DU:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217203708
https://nitter.net/search?f=tweets&q=Is+This+the+Beginning+of+the+End+of+the+Internet%3F
Occasionally, something happens that is so blatantly and obviously misguided that trying to explain it rationally makes you sound ridiculous. Such is the case with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’s recent ruling in NetChoice v. Paxton. Earlier this month, the court upheld a preposterous Texas law stating that online platforms with more than 50 million monthly active users in the United States no longer have First Amendment rights regarding their editorial decisions. Put another way, the law tells big social-media companies that they can’t moderate the content on their platforms. YouTube purging terrorist-recruitment videos? Illegal. Twitter removing a violent cell of neo-Nazis harassing people with death threats? Sorry, that’s censorship, according to Andy Oldham, a judge of the United States Court of Appeals and the former general counsel to Texas Governor Greg Abbott.
A state compelling social-media companies to host all user content without restrictions isn’t merely, as the First Amendment litigation lawyer Ken White put it on Twitter, “the most angrily incoherent First Amendment decision I think I’ve ever read.” It’s also the type of ruling that threatens to blow up the architecture of the internet. To understand why requires some expertise in First Amendment law and content-moderation policy, and a grounding in what makes the internet a truly transformational technology. So I called up some legal and tech-policy experts and asked them to explain the Fifth Circuit ruling—and its consequences—to me as if I were a precocious 5-year-old with a strange interest in jurisprudence.
Techdirt founder Mike Masnick, who has been writing for decades about the intersection of tech policy and civil liberties, told me that the ruling is “fractally wrong”—made up of so many layers of wrongness that, in order to fully comprehend its significance, “you must understand the historical wrongness before the legal wrongness, before you can get to the technical wrongness.” In theory, the ruling means that any state in the Fifth Circuit (such as Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) could “mandate that news organizations must cover certain politicians or certain other content” and even implies that “the state can now compel any speech it wants on private property.” The law would allow both the Texas attorney general and private citizens who do business in Texas to bring suit against the platforms if they feel their content was removed because of a specific viewpoint. Daphne Keller, the director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center, told me that such a law could amount to “a litigation DDoS [Denial of Service] attack, unleashing a wave of potentially frivolous and serious suits against the platforms.”
To give me a sense of just how sweeping and nonsensical the law could be in practice, Masnick suggested that, under the logic of the ruling, it very well could be illegal to update Wikipedia in Texas, because any user attempt to add to a page could be deemed an act of censorship based on the viewpoint of that user (which the law forbids). The same could be true of chat platforms, including iMessage and Reddit, and perhaps also Groomercord, which is built on tens of thousands of private chat rooms run by private moderators. Enforcement at that scale is nearly impossible. This week, to demonstrate the absurdity of the law and stress test possible Texas enforcement, the subreddit /r/PoliticalHumor mandated that every comment in the forum include the phrase “Greg Abbott is a little piss baby” or be deleted. “We realized what a ripe situation this is, so we’re going to flagrantly break this law,” a moderator of the subreddit wrote. “We like this Constitution thing. Seems like it has some good ideas.”
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Going to start prefacing everything I say online with "as a texan"
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
As a Texan
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
As a Texan
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
And make sure to end with
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Dont forget to set your vpn to a texas server
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I don't think it's particularly ridiculous unless you fundamentally reject the idea that viewpoint-biased deplatformings represent a problem that should be addressed by legislation.
You can come up with equally infuriating hypotheticals about people being tossed off of various important parts of the internet for speech that is well within the Overton window.
The Texas legislation probably sucks, but I have very little trust in the usual shitlib journos to actually write on this issue seriously. Their dismissiveness of the Texas legislation is more reflective of the problem that it's trying to solve than a reflection of its underlying weakness.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The same people that are complaining about this ruling are the ones that were mad that Musk could let people on Twitter say that guys have peepees and girls have kitties. Why were they mad? Because they understand that having a platform on the internet can be very powerful (maybe not for one person, but en masse) and they want to have the power to decide who can do it and who can't.
Schroedingers internet: companies can decide who can post what mainstream political opinions, but also it's desperately important that woke people approve those decisions. It's the only thing that matters, and for 99% of people complaining, any other argument is just a fig leaf.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Remember Net Neutrality? People who were pooping their pants over that should not be allowed to have anymore opinions on anything; that applies to most r*dditors.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Whatever happened with net neutrality? I mean pretty clearly the cable companies wanted it but nothing seems to have changed.
