Internet Anonymity: Do we deserve it?

[sizzld1]

The most remarkable thing about this topic is how little conservatives cared about net neutrality. Now all of a sudden the internet is a "public space," a "natural right," a place where our rights must not be infringed, etc.

 

[manbearpig]

The most remarkable thing about this topic is how little conservatives cared about net neutrality. Now all of a sudden the internet is a "public space," a "natural right," a place where our rights must not be infringed, etc.

Excellent point.

 

[Ifallalot]

Not even close.

But then again you also think there’s no difference in the age of the internet and pre internet so you have no interest in understanding this; as simple as it is.

There's obviously a difference, but when it comes to rights everything needs to be boiled down to the most basic and common denominator. Otherwise, our rights get legislated away

Time and technology does not change natural rights

The internet isn’t public, parts of it are. I don’t even consider a forum like twitter to be public in the same sense as in person. Remember by valuing it as a public forum your essentially giving twitter, a private company, control over your first amendment. I think it overvalued it in a dangerous way. I’m fine with that outlet being moderated and in many ways it should. If you want to go off the rails stupid that’s what 8chan is for.

Twitter can do what it wants with content, so can the Chans. It is up to the owners of the forum. What we don't need is people screeching at said forums what they should and shouldn't do

 

[Ifallalot]

The most remarkable thing about this topic is how little conservatives cared about net neutrality. Now all of a sudden the internet is a "public space," a "natural right," a place where our rights must not be infringed, etc.

This just shows me you don't know what the net neutrality debate is actually about.

 

[sizzld1]

Ok ifall....

net neu·tral·i·ty
noun
the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.

That would undoubtedly include particular viewpoints as well.

 

[Ifallalot]

Ok ifall....

net neu·tral·i·ty
noun
the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.

That would undoubtedly include particular viewpoints as well.

Let me guess, a definition from Google?

The debate is about bandwidth. Even the definition was conveniently changed so the huge companies like Google, Netflix, Amazon, et al could get the population on their size so they wouldn't have to pay ISPs more for all of the bandwidth they use. The Internet was fine before the initial law, and it has been fine since the repeal.

Think of an ISP like a toll road. If the road owner wants to charge higher tolls on semis due to the space they take up and the extra maintenance they require, than it absolutely should be able to

 

[sizzld1]

Ok ifall....

net neu·tral·i·ty
noun
the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.

That would undoubtedly include particular viewpoints as well.

Let me guess, a definition from Google?

The debate is about bandwidth. Even the definition was conveniently changed so the huge companies like Google, Netflix, Amazon, et al could get the population on their size so they wouldn't have to pay ISPs more for all of the bandwidth they use. The Internet was fine before the initial law, and it has been fine since the repeal.

Think of an ISP like a toll road. If the road owner wants to charge higher tolls on semis due to the space they take up and the extra maintenance they require, than it absolutely should be able to

Same thing for blocking certain viewpoints they disagree with, cutting bandwidth to communities of "deplorables", etc. Not a great idea if you really believe what you've been saying in this thread.

 

[manbearpig]

Not even close.

But then again you also think there’s no difference in the age of the internet and pre internet so you have no interest in understanding this; as simple as it is.

There's obviously a difference, but when it comes to rights everything needs to be boiled down to the most basic and common denominator. Otherwise, our rights get legislated away

Time and technology does not change natural rights

The internet isn’t public, parts of it are. I don’t even consider a forum like twitter to be public in the same sense as in person. Remember by valuing it as a public forum your essentially giving twitter, a private company, control over your first amendment. I think it overvalued it in a dangerous way. I’m fine with that outlet being moderated and in many ways it should. If you want to go off the rails stupid that’s what 8chan is for.

Twitter can do what it wants with content, so can the Chans. It is up to the owners of the forum. What we don't need is people screeching at said forums what they should and shouldn't do

So essentially we’re saying the same thing, though you don’t convey that very well in previous posts. But it’s also your ilk that’s screeches what these websites can and can’t do. Usually much louder than the left.

Also, What’s wrong with a definition from google?

 

[sizzld1]

The only problem with the Google definition - which is consistent with every other definition you will find - is that facts aren't that fun when they don't fit your viewpoint.

 

[StuAzole]

Not even close.

But then again you also think there’s no difference in the age of the internet and pre internet so you have no interest in understanding this; as simple as it is.

There's obviously a difference, but when it comes to rights everything needs to be boiled down to the most basic and common denominator. Otherwise, our rights get legislated away

Time and technology does not change natural rights

The internet isn’t public, parts of it are. I don’t even consider a forum like twitter to be public in the same sense as in person. Remember by valuing it as a public forum your essentially giving twitter, a private company, control over your first amendment. I think it overvalued it in a dangerous way. I’m fine with that outlet being moderated and in many ways it should. If you want to go off the rails stupid that’s what 8chan is for.

Twitter can do what it wants with content, so can the Chans. It is up to the owners of the forum. What we don't need is people screeching at said forums what they should and shouldn't do

Why, isn't that what "free market" is all about?

PS - there is no real anonymity on the interweb anyway. Ask the 17 year old kid they just arrested for his threats on 4Chan against the school in Charlottesville.

 

[FecalFace]

Also, What’s wrong with a definition from google?

Haven't you heard?

Google is a part of left wing conspiracy cabal that filters through only factual search results.

Google algorithm is racist against Proud Bois.

 

[Ifallalot]

Also, What’s wrong with a definition from google?

Haven't you heard?

Google is a part of left wing conspiracy cabal that filters through only factual search results.

Google algorithm is racist against Proud Bois.

If you don't realize Google curates EVERYTHING you're even more naive than I thought.

 

[manbearpig]

Dude take of the tin foil hat.

You sound like Bohter.

 

[FecalFace]

Also, What’s wrong with a definition from google?

Haven't you heard?

Google is a part of left wing conspiracy cabal that filters through only factual search results.

Google algorithm is racist against Proud Bois.

If you don't realize Google curates EVERYTHING you're even more naive than I thought.

Search results are not "curated" with political bias in any shape or form dumbass.

I love the fact that everything that doesn't agree with your neo-fash narrative is rigged.

Truth is, facts don't favor your views.

That's why you people think that ALL media is evil and fake and some conspiracy guy with a YouTube channel/podcast and a banned Twitter account (SENSORSHUP) is the only one who speaketh the truth.