First they came for the pirates, and I did not speak out-- because my hard drives were clean; Then they came for 4chan, and I did not speak out-- because I did not participate in raids; Then they came for SomethingAwful, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a goon; Then they came for people who defended net neutrality, and I did not speak out-- because I figured the government knew what was best for me; Then they came for me-- and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Sig, please?
certainly.
Now it says my signature is too long. :redangry:
On a snarkier note:
Here is the only slightly dramatized truth about AT&T's blocking of 4Chan in Southern California.
4Chan User: AT&T sucks! AT&T Exexcutive: How dare you insult my reason for existingmoney-grubbing, dictatorial legalized thievery benevolent corporation. 4Chan is meeen! And unAmerican! :whine: I'm going to block them!
(5 minutes pass)
Executive (con't): Fuck! My mistress in South Carolina likes 4Chan! I won't get any if I block it! :hair: Hmmph! I'll just block it in Southern California! Goddamned liberals!
4Chan Users: AT&T is blocking us?! NOOOOO! To the barricades!
AT&T Stockholders: Who the fuck made that decision?! We're losing money!
AT&T Executive: (indignant) I was just trying to protect America! Won't someone think of the cheeldren?! :bible:
AT&T Stockholders: Save our profits or :blowjob: !
AT&T Executive: (unblocks 4Chan) I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for those meddling 4Chan users! You've won this time, Net Neutrality, but I'll get you next time!!!11! Mwa-ha-ha!
Harley Quinn hyenaholic Knight of the Bleach
Join date : 2009-06-12 Age : 39 Location : Taking that picture...
First they came for the pirates, and I did not speak out-- because my hard drives were clean; Then they came for 4chan, and I did not speak out-- because I did not participate in raids; Then they came for SomethingAwful, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a goon; Then they came for people who defended net neutrality, and I did not speak out-- because I figured the government knew what was best for me; Then they came for me-- and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Ah, that's an old one. Originally it was used, I think, to refer to the Holocaust, and people not saying anything because they thought if they kept their heads down, everything would be fine. There are many variants but this is one of the most common...
First they came for the poor, and I did not speak up; I was not very poor, Then they came for the rich, and I did not speak up; I was not very rich, Then they came for the mentally ill, and I did not speak up; I was not mentally ill, Then they came for the disabled, and I did not speak up; I was not disabled, Then they came for the Communists, and I did not speak up; I was not a Communist, Then they came for the Catholics, and I did not speak up; I was not a Catholic, Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak up; I was not a Trade Unionist, Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak up; I was not a Jew, Then they came for me, And there was no-one left.
Dr. Professor Science Ghoti
Join date : 2009-06-25 Age : 33 Location : One of the guys with the giant papier-mâché dongs in Lysistrata
At least in the US you guys can just switch ISPs. In Canada, we have a grand total of two ISPs. We have Rogers, which owns the satellites and cables, and Bell, which owns the phone lines. Other ISPs just ride on those guys. If one of those two decide to do something terrible and then the other one chimes in...
Chris91 Knight of the Bleach
Join date : 2009-06-13 Age : 57 Location : Salem, Mass., USA
I worked for an ISP, so I'm getting a huge kick out of...
Psy-4 wrote:
Penguin wrote:
Property ownership, unclefucker: Do you get it?
What, is AT&T the ISP equivalent of a fanbrat now?
Wah, I can do whatever I want with my servers, and I don't see you doing any better, so you're just jealous, enjoy your block.
So basically, you could've saved yourself some typing by saying, "No, I don't."
The difference being in that a fanbrat is just writing stories using someone else's copyrighted work for ego inflation, and AT&T is a business trading access to the Internet through their network for money.
If, for example, an airline decides that a popular airport is now too dangerous or no longer profitable to fly to, guess what: You go through a different airline. If I decide I'm getting gypped by giving my friends rides all the time due to fuel consumption and wear and tear on my car, it's my right to tell them to pony up some gas money or call a cab.
You see, that's the great thing about this: If you're an AT&T customer and don't like what they're doing, you CAN give them the finger and take your business elsewhere. Unlike the fanbrat who thinks they're above criticism because they Try So Hard, AT&T, being a business, has an incentive to provide better service to customers because they have plenty of competitors (Qwest, Embarq, Verizon to name a few). And that's just at the big mega-ISP level.
Quote :
They own the servers, true; but they are an ISP. See that 'P'? It stands for Provider. As in, their job is to provide internet services. You know what internet services don't include? Censorship without consent. They are not an Internet Service Controller, they are not Big Brother's failure at life, Little Brother.
Your consent is implied in most TOS. Providing a service doesn't mean you're a slave to the whims of every last customer. There is a point where customer service has to stop in order to maintain profitability.
I used to work for an ISP. We had a policy of not engaging in any kind of censorship, but guess what: We still had serverside spam filters, and at the customer's request we could tighten them up for their account, but they were still set pretty loosely to make sure legit email could get through. On one hand, some customers appreciated this because it meant that they could communicate and do business with people that companies like AOL blocked as a matter of course. On the other, some customers were upset until they called tech support and we could tailor the spam filters to their needs.
Some customers simply could not be pleased; if they got so much as one spam email a day they wanted a new account, or to switch ISPs.
It's a balancing act.
TL;DR version: As much of a bonehead business move this was, it was a completely legitimate version, no matter how strong your sense of entitlement is.
Spoiler:
Yeah, I'm all for net neutrality, but I think it may be a lost cause.
