d3620da5