Net Neutrality Supporters Want to ‘Ban Drudge’

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Net Neutrality Supporters Want to ‘Ban Drudge’
Advocates for 'free and open Internet' picket outside FCC



Alt-left advocates for net neutrality, who say they want a "free and open internet," want to ban the Drudge Report.

Members of the alt-left who have been tied to violent protests in the past picketed outside the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday in protest of Chairman Ajit Pai's proposal to reverse net neutrality rules. The FCC will vote to undue the Obama era Title II rule that classified Internet service providers as utilities, subjecting them to more federal regulation.

Protesters covering their faces held signs that read "Ban Drudge," with a no symbol over the Drudge Report, the highly trafficked news website run by Matt Drudge. Other protesters held signs to ban other news websites, including Breitbart and InfoWars.
 

Bann

Doris Day meets Lady Gaga
PREMO Member
Net Neutrality Supporters Want to ‘Ban Drudge’
Advocates for 'free and open Internet' picket outside FCC



Alt-left advocates for net neutrality, who say they want a "free and open internet," want to ban the Drudge Report.

Members of the alt-left who have been tied to violent protests in the past picketed outside the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday in protest of Chairman Ajit Pai's proposal to reverse net neutrality rules. The FCC will vote to undue the Obama era Title II rule that classified Internet service providers as utilities, subjecting them to more federal regulation.

Protesters covering their faces held signs that read "Ban Drudge," with a no symbol over the Drudge Report, the highly trafficked news website run by Matt Drudge. Other protesters held signs to ban other news websites, including Breitbart and InfoWars.


Well, of course they do! They don't like that people can actually, you know, search the news aggregate news sites for themselves and find out what the "main stream media" won't report.

Ha. Hahahahahahahahah Ha.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
This is profoundly stupid - Drudge is simple a site with links to the rest of the Internet.
It's not as though the Internet doesn't have tons of such places, it's just that Drudge has been careful to keep the web site footprint small so that it loads quickly.

Matt Drudge does almost zero original material.
Take down Drudge, and another takes its place. It won't change anything.

UNLESS they just want to censor *everything*.
 

philibusters

Active Member
This is profoundly stupid - Drudge is simple a site with links to the rest of the Internet.
It's not as though the Internet doesn't have tons of such places, it's just that Drudge has been careful to keep the web site footprint small so that it loads quickly.

Matt Drudge does almost zero original material.
Take down Drudge, and another takes its place. It won't change anything.

UNLESS they just want to censor *everything*.

I cannot tell if the protestors are being dumb or making a point. If they are really just protesting the sites, that is dumb.

However, they might be making a point with the signs.

The point would be that if ISP's can favor some websites over others in allowing them to use more bandwidth, websites that the ISP's don't like could be severely negatively affected by really limiting the bandwidth available to those sites. For example if the Drudge report website was really slow and it took a minute to download a simply page the website would lose a lot of viewers.

The point they would be making to conservatives who tend to oppose net neutrality is that your favorite websites could be at risk if they displease the powers that be (the ISP's).
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I cannot tell if the protestors are being dumb or making a point. If they are really just protesting the sites, that is dumb.

However, they might be making a point with the signs.

The point would be that if ISP's can favor some websites over others in allowing them to use more bandwidth, websites that the ISP's don't like could be severely negatively affected by really limiting the bandwidth available to those sites. For example if the Drudge report website was really slow and it took a minute to download a simply page the website would lose a lot of viewers.

The point they would be making to conservatives who tend to oppose net neutrality is that your favorite websites could be at risk if they displease the powers that be (the ISP's).

:lol:

I suppose that's possible, but it's unlikely that these mouth breathers understand the finer points of allegory. They're thugs, plain and simple. Their only point is on top of their head. They almost surely are advocating for "net neutrality" while demanding censorship.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I cannot tell if the protestors are being dumb or making a point. If they are really just protesting the sites, that is dumb.

One of the reasons I ask questions like - what do you think will be the principle effect of this? Not "what it says it will do".

Simple but true anecdote, first mentioned in The Dilbert Principle - management wants to provide incentives to create bug-free code.
So they issue a decision - bonuses to programmers for every bug they eliminate and document as eliminated.
Such a great idea - now they have a really good reason to seriously scrutinize their code.

What do you THINK happened?

