Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=mooby;1183316]Or we won't, because it's already monopolized to where 3-4 companies control 95% of the infrastructure, and they won't intrude on other markets because they have handshake agreements with the other companies. And our gov't couldn't care less about monopolies, as long as they get theirs.

Meanwhile we get the shaft, much like we do with everything else. But we'll be alright, because we've grown used to living with the shaft.[/quote]


[url=http://www.gotoquiz.com/how_anti_capitalist_are_you]How Anti-Capitalist are You?[/url]

[quote]You are 11% anti-capitalist!

You are a good little consumer, aren't you? You never question spending money. You definitely own an SUV, and have probably never even changed your own oil. And you shop at Walmart. You have a lot to learn.[/quote]
[I don't own an SUV, I have changed my own oil other than that it was a fair assessment ;) ]

The answer is not to move towards a non-competitive state, but to increase the competition. And that can and does happen in the US. More regulations - like Title 2 (net neutrality) - leads to less innovation, and ultimately degraded services or more cost.

The thing that brought innovation and price competition to the phone market was the break up of Ma Bell, and the same with the post office.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1183314]So, would you be ok if we had a monolithic phone system where there was no available options for better service?

Or if the US Postal system had the rights to all air mail packages, hence eliminating UPS, FedEx, DHS and other options.

The ability to charge different rates is a basic premise of what makes capitalism work, the net should not be exempt, and if it's not, then we will see better products.[/quote]

Let's stick to real example as to how it pertains to the internet. One can access Netflix no matter if they're on Verizon, Spectrum, Comcast, or AT&T. Many consumers don't have a choice in where their internet service comes from. So, let's say their only choice is Comcast but Comcast either charges more for full speed Netflix or outright blocks them. Well, you as a consumer, have had your choice limited without NN.

Where I live, I have a choice between AT&T and Spectrum internet. AT&T has a bandwidth cap, so I can't go with them. Spectrum does not. However, both provide equal access to Netflix. Let's say Spectrum decides to go the way of Comcast and drops any connection to Netflix, well, I no longer have a choice to enjoy Netflix.

Or another choice, let's say Spectrum limits its users to Yahoo, but I want to use Google. Well, tough luck, I either have to pay extra to use Google, or I'm stuck using Yahoo search. Another choice being taken away.

The issue is, in capitalism, the thought is the best product wins out, and the bad ones die out. That's not the case when the ISP in your area is pretty much a monopoly. They can put out a crappy product and because they hold the keys, they force you to use a crappy product instead of you having a choice for a better product.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[QUOTE=metalskins;1183319]Let's stick to real example as to how it pertains to the internet. One can access Netflix no matter if they're on Verizon, Spectrum, Comcast, or AT&T. Many consumers don't have a choice in where their internet service comes from. So, let's say their only choice is Comcast but Comcast either charges more for full speed Netflix or outright blocks them. Well, you as a consumer, have had your choice limited without NN.

Where I live, I have a choice between AT&T and Spectrum internet. AT&T has a bandwidth cap, so I can't go with them. Spectrum does not. However, both provide equal access to Netflix. Let's say Spectrum decides to go the way of Comcast and drops any connection to Netflix, well, I no longer have a choice to enjoy Netflix.

Or another choice, let's say Spectrum limits its users to Yahoo, but I want to use Google. Well, tough luck, I either have to pay extra to use Google, or I'm stuck using Yahoo search. Another choice being taken away.

The issue is, in capitalism, the thought is the best product wins out, and the bad ones die out. That's not the case when the ISP in your area is pretty much a monopoly. They can put out a crappy product and because they hold the keys, they force you to use a crappy product instead of you having a choice for a better product.[/QUOTE]

But in your example if spectrum drops netflix they risk losing a substantial base to at&t even with a data cap. There is no incentive to drop it. Like wise if they try to charge to much for it then they lose the base to at&t.

There are few true monopolies and if the isps act in a monopolistic fashion there are tools in place to break those.