I still oppose the change with just how anti-democratic it was.
Follower of Christ
Tech lover, IT Admin, heckin pupper lover and occasionally troll. I hold back feelings or opinions, right or wrong because I dislike conflict.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The cable companies wanted it repealed, and it got repealed. As far as I know, it was never put back into place.
And who cares if it was anti-democratic. As shown by Redditors, they have no clue what policies are good and what policies are bad. Should we also vote on what the federal reserve sets the interest rate at?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
We shouldn’t have a fed at all we should use Bitcoin!
Yeah I’m just not sure what the consequences were, cable companies are shitty as always but I guess Netflix is faster?
Follower of Christ
Tech lover, IT Admin, heckin pupper lover and occasionally troll. I hold back feelings or opinions, right or wrong because I dislike conflict.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
The problem is forcing companies to allow anyone to say anything (that's legally protected by the 1A) on their service. It's like having /pol/ and old /b/ all over the internet, which is good and bad.
If you wanted to push it, you could spam
porn, animated animal gore, and any advertisement on NextDoor, Quora, and so on. It doesn't fit their service, but they'd be required by law not to ban these r-slurs.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Ten years ago there was very little viewpoint-based censorship happening on twitter or reddit, and they weren't /pol/. The large majority of the general public don't post /pol/ content.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Right. All I'm getting at is that forcing companies to allow any content will surely allow the most deranged and r-slurred of shit that'll scare away the userbase. Just like ruqqus. It doesn't have to be /pol/ content per se.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The law doesn't force companies to allow everything, a good federal viewpoint-neutrality law would simply force large discourse platforms to allow the same things for everyone, independent of their position on an ideological landscape. e.g. if you allow one faction to call for murder, you have to allow the same for everyone. but it's probably easier to just not let anyone call for murder.
But let's talk about what would happen if companies were actually forced to allow everything that's within the legal boundaries: that's pretty much how large parts of the internet were moderated until ~2012!
That didn't happen in 2010. Why not?
And it wouldn't happen now. Look up old twitter archives: users for the most part weren't bothered by e.g. n-slur or c-slur usage. Social activists were bothered, or were pretending to be bothered to gain power. And advertisers were bothered, but maybe the activists also had something to do with that...
Before they got banned they constituted 0.1% of reddit's user base, and caused only minor annoyance for normal users. Just block or simply ignore.
On ruqqus they constituted 40% of the userbase. And at that point a site becomes unusable for normal users, so eventually the crazies are the only ones left. If you fear that's what will happen to twitter or reddit, if jannies have to reduce their activity to 2010 levels, explain where all those crazies would come from. They don't have the numbers.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Mommy is soooo proud of you, sweaty. Let's put this sperg out up on the fridge with all your other failures.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Btw if you would care to notice generational IQ collapse and social cohesion collapse seems to have sped up right after the 2012 censorship where everybody started communicating like a friendly TV show neighbor instead of real people.
That's what being plugged into the system which is controlled by moralists looks like. For better or worse we require free thinking at a far higher degree than what post 2012 internet permits for full human development.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
It's a different user base now, so things will be different. The consequences will hold, and this law is arbitrary, so it's a pipe dream assuming government will somehow make sure that nothing political will be unfairly suppressed.
Yes, shit will turn into ruqqus and unironic Nazi r-sluration since the law would protect them from being banned by companies whose users don't want that shit.
Things are the way they because most people like it this way. How do you not understand that? Reddit, Facebook, and whatever are the way they are because of how they are moderated. This law would disrupt that, so they will change.
Even on a small site like rdrama, they have numerous ways of dealing with those r-slurs so that it doesn't get flooded with them. It doesn't require a majority, but just enough to poison the whole place. Do you even understand why moderators exist? This is absurd.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
jfc this is moronic.
100 nazis can ruin a site that only has 1000 users.
100 nazis cannot even make a dent in a site with 1000000 users.
the fact that 100 nazis were banned from reddit and subsequently are pooping up every tiny attempt at a reddit clone with 1000 users DOES NOT imply that if reddit hadn't banned the 100 nazis they would magically have multiplied to become 100000 nazis.
are you trolling?
no. not "even" on small sites. only on small sites.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's not the only problem, but go off, king. Keep being naive about laws that dictate how companies run their business.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
no u
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
that's bullshit. IRL everyone who posts online is complaining about online censorship when the topic comes up, even women who only post photos of their pets.
