One Article Review
| Source |  Errata Security |
|---|---|
| Identifiant | 438359 |
| Date de publication | 2017-11-22 16:43:08 (vue: 2017-11-22 16:43:08) |
| Titre | NetNeutrality vs. AT&T censoring Pearl Jam |
| Texte | So in response to my anti-netneutrality tweets/blogs, Jose Pagliery asks "what about this?"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, 2017Let's pick the first one. You can read about the details by Googling "AT&T Pearl Jam".First of all, this obviously isn't a Net Neutrality case. The case isn't about AT&T acting as an ISP transiting network traffic. Instead, this was about AT&T being a content provider, through their "Blue Room" subsidiary, whose content traveled across other ISPs. Such things will continue to happen regardless of the most stringent enforcement of NetNeutrality rules, since the FCC doesn't regulate content providers.Second of all, it wasn't AT&T who censored the traffic. It wasn't their Blue Room subsidiary who censored the traffic. It was a third party company they hired to bleep things like swear words and nipple slips. You are blaming AT&T for a decision by a third party that went against AT&T's wishes. It was an accident, not AT&T policy.Thirdly, and this is the funny bit, Tim Wu, the guy who defined the term "net neutrality", recently wrote an op-ed claiming that while ISPs shouldn't censor traffic, that content providers should. In other words, he argues that companies AT&T's Blue Room should censor political content.What activists like ACLU say about NetNeutrality have as little relationship to the truth as Trump's tweets. Both pick "facts" that agree with them only so long as you don't look into them. |
| Envoyé | Oui |
| Condensat | #netneutrality 2017let @dtxergaomnes about accident aclu across acting activists actually against agree all anti are argues asks at&t at&t being bit blaming bleep blue both can case censor censored censoring censorship christian claiming com/6r29dajt44 companies company completely content continue decision defined details doesn don enforcement facts fcc first funny googling guy happen happened have here hired instead isn isp isps jam jose like little long look most net netneutrality network neutrality nipple not november obviously one only other pagliery party pearl pic pick plans policy political provider providers read recently regardless regulate relationship repeal response room rules rules:#savenetneutrality say second should shouldn since slips speech stringent subsidiary such swear term them things third thirdly through tim traffic transiting traveled trump truth tweets tweets/blogs twitter wasn week went what who whose will wishes without words wrote |
| 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.