In both your examples you shut the door on another option (at&t) but if at&t or some other provider sees an opportunity for profit by providing yahoo or google or netflix they will offer it. That is how competition works.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=metalskins;1183319][B]Let's stick to real example [/B]as to how it pertains to the internet. One can access Netflix no matter if they're on Verizon, Spectrum, Comcast, or AT&T. Many consumers don't have a choice in where their internet service comes from. So, let's say their only choice is Comcast but Comcast either charges more for full speed Netflix or outright blocks them. Well, you as a consumer, have had your choice limited without NN.

Where I live, I have a choice between AT&T and Spectrum internet. AT&T has a bandwidth cap, so I can't go with them. Spectrum does not. However, both provide equal access to Netflix. Let's say Spectrum decides to go the way of Comcast and drops any connection to Netflix, well, I no longer have a choice to enjoy Netflix.

Or another choice, let's say Spectrum limits its users to Yahoo, but I want to use Google. Well, tough luck, I either have to pay extra to use Google, or I'm stuck using Yahoo search. Another choice being taken away.

The issue is, in capitalism, the thought is the best product wins out, and the bad ones die out. That's not the case when the ISP in your area is pretty much a monopoly. They can put out a crappy product and because they hold the keys, they force you to use a crappy product instead of you having a choice for a better product.[/quote]

The examples I use, Ma Bell and the Post Office, are historical examples that we can actually see what happened when monopolies were broken and regulations reduced. In both cases it was a win for consumers.

What I hear here, is the expectant continuation of monopolistic ISP's in local regions. BUT with advances in wifi and broadband availability, those should break up naturally much like the regional baby bells early on had semi monopolistic tendencies, but now are competitive players in there markets, not monopolies that leave consumers no choice.

I agree that monopolistic tendencies and handshake deals need to be broken up, but easing competitive pressures on monopolies is not the way to get that done.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1183320]But in your example if spectrum drops netflix they risk losing a substantial base to at&t even with a data cap. There is no incentive to drop it. Like wise if they try to charge to much for it then they lose the base to at&t.[/quote]

Not necessarily. Because each ISP has their own product they'll want to push before a third party product. Such as Comcast pushing their own streaming product, and AT&T pushing theirs. Essentially what would happen is Netflix would either be put on a higher tier internet plan, which then forces more money out of the consumer, or Netflix has to pay out more to those ISPs to remain on the "fast" track and in turn, will pass that cost on to the consumer.

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1183320]There are few true monopolies and if the isps act in a monopolistic fashion there are tools in place to break those.[/quote]

I haven't seen it done yet. What I've seen are these companies continuing to absorb the smaller companies. In a lot of areas, there is only one ISP or only one cable company that provides unlimited internet. And they treat their customers as if they're monopolies by charging them an outrageous amount of money already.


[quote=CRedskinsRule;1183320]In both your examples you shut the door on another option (at&t) but if at&t or some other provider sees an opportunity for profit by providing yahoo or google or netflix they will offer it. That is how competition works.[/quote]

AT&T isn't created equal with what they offer me. Their internet is a third of the speed for the same price as I'm paying Spectrum, and it's limited bandwidth. That is no viable option for someone who works from home and does video streaming.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1183325]The examples I use, Ma Bell and the Post Office, are historical examples that we can actually see what happened when monopolies were broken and regulations reduced. In both cases it was a win for consumers.

What I hear here, is the expectant continuation of monopolistic ISP's in local regions. BUT with advances in wifi and broadband availability, those should break up naturally much like the regional baby bells early on had semi monopolistic tendencies, but now are competitive players in there markets, not monopolies that leave consumers no choice.

I agree that monopolistic tendencies and handshake deals need to be broken up, but easing competitive pressures on monopolies is not the way to get that done.[/quote]

As a consumer, I haven't seen any real choice. What I've seen are a lot of "gotchas" with each company that provides Pay TV and internet service. For me, it really comes down to only one choice for internet. I can choose different sources for TV, or choose no source at all, but then, the choosing no source at all usually means I supplement with HULU or NETFLIX, which brings me back to the point earlier. If Spectrum forces you to use their streaming app, then they may shut off access to Hulu and Netflix, or either charge me more to use those apps on top of the monthly charge with those companies. After awhile, they really force you back on their own products, which is what a lot of us in the tech biz fear will happen, because we've seen it over and over again.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=metalskins;1183326]Not necessarily. Because each ISP has their own product they'll want to push before a third party product. Such as Comcast pushing their own streaming product, and AT&T pushing theirs. Essentially what would happen is Netflix would either be put on a higher tier internet plan, which then forces more money out of the consumer, or Netflix has to pay out more to those ISPs to remain on the "fast" track and in turn, will pass that cost on to the consumer.



