Internet Service Providers as a Public Utility for Free Speech

originally posted by: Wildmanimal
As usual, private tech moves faster
than the folks in Congress can grapple with.
The fact of the matter is, ISP connection is
a new form of Public Utility and has been for decades.

That fact was lobbied away years ago in the
early stages Late 1980's to early 1990's.
By the mid 1990's it was a full blown free for all.
So, where are we now?

I will tell you exactly where we are.
We are in a situation where a few technocrats
are attempting to stifle and herd free speech and mold the
mentality and direction of peoples individuality,
ingenuity,innovation,ideas, thoughts,words, and
opinions into some narrow ravine that leads off
the edge of a cliff into their wallet.

The concept of ISP as a Public Utility subject to
U.S. Constitutional Law would guarantee that all
Website platforms as Riders would be beholden to uphold
the rights of Free Speech. There is an outrageous
excuse by Monopolies that they are "Private" companies
while at the same time enjoying taxpayer benefits and
subsidies.

Yet these very "private companies" choose to censor,
block,delete,defund,shadow ban, at their own discretion.
Here lies the loophole, and subsequently the target.
If measures are not taken to service this target,
The Freedom loving people of Humanity will find
themselves living a "Virtual Totalitarian Prison".

The term "Hate Speech" for example is a just a guise
for Censorship and Control.
For instance, you can call me every name in the book
and I my not like it, and your words may be untrue...
but You have every right to say them.
Some people are just rude. Fact of life.

Has the Supreme Court made a ruling on "Hate Speech"?
It is a rather subjective term. Re evaluation is in order.
So, today, I am the jerk,idiot, a hole,bigot,racist.
But then after I am censored they will need a new target.
Eventually,that target will be their apparatchiks and useful idiots.

You see, everyone in the herd mentality is all for it,
until the "enemy" is gone. Because then they are "wasteful consumers"
who need to be eliminated.

Bottom Line here is that these "Social Media",Search Engine" platforms
have run over you like they cut down the Amazon.
That is why one of these companies is called Amazon
instead of what they really are. Crooked Dick.
It is right on the Logo in your stupid face.

So this needs to be attended to.
The alternatives are bleak.
Such as the above aforementioned.
Otherwise, the cell phones will have to be
shut down for a while.
ATS may not be alone in the dark
after all.

The solution would be a socialist one. Have the gov own all the lines and lease them back to the service providers.

a reply to: Wildmanimal

Thank you. When you log back in, check your PM's.

a reply to: Wildmanimal

Hold on to your hat!

Funny thing for you to say. We all know what happened the last time Slim Pickens held onto his. Whoop whoop ya hoooooooo.

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

originally posted by: Wildmanimal
As usual, private tech moves faster
than the folks in Congress can grapple with.
The fact of the matter is, ISP connection is
a new form of Public Utility and has been for decades.

That fact was lobbied away years ago in the
early stages Late 1980's to early 1990's.
By the mid 1990's it was a full blown free for all.
So, where are we now?

I will tell you exactly where we are.
We are in a situation where a few technocrats
are attempting to stifle and herd free speech and mold the
mentality and direction of peoples individuality,
ingenuity,innovation,ideas, thoughts,words, and
opinions into some narrow ravine that leads off
the edge of a cliff into their wallet.

The concept of ISP as a Public Utility subject to
U.S. Constitutional Law would guarantee that all
Website platforms as Riders would be beholden to uphold
the rights of Free Speech. There is an outrageous
excuse by Monopolies that they are "Private" companies
while at the same time enjoying taxpayer benefits and
subsidies.

Yet these very "private companies" choose to censor,
block,delete,defund,shadow ban, at their own discretion.
Here lies the loophole, and subsequently the target.
If measures are not taken to service this target,
The Freedom loving people of Humanity will find
themselves living a "Virtual Totalitarian Prison".

The term "Hate Speech" for example is a just a guise
for Censorship and Control.
For instance, you can call me every name in the book
and I my not like it, and your words may be untrue...
but You have every right to say them.
Some people are just rude. Fact of life.

Has the Supreme Court made a ruling on "Hate Speech"?
It is a rather subjective term. Re evaluation is in order.
So, today, I am the jerk,idiot, a hole,bigot,racist.
But then after I am censored they will need a new target.
Eventually,that target will be their apparatchiks and useful idiots.

You see, everyone in the herd mentality is all for it,
until the "enemy" is gone. Because then they are "wasteful consumers"
who need to be eliminated.

Bottom Line here is that these "Social Media",Search Engine" platforms
have run over you like they cut down the Amazon.
That is why one of these companies is called Amazon
instead of what they really are. Crooked Dick.
It is right on the Logo in your stupid face.

So this needs to be attended to.
The alternatives are bleak.
Such as the above aforementioned.
Otherwise, the cell phones will have to be
shut down for a while.
ATS may not be alone in the dark
after all.

The solution would be a socialist one. Have the gov own all the lines and lease them back to the service providers.

And that's exactly what the GOP and the neocons want. Total control of information and media with a new government agency to over see and control private companies. Might as well rip up the constitution and get it over with!

The way I see it is that it isn't the ISPs you have to worry about except insofar as cost is involved There's an equity issue there. But Verizon is not the one stifling your thoughts: It ls Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Google, and the MSM that is telling us what and how to think. It is THOSE companies who are imposing their Groupthink upon us, telling us we are racist if we don't agree with them and constantly pushing their agendas on the rest of us.

originally posted by: Wildmanimal
This would apply to any foreign sites riding on
U.S. I.S.P's as well.

