One Article Review
| Source |  Errata Security |
|---|---|
| Identifiant | 438358 |
| Date de publication | 2017-11-22 16:51:22 (vue: 2017-11-22 16:51:22) |
| Titre | NetNeutrality vs. Verizon censoring Naral |
| Texte | In response to my anti-NetNeutrality blogs/tweets, people ask what about this? In this post, I address the second question.The FCC plans to completely repeal #NetNeutrality this week. Here's the censorship of speech that actually happened without Net Neutrality rules:#SaveNetNeutrality pic.twitter.com/6R29dajt44- Christian J. (@dtxErgaOmnes) November 22, 2017Firstly, it's not a NetNeutrality issue (which applies only to the Internet), but an issue with text-messages. In other words, it's something that will continue to happen even with NetNeutrality rules. People relate this to NetNeutrality as an analogy, not because it actually is such an issue.Secondly, it's an edge/content issue, not a transit issue. The details in this case is that Verizon provides a program for sending bulk messages to its customers from the edge of the network. Verizon isn't censoring text messages in transit, but from the edge. You can send a text message to your friend on the Verizon network, and it won't be censored. Thus the analogy is incorrect -- the correct analogy would be with content providers like Twitter and Facebook, not ISPs like Comcast.Like all cell phone vendors, Verizon polices this content, canceling accounts that abuse the system, like spammers. We all agree such censorship is a good thing, and that such censorship of content providers is not remotely a NetNeutrality issue. Content providers do this not because they disapprove of the content of spam such much as the distaste their customers have for spam.Content providers that are political, rather than neutral to politics is indeed worrisome. It's not a NetNeutrality issue per se, but it is a general "neutrality" issue. We free-speech activists want all content providers (Twitter, Facebook, Verizon mass-texting programs) to be free of political censorship -- though we don't want government to mandate such neutrality.But even here, Verizon may be off the hook. They appear not be to be censoring one political view over another, but the controversial/unsavory way Naral expresses its views. Presumably, Verizon would be okay with less controversial political content.In other words, as Verizon expresses it's principles, it wants to block content that drivers away customers, but is otherwise neutral to the content. While this may unfairly target controversial political content, it's at least basically neutral.So in conclusion, while activists portray this as a NetNeutrality issue, it isn't. It's not even close. |
| Envoyé | Oui |
| Condensat | #netneutrality 2017firstly @dtxergaomnes about abuse accounts activists actually address agree all analogy analogy is another anti appear applies are ask away basically because block blogs/tweets bulk but can canceling case cell censored censoring censorship christian close com/6r29dajt44 comcast completely conclusion content continue controversial controversial/unsavory correct customers details disapprove distaste don drivers edge edge/content even expresses facebook fcc free friend from general good government happen happened have here hook incorrect indeed internet isn isps issue its least less like mandate mass may message messages much naral net netneutrality network neutral neutrality not november off okay one only other otherwise over people per phone pic plans polices political politics portray post presumably principles program programs providers provides question rather relate remotely repeal response rules rules:#savenetneutrality second secondly send sending something spam spammers speech such system target text texting than thing though thus transit twitter unfairly vendors verizon view views want wants way week what which will without won words worrisome would your |
| Tags | |
| Stories | |
| Notes | |
| Move | 
|
L'article ne semble pas avoir été repris aprés sa publication.
L'article ne semble pas avoir été repris sur un précédent.