I haven't seen it done yet. What I've seen are these companies continuing to absorb the smaller companies. In a lot of areas, there is only one ISP or only one cable company that provides unlimited internet. And they treat their customers as if they're monopolies by charging them an outrageous amount of money already.




AT&T isn't created equal with what they offer me. Their internet is a third of the speed for the same price as I'm paying Spectrum, and it's limited bandwidth. That is no viable option for someone who works from home and does video streaming.[/quote]

Historically, more competition is good. Net Neutrality actually limits competition because it means every provider must have the ability to provide high volume streams the same access as low volume streams, along with other basic concepts of market capitalism.

If you want to argue that we need to open up competition at the broadband level then we can fight that fight together, I agree 100%. If you want to say that because some locations are currently limited we must make the entry point to high for all but the largest ISPs, I am not ok with that.

As I said HISTORICALLY the option that provides the best long term innovation and consumer choice is more competition, more incentive for companies to find a better solution to problems, and more opportunity for those companies to make a profit.

Also historically rent control in any form - even data bandwith "fairness" has backfired in stagnation corruption and more blatant taxation and regulations.


I think we all agree the big issue is monopolistic tendencies of the ISPs we just disagree on Title II's importance as the solution.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1183317][URL="http://www.gotoquiz.com/how_anti_capitalist_are_you"]How Anti-Capitalist are You?[/URL]


[I don't own an SUV, I have changed my own oil other than that it was a fair assessment ;) ]

The answer is not to move towards a non-competitive state, but to increase the competition. And that can and does happen in the US. More regulations - like Title 2 (net neutrality) - leads to less innovation, and ultimately degraded services or more cost.

The thing that brought innovation and price competition to the phone market was the break up of Ma Bell, and the same with the post office.[/quote]

I get what you're saying, but we'll have to agree to disagree. Splitting up the monopolies that rule the ISP landscape would be great for the consumer, I just don't see it happening.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=metalskins;1183327]As a consumer, I haven't seen any real choice. What I've seen are a lot of "gotchas" with each company that provides Pay TV and internet service. For me, it really comes down to only one choice for internet. I can choose different sources for TV, or choose no source at all, but then, the choosing no source at all usually means I supplement with HULU or NETFLIX, which brings me back to the point earlier. If Spectrum forces you to use their streaming app, then they may shut off access to Hulu and Netflix, or either charge me more to use those apps on top of the monthly charge with those companies. After awhile, they really force you back on their own products, which is what a lot of us in the tech biz fear will happen, because we've seen it over and over again.[/quote]
so you don't think you have a choice in how you overnight a package or which cell phone company you go with.

Competition doesn't work in milliseconds, or hours. AOL was a dominant ISP, it isn't anymore. maybe Spectrum offers a better HULU, or maybe enough people become a market place for an ISP that will offer HULU.

If we can keep the regulations down for 6 years, let's see what happens. I am confident that a free market for ISP's would result in far better options then the dismal picture you paint, but, no it is true that tomorrow there won't be miniISP's knocking at your door ready to tear you away from Spectrum. Although with wifi, and localized 5g networks coming online you may see more options sooner than you think.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

S/N here's my 5 min intro to net neutrality for those interested.

As the internet developed, [URL="https://www.pcworld.com/article/2048209/net-neutrality-at-the-us-fcc-a-brief-history.html"]rules were introduced[/URL] to govern the ISP landscape. As the internet grew, Verizon and other providers started [URL="https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history"]bending the rules [/URL](for example throttling people on the unlimited data plan, and AT&T tried to force IPhone users to buy its' highest priced plan to use Facetime). The FCC tried to enforce the rules. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014)"]Verizon sued the FCC in federal court[/URL], the argument being FCC doesn't have the power to enforce the rules. The court agreed, however saying if the FCC reclassified ISP's from Title 1 (common carrier) to Title 2 (utility) it would have the power. FCC did just that, and in 2015 regained the power to enforce already existing laws governing net neutrality. Fast forward to today, corporate boy-whore/Verizon puppet Ajit Pai rolled back all those protections, and now the ISP monopolies are free to do whatever they like.

