Leftists Want To Ban Speech...

[rogue06]

That is why I've been careful not to say they are censoring anyone.

Oh and nice attempt at leading everyone down yet another rabbit hole as you pretend to "Stay focused on the discussion"

[37818]

We must SILENCE the opposition!!!! Sieg Heil!!!

That the progressive left are the real fascists is documented in the current move, "Death of a Nation."

[carpedm9587]

That is why I've been careful not to say they are censoring anyone.

Oh and nice attempt at leading everyone down yet another rabbit hole as you pretend to "Stay focused on the discussion"

I have to admit this constant theme is a tad perplexing. I'm making no conscious attempt to "lead everyone" anywhere. Someone posted a comment about Net Neutrality and free speech and I pointed out the disconnect. Why this has become such a "distraction," I have no idea. As far as I can tell, my observation is correct and no one has said anything to change that perspective. I have no idea where anyone think I am "leading" everyone.

[carpedm9587]

OK, I just went back through this thread since Rogue's original comment. I think I understand where the "leading everyone" impression is coming from. If I understand this correctly, Rogue was posting about the inconsistency of people objecting to an abridgment of free speech in one context, and then applauding it in another. The first was Net Neutrality and the second was Alex Jones' recent barring. I picked up on the link between between "free speech" and "net neutrality" and Rogue wanted to focus the discussion on the inconsistency of the people making the objection.

I have no opinion on those people. If someone is decrying limits on free speech in one context, and applauding it in another, on the face of it that would seem to be inconsistent. But I haven't seen the articles or heard the claims, so I have no opinion. My comments were specifically about the misconception that Net Neutrality is a free speech issue, whoever has the misconception.

If that focus detracted from Rogue's original point and the intent of his post, then I apologize.

[Sparko]

It's a whole lot easier to go to a different website than it is to get a different Internet provider (in some areas where only one ISP is available, the latter is outright impossible).

exactly, so the ISP blocking access would be worse. Yet carp wants to say the opposite.

[Sparko]

The first is a statement that has been made, and relates to the right of a property owner to control what is displayed on their property. It is analogous to the billboard argument.

The second is a statement that has never been made by any carrier I know of. So it is FUD. What the ISPs are trying to do is enhance performance of traffic to the services they offer and denigrate the flow of traffic to competition.

Apples and oranges.

You initially said:

I have outlined why the two situations are different. One is about the right of a person to use someone else's platform to promote a message. The other is about the right of a transport provider to control which user can get to which platform. There is a huge difference between, "I am not going to let someone use my servers to promote message X" and "I am not going to let people use my network to get to to FaceBook." The former is about the destination; the latter is about the highway.

You made the comment that they were not the same thing, but yes they are. IF the ISP did limit access to certain sites (it is certainly within their power to do so) it would be the equivalent to what is happening now with the social media sites blocking infowars, but actually worse as Terraceth pointed out, because even when social media blocks a site, you can still go to that site directly. But IF the ISP blocked a site, you would be unable to go to it at all. Especially in areas where you only have one ISP.

[Sparko]

OK, I just went back through this thread since Rogue's original comment. I think I understand where the "leading everyone" impression is coming from. If I understand this correctly, Rogue was posting about the inconsistency of people objecting to an abridgment of free speech in one context, and then applauding it in another. The first was Net Neutrality and the second was Alex Jones' recent barring. I picked up on the link between between "free speech" and "net neutrality" and Rogue wanted to focus the discussion on the inconsistency of the people making the objection.

I have no opinion on those people. If someone is decrying limits on free speech in one context, and applauding it in another, on the face of it that would seem to be inconsistent. But I haven't seen the articles or heard the claims, so I have no opinion. My comments were specifically about the misconception that Net Neutrality is a free speech issue, whoever has the misconception.

If that focus detracted from Rogue's original point and the intent of his post, then I apologize.

We pointed that out to you several times in the thread. Slow down and read what we write.

[rogue06]

We pointed that out to you several times in the thread. Slow down and read what we write.

Over and over, again and again.

[carpedm9587]

You initially said:

I have outlined why the two situations are different. One is about the right of a person to use someone else's platform to promote a message. The other is about the right of a transport provider to control which user can get to which platform. There is a huge difference between, "I am not going to let someone use my servers to promote message X" and "I am not going to let people use my network to get to to FaceBook." The former is about the destination; the latter is about the highway.

You made the comment that they were not the same thing, but yes they are. IF the ISP did limit access to certain sites (it is certainly within their power to do so) it would be the equivalent to what is happening now with the social media sites blocking infowars, but actually worse as Terraceth pointed out, because even when social media blocks a site, you can still go to that site directly. But IF the ISP blocked a site, you would be unable to go to it at all. Especially in areas where you only have one ISP.

Sparko - no one ISP owns the entire Internet. The best they can do is degrade/block performance for their customers. If they are Tier 1, presumably they could do so for any transit traffic, but I know of no incidence where this has been done. And to prohibit a person's "free speech," they would presumably need to do this for any site where they post. So, at best, some fraction of the populace can have some sites degraded. When a Facebook says, "not on my platform," the block is absolute for their platform. Even then, "free speech" is not being prevented because the person in question can post elsewhere, or simply deploy their own servers.

The entire "free speech" thing is simply unrelated to Net Neutrality. As for whether the people with those fears in one place were being inconsistent, I have no view on that. I have not seen what they said, or even if it was the same people saying both things. So I have no comment except to note that, if the same person objects to restricting free speech in one venue and applauds restricting it in another, it is possible they are being inconsistent.

[carpedm9587]

We pointed that out to you several times in the thread. Slow down and read what we write.

I did, Sparko. I was simply focused on one aspect and missed the rest. I have already apologized.

[Cow Poke]

I did, Sparko. I was simply focused on one aspect and missed the rest. I have already apologized.

You didn't grovel.

[Sparko]

You didn't grovel.

yeah! he should have used the grovel emoji!

[carpedm9587]

You didn't grovel.

I'm starting to get that impression.

[Sparko]

I'm starting to get that impression.

It's never too late.

[carpedm9587]

It's never too late.

Sorry. I don't do grovel - except in jest.

I assume the other person is capable of graciously accepting an apology. If they're not...