Nobody likes the censorship*. They accept it, because they have no other option, and no way to change it. They certainly don't like it.
(* except the activists of course.)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Take a break from the cultural wars.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
It's 2022, please learn to curate your own feed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Reddit and Facebook reached their current heights befit they started banning anyone to the right of Romney, though
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
If all of internet is like this, they'll have to make do or even better
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Who cares how many people there are?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
i’m pretty sure it’s just to prevent social media companies having bias against a certain political group (shadowbanning, permanent suspensions, deleting posts that didn’t break rules). twitter does all of these things. twitter is actually pro free speech- only for leftists though. they dox on twitter and don’t get banned, threaten politicians, commit crimes etc.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If so, then this law will not work favorable for anyone in the long run, given how arbitrary the word "bias" is.
If they had an appeals courts for bans, which would consider the company's terms of service, that would be interesting, but I don't trust government with this responsibility. It's not like they hold themselves accountable:
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
so there’s a possibility that twitter falls apart from the inside due to this law? not complaining cause it would be funny
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
You do realise that you're still allowed terms of service, right? "No porn", "no violent rhetoric" and "no racist remarks" all still stand. The change the laws make is that, once you're above 50 million users, you could no longer selectively enforce ToS to suppress specific political groups, or rig your algorithm to bury politically damaging stories. Once a site is of that size the far right will never amount to a significant proportion of the userbase. The current problem is platforms like Twitter interfering with politics by secretly promoting one side while giving zero tolerance to the other.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If you don't recognize the arbitrariness of anti-hate speech laws, then you're not going to see how much a law against "political biasedness" will backfire.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The current state of things is already pretty bad. The definition of "hate speech" has increasingly slid towards outright banning even moderate right-leaning views. I'd say that the current, shamelessly partisan systems can't really be made worse with such regulation.
It should not be difficult to say "hey, if you want immunity from responsibility for user content then you can't secretly remove stories which damage one political candidate". It feels silly to have to say it because it should be so obvious.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
okay and? why does "not allowing content to be posted" interfere with your ability to do politics? i mean rightoids made their own twitter and its plenty popular
and rightoids are still pretty prominent on twitter too so idk what you're saying
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Lol, remember when Parler was taking off and the rest of big tech conspired to kill it?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
parler's still around
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Lmaoo an unironic pro-censorship and “make your own internet chuds!” comment
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
or just use the same one everyone else is? like rightoids are still on twitter mate
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No, they've all been banned
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Good. Normies need to get the frick off the internet.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Agreed, it's better for them and us.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I don't think the Texas law intends to do this.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
thankfully laws are always about what they're intended to be and there's no way to abuse ineptly wording a law
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Well, what in the Texas legislation makes you think that it can be used to prevent any sort of moderation whatsoever? Because someone could hypothetically sue over something stupid? That can happen regardless.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
the part where you can sue for viewpoint discrimination when you have idiots with any number of dumb viewpoints including "i should be allowed to spam porn wherever i want"
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They'll sue and it'll get dismissed, like any other dumb schizo lawsuit. Viewpoint neutrality isn't a new concept.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
why would it be dismissed? it's a viewpoint
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
"I should be allowed to shit in the street" is a viewpoint. Actually going and pooping in the street is not a viewpoint and stopping people from doing it does not violate viewpoint neutrality. Again, these are established legal concepts.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
There's been precedent for obscenity laws forever despite the appearantly difficulty they mostly do what they are intended to do. Just a new instance of the art VS pornography distinction.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
From what I recall, companies can't curate their content, for example by deplatforming people. If that's not the case, then the law doesn't do anything, assuming companies are allowed to moderate their users and enforce their own rules regarding content.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I don't know the actual law but it seems pretty simple to create a law that just bans viewpoint discrimination.