The next battle in this fight is states suing to reverse the FCC's decision, which the NY AG already promised to do. Several other states have joined NY. The argument will be that the FCC totally ignored citizen complaints and also ignored the fact that there were millions of pro-repeal comments [URL="https://hackernoon.com/more-than-a-million-pro-repeal-net-neutrality-comments-were-likely-faked-e9f0e3ed36a6"]made by bots/internet shills[/URL], like the one [URL="https://i.redditmedia.com/_zH3zaQOkwyxfBumxR-KoBgt2Cb1gNi4yeVsMdbwPY0.png?w=720&"]seen here[/URL].

Re: Net Neutrality
 

I see this going the way of cellular service providers and cable where options become limited and those providing the services become concentrated into a few companies. I am not sure what kind of impact it will have on small businesses or local but I think it will have a huge negative impact on medium sized businesses. Discord for example offers a superior gaming experience than Google, FaceBook etc but will have to make a choice of slowing down streaming or pay the ISPs for the faster rates, they won't be able to hid that cost from the customer the way the "big box" internet organizations can. Either way they may no longer be cost competitive or to make ends meet be bought by one of the major players and decrease actual competition in the service. I worry about this too with news outlets like The Young Turks as well. I also want to know how education is going to be handled. Technology access has been important in decreasing discrepancies between school districts in regards to supplies and outdated textbooks. Are free education websites going to be allowed to provide their content at the same streaming feed or are they going to be required to pay for it and then pass it on to school districts?

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=mooby;1183332]S/N here's my 5 min intro to net neutrality for those interested.

As the internet developed, [URL="https://www.pcworld.com/article/2048209/net-neutrality-at-the-us-fcc-a-brief-history.html"]rules were introduced[/URL] to govern the ISP landscape. As the internet grew, Verizon and other providers started [URL="https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history"]bending the rules [/URL](for example throttling people on the unlimited data plan, and AT&T tried to force IPhone users to buy its' highest priced plan to use Facetime). The FCC tried to enforce the rules. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014)"]Verizon sued the FCC in federal court[/URL], the argument being FCC doesn't have the power to enforce the rules. The court agreed, however saying if the FCC reclassified ISP's from Title 1 (common carrier) to Title 2 (utility) it would have the power. FCC did just that, and in 2015 regained the power to enforce already existing laws governing net neutrality. Fast forward to today, corporate boy-whore/Verizon puppet Ajit Pai rolled back all those protections, and now the ISP monopolies are free to do whatever they like.

The next battle in this fight is states suing to reverse the FCC's decision, which the NY AG already promised to do. Several other states have joined NY. The argument will be that the FCC totally ignored citizen complaints and also ignored the fact that there were millions of pro-repeal comments [URL="https://hackernoon.com/more-than-a-million-pro-repeal-net-neutrality-comments-were-likely-faked-e9f0e3ed36a6"]made by bots/internet shills[/URL], like the one [URL="https://i.redditmedia.com/_zH3zaQOkwyxfBumxR-KoBgt2Cb1gNi4yeVsMdbwPY0.png?w=720&"]seen here[/URL].[/quote]



This!
Skype, Vonage, Googlepay and other popular services have been blocked in the past while carriers push their preferred services out to the customer.

ATT owns Directv, ATT could start blocking/throttling YoutubeTV, Netflix, or Hulu forcing customer to change carriers or go sign up for Directv.

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out over the next year or two. I'd imagine ATT will want to recoup some of the money they are losing from all the cord cutters

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=jamf;1183558]This!
Skype, Vonage, Googlepay and other popular services have been blocked in the past while carriers push their preferred services out to the customer.

ATT owns Directv, ATT could start blocking/throttling YoutubeTV, Netflix, or Hulu forcing customer to change carriers or go sign up for Directv.