How? Sites cannot control where they are seen, so how could they be subject to something they are not responsible for?

ISPs only move traffic.

That's it.

When I spend n number of hours building an application, x dollars hosting said application, not you, your grandmother or your sister is entitled to access MY intellectual property.

Your ISP can route you to my box, and its my right, being the owner and all, to turn ya ass right back around.

Deal. With. It.

a reply to: schuyler

My point exactly.
If the good old ISP's
were registered as Public Utilities,
then all sites riding on the platform
would have to abide by The Constitutional
Rights of The United States of America.
We would ALL have a level playing field.

a reply to: ArMaP

Very Sly of you.
If it was important to sites
to excuse themselves from where
they are seen, why would they
practice Banning,Censorship,
Shadowbanning,defunding at all?
Do not insult my intelligence.

a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

Ha, the solution would
be a socialist one?

Like it is headed now? Control?

How about a free speech solution.
If you do not like what you are reading,
turn the page.

originally posted by: schuyler
The way I see it is that it isn't the ISPs you have to worry about except insofar as cost is involved There's an equity issue there. But Verizon is not the one stifling your thoughts: It ls Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Google, and the MSM that is telling us what and how to think. It is THOSE companies who are imposing their Groupthink upon us, telling us we are racist if we don't agree with them and constantly pushing their agendas on the rest of us.

There are 3 industries and 3 levels of tech censoring you have to worry about,

1. Content censoring: Tech companies like facebook,twitter,etc that censor content and promote group herding to fit their narrative.

2. Monetary controlled censorship: ad companies that are demonitizing ad revenue for sites that allow free speech with comments like ats.

3. Access censorship: The isp and biggest issue. After repealing net neutrality the isp have the right to determine what sites you have access to.

Make no mistake BOTH party are working together to make the internet a controlled media like radio,tv,and paper were. They need those 3 things to do it and they got it.

The pain hasnt been delivered yet because the people would revolt since the change would be to drastic . They have to do it slowly so you barely notice it and when you do its to late.

originally posted by: Wildmanimal
a reply to: ArMaP

Very Sly of you.

Not really. In fact, it's interesting that you got that interpretation of my post.

If it was important to sites
to excuse themselves from where
they are seen, why would they
practice Banning,Censorship,
Shadowbanning,defunding at all?

You are not seeing things from the "how things are done" point of view, so you are following a wrong idea.

Site owners can only control where their sites are hosted, and that controls the law they are under. That's why ATS' Terms and Conditions of Use (that I suppose you read before signing) states:

12c) Choice of Law. These Terms and Conditions of Use (and for members, the Additional Terms and Conditions of Membership) shall be deemed to have been entered into in the State of Arizona. The rights of you and TAN hereunder shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Arizona without regard to conflicts of laws principles. Each party to this Agreement irrevocably (a) submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of any state or federal court located in Maricopa County, Arizona in litigating any action or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Terms and Conditions of Use (and for members, the Additional Terms and Conditions of Membership), and (b) agrees that any such action or proceeding may be litigated only in such courts. TAN and you agree to waive, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction, inconvenient forum, and improper venue to the maintenance of any such action or proceeding. Any final judgment rendered against a party in any such action or proceeding shall be conclusive as to the subject of such final judgment and may be enforced in other jurisdictions in any manner provided by law.

Site owners cannot, technically, control where their sites are seen. Yes, they can use IP geolocation to know where the IP address that is asking for the site's elements is, but IP geolocation is not 100% accurate and people can use proxies or VPNs to bypass it, making it useless.

If they cannot control where their sites are seen they cannot be considered responsible for what the users do, only users can. That's why people in China, even with the Chinese government controlling everything, are able to access forbidden sites, regardless of the ISP's and site's intentions.

Do not insult my intelligence.

There's no need for doing that, you are doing it yourself.

a reply to: interupt42

Excellent observation!
Good stuff!

a reply to: ArMaP

I understand that.
"Sites cannot control where they are seen".
So then why the push to control the narrative?
In other words, even though you are correct
in their explanation, it is a lame excuse that
allows arbitrary censorship by technocrats.
Thanks for your thoughts.

a reply to: Wildmanimal

It's not really an excuse, it's a fact.

When used as an excuse it only fools those that want to be fooled, as it's the same as censoring a magazine because it may end up in some other country.

a reply to: ArMaP

Very well,
let us continue.
The focus of my premise was
that ISP's should fall under
Congressional regulation
as Public Utilities.

Your argument is that
on one hand "We cannot
control what people see",
and on the other hand ,
however, we will censor information
as we see fit.

I think that whole mindset
needs to be addressed by
the Supreme Court.
"That is a fact".
SAAVY?

originally posted by: Wildmanimal
Your argument is that
on one hand "We cannot
control what people see",
and on the other hand ,
however, we will censor information
as we see fit.

No.
What I have been saying is that ISPs do not control what sites people see, so an American ISP cannot know if a user is going to look at a site from Azerbaijan, for example. They can (technically) block access to Azerbaijan IP addresses, but they cannot block the user from using a proxy and see the site through a different country, allowed by the ISP.

As they cannot control what sites their uses visit or which Apps they use they cannot control/force those sites to follow their rules, in the same way the company that built a road cannot control the brand of the shirts people driving along it are using.

What I mean is that you idea is not applicable to the present technological situation.

a reply to: ArMaP

Thanks for sharing.
I like your analogy.
Yet, functioning as public utilities,
rules could be enforced to require all
traffic to comply
with free speech as designated
under the constitution.
Red light, green light.
Thanks again for your reply.