Yes, exactly - programmers began LEAVING - or CREATING - bugs in their programs so they could get paid for removing them later.
The INTENT was good, but the execution was - well - stupid. Any idiot could see what would happen.

There is what net neutrality is intended to do - which I agree with - and what it can or might be construed to do or mean - which I don't.
 

philibusters

Active Member
One of the reasons I ask questions like - what do you think will be the principle effect of this? Not "what it says it will do".

Simple but true anecdote, first mentioned in The Dilbert Principle - management wants to provide incentives to create bug-free code.
So they issue a decision - bonuses to programmers for every bug they eliminate and document as eliminated.
Such a great idea - now they have a really good reason to seriously scrutinize their code.

What do you THINK happened?

Yes, exactly - programmers began LEAVING - or CREATING - bugs in their programs so they could get paid for removing them later.
The INTENT was good, but the execution was - well - stupid. Any idiot could see what would happen.

There is what net neutrality is intended to do - which I agree with - and what it can or might be construed to do or mean - which I don't.

You are not really incentivizing the ISP's to behave in a certain way, you are more telling them what they cannot do. 3 widely cited examples of ISP's discriminating include based on content (taken from Wikipedia) include "when the Internet service provider Comcast was secretly slowing (a.k.a. "throttling") uploads from peer-to-peer file sharing (P2P) applications by using forged packetsComcast didn't stop blocking these protocols like BitTorrent until the FCC ordered them to do so.[7] In 2004, The Madison River Communications company was fined $15,000 by the FCC for restricting their customer’s access to Vonage which was rivaling their own services. [8] AT&T was also caught limiting access to FaceTime, so only those users who paid for the new shared data plans could access the application.

I guess you could argue you are giving websites incentives not to worry about how much bandwidth their sites use. A small increase in quality may be worth a large increase in bandwidth if its not costly for the website. If that becomes a problem that I think there should be a way to address that, but at the moment its not a problem.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
You are not really incentivizing the ISP's to behave in a certain way, you are more telling them what they cannot do.
3 widely cited examples of ISP's discriminating include based on content (taken from Wikipedia) include

yes, and they were dealt with .....

ISPs are NOT like Verizon , AT&T, and Sprint TeleComs.



All I saw on Reddit in the weeks leading up to the Congressional vote was :bawl: my ISP can sell my web surfing habits to advertisers .... something Facebook and Google already do

- but i don't have to use Google or Facebook [even though a majority do] - I have to use an ISP
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
You are not really incentivizing the ISP's to behave in a certain way, you are more telling them what they cannot do. 3 widely cited examples of ISP's discriminating include based on content (taken from Wikipedia) include "when the Internet service provider Comcast was secretly slowing (a.k.a. "throttling") uploads from peer-to-peer file sharing (P2P) applications by using forged packetsComcast didn't stop blocking these protocols like BitTorrent until the FCC ordered them to do so.[7] In 2004, The Madison River Communications company was fined $15,000 by the FCC for restricting their customer’s access to Vonage which was rivaling their own services. [8] AT&T was also caught limiting access to FaceTime, so only those users who paid for the new shared data plans could access the application.

I guess you could argue you are giving websites incentives not to worry about how much bandwidth their sites use. A small increase in quality may be worth a large increase in bandwidth if its not costly for the website. If that becomes a problem that I think there should be a way to address that, but at the moment its not a problem.

I mean - I GET why companies would throttle some of these things - they're cutting into their TV market by exploiting their Internet market.
I think I read somewhere that at any given time, some large percentage of bandwidth in this country - is JUST Netflix.

While I get the fact that they should be *fair* - this would be sort of like making McDonald's tolerate a Chik-Fil-A kiosk inside their building.
 

philibusters

Active Member
yes, and they were dealt with .....

ISPs are NOT like Verizon , AT&T, and Sprint TeleComs.

I think I am misunderstanding your point there. It seems like you are saying Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint are Internet Service Providers, though they clearly are.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
I think I am misunderstanding your point there. It seems like you are saying Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint are Internet Service Providers, though they clearly are.

Verizon and ATT sell internet access for pcs Sprint doees through its smart phones ....... they are NOT the only companies selling internet access

one of the big items of the Obama Era Rule changes was - reclassify ISPS as Telecoms - and use the FCC to manage them with Antiquated Telecom rules and regulations instead of the FTC which has been handling things just fine.
 
Top