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out over the next year or two. I'd imagine ATT will want to recoup some of the money they are losing from all the cord cutters[/quote]

If life is static, and carriers have their own mini-monopolies, then it's an issue. But life isn't static, and if profits are high enough (which they probably will be) other companies will find ways in. That's basically the point of the cord-cutting consumers. Right now I have Verizon, but I have had Comcast and Direct TV (not for internet) at various points. Verizon got my business by offering the best combination of services over Comcast/Direct TV and a few others locals. But if they start going crazy with charges or blocking services, I would switch without thinking twice.

I just can't see how limiting competition - which really is what net neutrality does by not giving small ISP's opportunities to differentiate themselves - wins out over bringing back profit motive and competition.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1183575]If life is static, and carriers have their own mini-monopolies, then it's an issue. But life isn't static, and if profits are high enough (which they probably will be) other companies will find ways in. That's basically the point of the cord-cutting consumers. Right now I have Verizon, but I have had Comcast and Direct TV (not for internet) at various points. Verizon got my business by offering the best combination of services over Comcast/Direct TV and a few others locals. But if they start going crazy with charges or blocking services, I would switch without thinking twice.

I just can't see how limiting competition - which really is what net neutrality does by not giving small ISP's opportunities to differentiate themselves - wins out over bringing back profit motive and competition.[/quote]

You have a choice. There are many areas where consumers do not have a choice. They have one carrier offering decent service and that is it. That's a major problem.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[QUOTE=mooby;1183625]You have a choice. There are many areas where consumers do not have a choice. They have one carrier offering decent service and that is it. That's a major problem.[/QUOTE]

So if that's the problem, how do we encourage more isp choices? I don't think it's by taking away the one thing that can let a smaller isp's find niche to grow in. But we will see. I for one will be interested to see if it has any effect over a 5 year span. I know what I believe will happen, but am open to actual results.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

Forget it, I change my opinion:

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/12/19/net-neutralitys-impact-on-free-porn-could-be-significant-experts-say.html"]Free porn could be impacted significantly by net neutrality ruling[/URL]

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1183642]Forget it, I change my opinion:

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/12/19/net-neutralitys-impact-on-free-porn-could-be-significant-experts-say.html"]Free porn could be impacted significantly by net neutrality ruling[/URL][/quote]

Told you it was going to be a problem! ;)

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1183642]Forget it, I change my opinion:

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/12/19/net-neutralitys-impact-on-free-porn-could-be-significant-experts-say.html"]Free porn could be impacted significantly by net neutrality ruling[/URL][/quote]

It's ok, you can always switch back to magazine subscription. Yes it'll cost more than free porn online, but the free market is never wrong. Besides, magazines never have to buffer.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=mooby;1183660]It's ok, you can always switch back to magazine subscription. Yes it'll cost more than free porn online, but the free market is never wrong. Besides, magazines never have to buffer.[/quote]

True and you never have that sticky key board problem!

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=mooby;1183625]You have a choice. There are many areas where consumers do not have a choice. They have one carrier offering decent service and that is it. That's a major problem.[/quote]

This...

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=Giantone;1183755]True and you never have that sticky key board problem![/quote]

:puke:

Re: Net Neutrality
 

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced legislation Wednesday to give Americans the ability to sue major tech companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter if they engage in selective censorship of political speech.

The Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act, cosponsored by Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Mike Braun, R-Ind., and Tom Cotton, R-Ark., would stop such companies from receiving immunity under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, unless they update their terms of service to promise to operate in good faith.

The bill would allow users to sue companies for breaching that contractual duty of good faith, and it would make them pay $5,000 plus legal fees to each user who prevails in a case against them.

On a separate track -- reflecting renewed pressure on these companies out of Washington -- the Justice Department is recommending that lawmakers consider new legislation that would hold tech giants liable for content posted online. Any such legislation would roll back legal protections the online platforms have possessed for decades.

[url]https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hawley-bill-targeting-big-tech-companies[/url]

---------------

In August, Paula Bolyard, a supervising editor at the conservative news outlet PJ Media, published a story reporting that 96% of Google search results for Donald Trump prioritized “left-leaning and anti-Trump media outlets”.

