Net Neutrality

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by jamf

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

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.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

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.

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.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by mooby

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.

This...

[BaltimoreSkins]

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?

[CRedskinsRule]

Forget it, I change my opinion:

Free porn could be impacted significantly by net neutrality ruling

[metalskins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Forget it, I change my opinion:

Free porn could be impacted significantly by net neutrality ruling

Told you it was going to be a problem!

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Forget it, I change my opinion:

Free porn could be impacted significantly by net neutrality ruling

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.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by mooby

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.

True and you never have that sticky key board problem!

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by Giantone

True and you never have that sticky key board problem!

[SunnySide]

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.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/haw...tech-companies

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

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’.”

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ve-bias-claims

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


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 ...

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

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.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/haw...tech-companies

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

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’.”

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ve-bias-claims

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


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 ...

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?

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

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?

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.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

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.

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

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-ne...icles-n1231176

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...

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

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

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-ne...icles-n1231176

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...

Did you read the article you linked?

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

“We have strict publisher policies that govern the content ads can run on and explicitly prohibit derogatory content that promotes hatred, intolerance, violence or discrimination based on race 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 research from the Center for Countering Digital Hate, 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. 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.