I mean, there will always be blurry lines but no one is going to get anywhere arguing that banning them from goreposting constitutes viewpoint discrimination.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Okay. Have fun dealing with Holocaust deniers and "I want to gas the Jews" throughout any major platform. Should be great for the rest of the users to constantly bump into that. They visit certain places because they aren't shitholes. Why? Because of moderation. But good thing government is forcing that shit onto companies and their users. What naive power-tripping bullshit is this?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Just keep the block function and block lists. Opting into a walled garden is fine, it's the instinct to attempt to prevent other people from seeing things you don't like which is the problem.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Preferable to hugboxes and "disagreeing with me will get you banned for hate speech" powerjannies.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
I don't think they have 50 million users
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
it shouldn't be addressed by legislation and to think so it pretty ridiculous in of itself
the people saying this is good are just coping and it's definitely probably gonna be a leopards ate my face type scenario
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The only reason why we have any freedom of speech on the internet, even to have this conversation right now, is because the people who originally built the internet believed in that and we got used to it. It was never built on anything more than an expectation that we all shared certain values. But it's not the 1990s anymore. There's an element of our society that unironically wants to deplatform anyone who even says words like "free speech" or "due process" and they have the money and power to do it if we let them. You'd have to be a really extreme libertarian to say that the people can't resist the upper classes imposing this on us.
JC bb you know I love you to death, but I'm not gonna let 2500 years of human progress going back to Cyrus the Great to be destroyed overnight because some zoomers feel uncomfortable about words they saw on their phones.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
problem is and i haven't read the law but it seems universally stupid, viewpoint discrimination is so vague as to not be worth anything. imagine if you were just trying to shitpost about trains or something and someone starts spamming their shit about the holocaust or pedophilia or shit
in any sane world jannies could clean it up or whatever or tell them to piss off and go back to stormfront where they belong but from what i've heard and i'm not a lawyer nor gonna pretend to be but it sounds like you wouldn't be able to ban them or remove their shit
love you too
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's not what the law says, it's aimed at the current underhanded methods of manipulating content, such as the site rules only mattering if you're right-leaning.
On top of that, the idea that once you're at 50 million users you're basically a public utility and shouldn't be cutting people off anyway isn't all that unreasonable. It's not like 10 Nazis pose a serious threat to such a site. The reality is that these sites are exploting their position to manipulate politics, and without firm regulation the internet is pretty much already dead. Just look at how heavily astroturfed and manipulated Reddit has become in just a few years.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
removing a post or banning a user isn't underhanded lol
it's just a good idea
in what way is a social media site a public utility
this would just make sites like Reddit even more astroturfed if you can't ban
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
trolling drama users lmao.
you had me for a second there
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
not a troll
banning boring idiots and removing boring and bad posts is an unironically good thing
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
wtf so you keep r-slurredly missing the point by accident?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Democracycels fear the dictatorshipchad
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
The idea that you actually have to state the rules in the ToS, rather than arbitrarily removing whatever you fancy, really isn't unreasonable.
Remember that these rules only apply if the site advertises itself as an open public space. If Reddit wants to put "no right wingers" in it's terms, they're free to do that. However, the bottom line is that right now these sites are claiming immunity from any responsibility for their content under the notion that they're a public platform that they exert no editorial control over. You can't have your cake and eat it. If you want common carrier protections you can't pick and choose - you could say the same about phone networks. Fortunately they never started refusing to let people call donation lines for specific parties.
How so? I'm genuinely curious how preventing all the bullshit sub bans would actually have changed this.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
wouldn't a "we can remove anything we see fit for any reason or even no reason at all" like every site already has in their terms of service basically get around that then? it'd make it functionally useless.
see above.
yes you can, that's how the federal law is. that's kinda the point of section 230, and it's really the only way it could reasonably work.
don't know where "sub gets banned = astroturfing" but if you couldn't remove shit, anyone would be able to manipulate their viewpoint or whatever. it'd make astroturfing much more commonplace since no one could moderate it
so it's either a complete nothingburger or completely idiotic. either way, it's dumb
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Definitely, which is why they included a bit about ToS having to actually make clear what is and isn't allowed.
At this point I'm not sure if you're deliberately missing the point here, but I've got better things to do today.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Yeah, I'm not at all defending this particular law. Like everything from Texas, I'm sure it's r-slurred. I'm just saying that in principle the government is supposed to protect us from a few oligarchs running Google, Facebook, and Amazon from taking over complete control of public infrastructure. And there's nothing wrong with American citizens fighting for their civil rights.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Honestly, the majority of people seem complicit in this demand for censorship. Its why so many people congregate around social media companies who curate their content for their particular user. It's not "upper classes." It's demand-driven by normal people.