Bolyard’s results were generated according to her own admittedly unscientific methodology. She searched for “Trump” in Google’s News tab, and then used a highly questionable media chart that separated outlets into “left” and “right” to tabulate the results. She reported that 96 of 100 results returned were from so-called “left-leaning” news outlets, with 21 of those from CNN alone. Despite this dubious methodology, Bolyard’s statistic spread, and her story was picked up by a Fox Business Network show.

A few days later, Donald Trump tweeted that Google results were “RIGGED” against him, citing Bolyard’s figure.

For Francesca Tripodi, professor of sociology at James Madison University, anecdotal evidence of anti-conservative bias spreads as fact through the media in part because of a deep misunderstanding of how bias in search engines and content moderation practices work. “These algorithms are very complex and not at all intuitive,” she says. “They weigh things like how many people are linking to an article, what key words appear in the headline, and what specific phrases people are using in their search.

If you search for Donald Trump and receive mostly negative results, Tripodi explains, it isn’t because Google executives are censoring pro-Trump voices, but because most Google users are seeking or linking to this particular type of news item. “In other words, Google is biased but its bias skews towards the type of results people want to see. Search results are kind of like a public opinion poll about what news matters. The company depends on being good at measuring precisely this. If they weren’t, we wouldn’t keep using their services.”

Tripodi, who published a report on media manipulation for the New York-based research institute Data & Society, also explains that so-called anti-conservative “censorship” on social media can often be explained by random glitches in moderation practices taking place at scale.

This year, the conservative media company PragerU accused YouTube and Facebook of “deliberate censorship of conservative ideas” after a number of their videos were taken down. Tripodi reviewed several of the videos and found that there were plausible, non-ideologically motivated explanations for why they were removed.

“One of the videos began with a woman saying the word ‘rape’. This might’ve been picked up by some automated system and then sent for review to a third-party moderator in the Philippines. When you only have three seconds to make a decision about content, you’re not questioning whether the video is promoting conservative views,” she says. “You’re mostly worried about the word ‘rape’.”

[url]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/04/google-facebook-anti-conservative-bias-claims[/url]

----------------


My understanding of Google is that it wants to show the user the best possible sites - based on size, link backs, traffic etc ..

When I search "2A" -- i dont want to be shown a million basement made crap websites and have to sift through them. I want to see the most accurate, largest, most official websites.

Search "current civil rights" -- I dont want to go to some SJW 2 page website that 20 people have visited total.

This just seems like some conservative wag the tail type stuff to try and make it seem like there is some huge nefarious deep state war on conservatives.

Rawr rawr .. theres a war against conservatives .. rawr rawr .. liberal media .. rawr rawr .. media is the enemy .. rawr rawr ...

on top of that ... google is a private company.

I would imagine conservatives would want to limit govt intrusion into the capitalist system.

But no .. crickets from the group that claims they are for less govt, free capitalism, reduce the debt etc ...

Re: Net Neutrality
 

Allow Google or facebook .. or warpath.net to be liable for comments and posts by the users?

I type some heinous clearly false libel stuff about someone.

Matty gets sued.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

yeah the moment I'm responsible for the craziness here I'm out of the game

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=SunnySide;1253024]Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced legislation Wednesday to give Americans the ability to sue major tech companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter if they engage in selective censorship of political speech.

The Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act, cosponsored by Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Mike Braun, R-Ind., and Tom Cotton, R-Ark., would stop such companies from receiving immunity under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, unless they update their terms of service to promise to operate in good faith.

The bill would allow users to sue companies for breaching that contractual duty of good faith, and it would make them pay $5,000 plus legal fees to each user who prevails in a case against them.

On a separate track -- reflecting renewed pressure on these companies out of Washington -- the Justice Department is recommending that lawmakers consider new legislation that would hold tech giants liable for content posted online. Any such legislation would roll back legal protections the online platforms have possessed for decades.

