

The FCC's Plan to Censor the Internet - mike_organon
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=22121

======
makecheck
The provider of a free service has a right to dictate the terms of use.
_However_ , a government service is NOT free, it is paid for with taxes. And
last I checked, producers of content that the FCC deems inappropriate are
paying the same taxes as everyone else. (And increasingly in this YouTube
generation, that could be almost anyone.)

Filtering is a CLIENT SIDE operation. The FCC isn't doing anything useful
specifying what content is filterable. If the government wants to be useful,
they can publish a list of recommended web browsers that allow _user_
-specified filtering, e.g. through a list of URL patterns.

The approach of filtering the entire Internet service is of course overkill.
It would be like using police to barricade the public roads that lead to an
adult film store. The road is yours, paid with your taxes; whether or not you
enter the shop is up to you, part of your own, personal filter.

------
tedshroyer
"Since no ISP can compete with free, omnipresent Internet access, this plan
means that virtually all online users will be herded into the government-
controlled Internet. And as the history of radio and television has shown,
once the government guarantees ‘free’ access to a communications medium, ..."

I don't think his assertion is accurate given the number of DirectTV and cable
users. There's a market for XM and SIRIUS as well. I think this shows that
people pay for things that are better.

------
grouchyOldGuy
I don't agree with the assertion that all Americans (or even "most") will move
to free Wi-Fi and drop their current paid access. Wi-Fi is a shared medium,
and the more users on it, the worse the performance. What good is free if it's
unuseable? IF this comes to pass, I may try the free access, but you can bet
I'll still keep my DSL account.

~~~
mattmaroon
Me neither. I've seen the free Wi-Fi in Mountainview, it was enough to
convince me that while it may cause some people to cancel their tethering or
EVDO cards, that's about it.

------
mindslight
I hope the FCC _does_ take this lead in trying to censor the net, ahead of
requiring all the "private" carriers to do so. Government attempts for
increased control have to come sometime, and I'd rather have that happen on a
single network so that the workarounds are developed before the majority of
people are affected.

~~~
tdavis
Uh... why should anyone be allowed, much less required, to censor the net?

~~~
mindslight
The net threatens the status quo, so the status quo will attempt to control
the net. Stronger attempts to put the net.genie back in the bottle _are_
coming.

I most certainly agree that the net should not be censored, but stopping
censorship will not happen through democratic means - the herd is easily
panicked with tales of child abuse, terrorism, organized crime, etc.

The control will be defeated through _technical_ means - pervasive encryption
seamlessly integrated into every day applications, such that filtering "bad
stuff" from "normal usage" is impossible.

All I'm saying is that I'd like to see one ISP blaze the trail of total
control (and thus become the technical battleground) instead of all of them at
once.

~~~
tdavis
Ah, so you'd rather have one established technology to circumvent than
numerous being worked on in parallel. Gotcha.

I will stick with my irrational assumption that the Internet at large is safe
from this shit, at least until I'm too old to care ;)

~~~
mindslight
More like I'd rather have a sandbox that gives an advance look at what's
coming to the rest of the net.

My assumption is only slightly weaker - the long term internet is fine as
privacy technology will outpace politics, but there will be turmoil as they
battle.

~~~
mike_organon
You make an interesting point, analogous to building an immune system slowly
from small diseases, so one big disease can't kill you or an entire
population. Similarly, small-time malware over the years has made us stronger
against major internet attacks by governments or mafias. However, it's a risky
path - from what I've read China's firewall has enough holes for business to
get by with annoyances, but it is very effective at keeping most people from
learning what they shouldn't.

------
youngnh
I'm as against censorship as the next guy, but the government is filtering
_content_ , they're not taking protocols away from us. Worst case, the
government gets the backbone. Wasn't this scenario the design target of the
original ARPAnet? Network survivability in the face of massive topography
holes?

------
vaksel
Its funny, all these right-wingers who bitch and moan about how big government
is bad and needs to get eliminated, then turn around and want the government
to step in to control everything in our society.

~~~
jordanf
Um, what?

------
jwesley
I refused to clickthrough to this link after noticing it's a page from
AynRand.org. Most overrated writer of all time. Back to the gold standard!
Free market rules all!

~~~
MrRage
First off, Ayn Rand is dead. She didn't write the article. Second, this is
basically an ad hominem argument. I agree Ayn Rand was overrated, but that
doesn't mean that this article has some truth to it, despite coming from an
objectivist.