It's what happens when more and more of the average person get access to the internet. It's partly why the US has a first amendment, not just to prevent government from suppressing free speech but also to prevent the majority of voters from electing officials who would terrorize the rest of the populace. Democracy is dangerously r-slurred because everyone gets to vote.
Perhaps freedom of speech should be enshrined as a protected class, but then again if you can't fire the waiter who screams, "I hate BIPOCs!," then the restaurant will surely close. There doesn't seem to be any good way of dealing with this.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
The law is blatantly unconstitutional. The government can’t just ban something just because you don’t like it. Corporations have a 1st and 13th amendment right to express themselves by deciding what content they want on their platform.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I think the obvious attempt to ban rightoids from the internet is going to get pretty ugly if there isn't some sort of legislative remedy.
Rightoids have been saying this about the leftoid / corporate alliance for a while but it hasn't backfired on them yet. They're panicking now because they see where things are headed, and they need the bigger peepee of government to slap the smaller peepee of woke corporations engaging in censorship.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Like moths to the flame.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Janny moment
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Yeah, I'm sure they're earnestly trying to save those hateful stupid rednecks who deserve everything that happens to them (but not this! this is too much!)
Rule of thumb is, if your enemies are seething you're probably doing everything right.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Ive been talking about this for over a year. Look up the term "cyber-pandemic"
Same game plan as Covid, artificial virus released in order to lockdown, except instead of physical lockdowns it will be a virtual one. How exactly that will play out is up for debate. I think they are aiming towards an non anonymous internet. Like internet access will require ID at a certain point, same way you will be required (and briefly were required) to show your vaccinated status in public spaces. This will all be rolled into one system eventually for access to public spaces and online ones
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Did you forget to take your schizo pills?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It makes sense, name anything else you can anonymously do anymore.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
you can post here
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Name another website besides this one that you can use in 2022 without providing a phone number.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
twitter and reddit, for however dumb they are, don't require phone numbers
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Twitter does. I tried setting up an account last year just to follow a few actual serious journ*lists but I can't without giving up my identity.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
it doesn't for me. you could just click use email instead when i signed up
although like the reddit sign up it is a bit of a dark pattern tbf
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
You can buy a phone number with cryptocurrency: crypton.sh
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
or get one for free with google voice
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
yes
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I regret to inform you, but google knows more about you than yourself. I highly doubt a Google voice phone number is anything close to anonymous
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
you're anon to the website you're signing up for or whatever
google already knows about you anyway so who gives a shit
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
You can buy a burner phone with cash for like 30 bucks.
Yeah, enough investigative work can probably trace it to you, but it’s beyond the realm of possibility for like just making funny posts to troll people/make them laugh.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
You disagree with anything I said? How can you not see how the wind is blowing
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You're rambling on about conspiracies over internet viruses and the unironic belief that people are going to have to show id to every website they visit lol. Just because the internet is less anonymous than before doesn't mean that your delusions are any more realistic.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's all pretty logical Im not sure where you are getting lost. The approach they took towards covid will be similar with the upcoming "cyber pandemic"
I didnt coin this term it's already been thought of. If the internet is getting less anonymous as you just stated then it likely will get less so as time moves on. Correct?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Hahahaha. We have a Nostradamus here. Things trending in a certain direction does not mean that they will ramp up so much that your smooth brained conspiracy theories are going to happen.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
When it happens, I hope you're banned from the Internet, you fricking nerd.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
These aren't my theories, they have already been written about by people like Schwab. It's not like I'm coming up with this out of the blue
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
What's your point anyway? You know, predictions are just fart-huffing if you don't use this knowledge in any way but doomposting.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Speak for yourself, Im making my own ISP
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Are you making it or are you mostly going around telling people you're making it?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Dont worry about it
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
If the US government either repeals or enacts legislation that completely undermines the 1st Amendment, then they may enforce your draconian nightmare scenario (absent of many other hurdles like public backlash, politicians, etc.).
Still, they have the NSA and other agencies tapping into internet traffic, so they can track people sufficiently enough while staying in the gray area. They would rather operate in the "gray area" with its FISA courts and unbridled monitoring because it's politically easier than messing with the constitution. Since that's the case, I don't see why they'd push for "internet ID" cards and deal with all the hurdles to get there.
One major canary in the coal mine is government requiring backdoor keys to any kind of encryption, and that's basically where we're at.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Don't they already have them?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
it’s not possible to completely ban internet communication. just the Internet would be on lockdown
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context