[url]https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hawley-bill-targeting-big-tech-companies[/url]

---------------

In August, Paula Bolyard, a supervising editor at the conservative news outlet PJ Media, published a story reporting that 96% of Google search results for Donald Trump prioritized “left-leaning and anti-Trump media outlets”.

Bolyard’s results were generated according to her own admittedly unscientific methodology. She searched for “Trump” in Google’s News tab, and then used a highly questionable media chart that separated outlets into “left” and “right” to tabulate the results. She reported that 96 of 100 results returned were from so-called “left-leaning” news outlets, with 21 of those from CNN alone. Despite this dubious methodology, Bolyard’s statistic spread, and her story was picked up by a Fox Business Network show.

A few days later, Donald Trump tweeted that Google results were “RIGGED” against him, citing Bolyard’s figure.

For Francesca Tripodi, professor of sociology at James Madison University, anecdotal evidence of anti-conservative bias spreads as fact through the media in part because of a deep misunderstanding of how bias in search engines and content moderation practices work. “These algorithms are very complex and not at all intuitive,” she says. “They weigh things like how many people are linking to an article, what key words appear in the headline, and what specific phrases people are using in their search.

If you search for Donald Trump and receive mostly negative results, Tripodi explains, it isn’t because Google executives are censoring pro-Trump voices, but because most Google users are seeking or linking to this particular type of news item. “In other words, Google is biased but its bias skews towards the type of results people want to see. Search results are kind of like a public opinion poll about what news matters. The company depends on being good at measuring precisely this. If they weren’t, we wouldn’t keep using their services.”

Tripodi, who published a report on media manipulation for the New York-based research institute Data & Society, also explains that so-called anti-conservative “censorship” on social media can often be explained by random glitches in moderation practices taking place at scale.

This year, the conservative media company PragerU accused YouTube and Facebook of “deliberate censorship of conservative ideas” after a number of their videos were taken down. Tripodi reviewed several of the videos and found that there were plausible, non-ideologically motivated explanations for why they were removed.

“One of the videos began with a woman saying the word ‘rape’. This might’ve been picked up by some automated system and then sent for review to a third-party moderator in the Philippines. When you only have three seconds to make a decision about content, you’re not questioning whether the video is promoting conservative views,” she says. “You’re mostly worried about the word ‘rape’.”

[url]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/04/google-facebook-anti-conservative-bias-claims[/url]

----------------


My understanding of Google is that it wants to show the user the best possible sites - based on size, link backs, traffic etc ..

When I search "2A" -- i dont want to be shown a million basement made crap websites and have to sift through them. I want to see the most accurate, largest, most official websites.

Search "current civil rights" -- I dont want to go to some SJW 2 page website that 20 people have visited total.

This just seems like some conservative wag the tail type stuff to try and make it seem like there is some huge nefarious deep state war on conservatives.

Rawr rawr .. theres a war against conservatives .. rawr rawr .. liberal media .. rawr rawr .. media is the enemy .. rawr rawr ...

on top of that ... google is a private company.

I would imagine conservatives would want to limit govt intrusion into the capitalist system.

But no .. crickets from the group that claims they are for less govt, free capitalism, reduce the debt etc ...[/quote]

Why don’t you actually talk about the horseshit move Google tried and failed to pull yesterday?

Since it’s the mechanism that has caused everything, the context of leaving it out of your complaint is pretty telling.



Net neutrality...was told the internet was over?

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=Chico23231;1253035]Why don’t you actually talk about the horseshit move Google tried and failed to pull yesterday?

Since it’s the mechanism that has caused everything, the context of leaving it out of your complaint is pretty telling.



Net neutrality...was told the internet was over?[/quote]

What did google do yesterday? The "mechanism" seems to have been created before yesterday. But I am ready to read and learn more.

"context of leaving it out of your complaint is pretty telling." -- dude .. relax a bit. If you have articles you think I should consider .. link them, Ill read them.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=MTK;1253028]yeah the moment I'm responsible for the craziness here I'm out of the game[/quote]

Perhaps you could sell to Bob and he can drain this liberal cesspool.

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=SunnySide;1253037]What did google do yesterday? The "mechanism" seems to have been created before yesterday. But I am ready to read and learn more.

"context of leaving it out of your complaint is pretty telling." -- dude .. relax a bit. If you have articles you think I should consider .. link them, Ill read them.[/quote]

This is why people are talking about DOJ looking into it.

[url]https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/google-bans-two-websites-its-ad-platform-over-protest-articles-n1231176[/url]

Google has banned ZeroHedge, a far-right website that often traffics in conspiracy theories, from its advertising platform over policy violations found in the comments section of stories about recent Black Lives Matter protests.

Google also issued a warning on Tuesday to The Federalist over comments on articles related to recent protests.


Google is saying the comments sections of websites is fair game in pulling ad revenue.

The comment section dude, the comment section...

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[QUOTE=BaltimoreSkins;1253039]Perhaps you could sell to Bob and he can drain this liberal cesspool.[/QUOTE]


[IMG]https://media1.giphy.com/media/TUtr2Ky56D4Zy/giphy.gif[/IMG]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=Chico23231;1253044]This is why people are talking about DOJ looking into it.

[url]https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/google-bans-two-websites-its-ad-platform-over-protest-articles-n1231176[/url]

Google has banned ZeroHedge, a far-right website that often traffics in conspiracy theories, from its advertising platform over policy violations found in the comments section of stories about recent Black Lives Matter protests.

Google also issued a warning on Tuesday to The Federalist over comments on articles related to recent protests.


Google is saying the comments sections of websites is fair game in pulling ad revenue.

The comment section dude, the comment section...[/quote]

Did you read the article you linked?

[quote]
A Google spokesperson said in an email on Monday that it demonetized the websites [B]after determining they violated its policies on content related to race.[/B]

“We have strict publisher policies that govern the content ads can run on and explicitly prohibit derogatory content that[B] promotes hatred, intolerance, violence or discrimination based on race[/B] from monetizing," the spokesperson wrote. "When a page or site violates our policies, we take action. In this case, we’ve removed both sites’ ability to monetize with Google.”

Google's ban comes after the company was notified of [B]research from the Center for Countering Digital Hate[/B], a British nonprofit that combats online hate and misinformation. They found that 10 U.S-based websites have published what they say are racist articles about the protests, and projected that the websites would make millions of dollars through Google Ads.

ZeroHedge and The Federalist have become well known in recent years for publishing far-right articles on a variety of subjects. [B]On the recent protests, ZeroHedge published an article claiming that protests were fake, while The Federalist published an article claiming the media had been lying about looting and violence during the protests, which were both included in the research sent to Google.[/B]

[/quote]

Re: Net Neutrality
 

It sounds like Google doesnt want to do advertisement business with ZeroHedge.

Google advertising is Pay Per Click campaigns and banner stuff. I do PPC with google a few times a year. I pay a certain amount for certain words for a certain area ... and if someone uses that word in the geographic region in a search, my website may get put near the top .. if that someone then clicks on my site, google then deducts money out of my account.

I imagine Matty gets paid a little bit for the banner ads on here. I am not on that side. I pay to have my website promoted.

[B]Google is not banning zerohedge from its search results.

Google just doesnt want to be in an advertising business relationship with them.
[/B]
Now certain Republicans want to force a private company to accept contracts and do work with them against their will?

Am I missing something here?

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=mooby;1253046]Did you read the article you linked?[/quote]

Mooby, who owns YouTube?Have you ever been to the comments section in YouTube?

Perhaps google should ban their own ads?

Google needs to sit the fuck down now

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=mooby;1253046]Did you read the article you linked?[/quote]

LOL, you know better.;)

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=Chico23231;1253048]Mooby, who owns YouTube?Have you ever been to the comments section in YouTube?

Perhaps google should ban their own ads?

Google needs to sit the fuck down now[/quote]

And here I thought you were all for private companies having the leeway to do whatever they wanted without government oversight.

Where do we go from here Chico?

Re: Net Neutrality
 

[quote=mooby;1253052]And here I thought you were all for private companies having the leeway to do whatever they wanted without government oversight.

Where do we go from here Chico?[/quote]

Wut?

I think google shouldn’t worry about the comments section on a website they have nothing to do with and if they want to apply these rules, maybe they should start with their own companies?