TL;DR version: As much of a bonehead business move this was, it was a completely legitimate version, no matter how strong your sense of entitlement is.
Apperently, it was more or less legitimate, but in a different way. Apperently AnonTalks faggy owner spoofed some IPs to make it look like they came from img.4chan.org and made some DDoS attacks, so this was the response.
Also, FCC has net neutrality laws, with which corporations have to comply, or did I miss something?
And what about areas where AT&T is the sole ISP?
Penguin wrote:
Spoiler:
Yeah, I'm all for net neutrality, but I think it may be a lost cause.
Why can't we have nice things? Like corporations that are not greedy?
'Scuse me, dick quota.
Penguin wrote:
I used to work for an ISP. We had a policy of not engaging in any kind of censorship, but guess what: We still had serverside spam filters, and at the customer's request we could tighten them up for their account, but they were still set pretty loosely to make sure legit email could get through. On one hand, some customers appreciated this because it meant that they could communicate and do business with people that companies like AOL blocked as a matter of course. On the other, some customers were upset until they called tech support and we could tailor the spam filters to their needs.
Some customers simply could not be pleased; if they got so much as one spam email a day they wanted a new account, or to switch ISPs.
Also, FCC has net neutrality laws, with which corporations have to comply, or did I miss something?
No, no they don't. Net neutrality is the default state of the internet (at least in the US), not a statute. Every attempt to either fully enforce or completely bypass Net Neutrality has been shot down with speed. The former because it infringes on an ISP's ability to do business as it sees fit, the later because there's basically no way to do it without losing a chunk of your subscriber base to competitors with fewer restrictions.
Lady Anne NO NOT THE BEEEEES
Join date : 2009-06-12 Age : 48 Location : The land of the fruits and nuts
At least in the US you guys can just switch ISPs. In Canada, we have a grand total of two ISPs. We have Rogers, which owns the satellites and cables, and Bell, which owns the phone lines. Other ISPs just ride on those guys. If one of those two decide to do something terrible and then the other one chimes in...
In my area, we can only get Verizon for Internet service. If Verizon decides to get butthurt or be a "moral guardian" or try to get more profits at our expense, we're shit outta luck. And this isn't Bumfuck, South Dakota, either--this is a city of 50,000 in Southern California, in a region containing over 3 million people. Yeah, that's a lot of people who'd be negatively affected by the "private property rights" argument if our ISP decided to be ugly.
No, owning something does not give you the right to do anything you want with it. On my street, the street name signs and stop signs are on people's private property. This does not give them the right to cover them so they cannot be seen. The electric lines stretch across people's property. This does not give people the right to let their trees grow into the lines, thus shorting out the power for the whole fucking neighborhood or causing a massive fire. My next door neighbor owns a swimming pool, but this does not make it right when he lets the pool fill with stagnant water and thus breeds a massive number of mosquitoes, which have the potential to carry West Nile and are always a nuisance whether they're infected or not.
Private property rights end where the public interest begins.
No, no they don't. Net neutrality is the default state of the internet (at least in the US), not a statute. Every attempt to either fully enforce or completely bypass Net Neutrality has been shot down with speed. The former because it infringes on an ISP's ability to do business as it sees fit, the later because there's basically no way to do it without losing a chunk of your subscriber base to competitors with fewer restrictions.
Ah, so breaching Net Neutrality is like farting in public; sure there are no laws against it, but everybody goes ಠ_ಠ.
A_Note_Chaotic Sporkbender
Join date : 2009-06-10 Age : 36 Location : Pennsylvania
No, owning something does not give you the right to do anything you want with it. On my street, the street name signs and stop signs are on people's private property. This does not give them the right to cover them so they cannot be seen. The electric lines stretch across people's property. This does not give people the right to let their trees grow into the lines, thus shorting out the power for the whole fucking neighborhood or causing a massive fire. My next door neighbor owns a swimming pool, but this does not make it right when he lets the pool fill with stagnant water and thus breeds a massive number of mosquitoes, which have the potential to carry West Nile and are always a nuisance whether they're infected or not.
Private property rights end where the public interest begins.
It does, in fact, give you the right to do anything you want with it - so long as it does not infringe upon the private rights of others. Those street signs are local government property temporarily leasing private land, so no, the person does not have the right to cover them, but it is not their responsibility to trim back bushes from covering, that is the responsibility of the local government. The power lines do not belong to the people, they belong to the utility, and the utility is responsible for trimming those trees back, not the person. And they have every right to let their pool water go stagnant - perhaps they keep bats in a bat box and want to let the mosquitos breed to attract more bats. That's their choice. Unless there is a local ordinance against it, at which point people can take up the issue with local government.
Public interest has shit to do with private property rights. Unless there are laws against what they are doing that explicitly state you are not permitted to do that thing on your private property, everyone else can go doodle themselves in the corner.
First they came for the pirates, and I did not speak out-- because my hard drives were clean; Then they came for 4chan, and I did not speak out-- because I did not participate in raids; Then they came for SomethingAwful, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a goon; Then they came for people who defended net neutrality, and I did not speak out-- because I figured the government knew what was best for me; Then they came for me-- and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Ah, that's an old one. Originally it was used blah blah blah...
We know where the quote comes from. Everyone is at least passing familiar with the original. It is a famous fucking quote, you tremendous meatbag.
Freezer Epic-Level Pornomancer
Join date : 2009-06-10 Age : 51 Location : Memphis, TN
No, no they don't. Net neutrality is the default state of the internet (at least in the US), not a statute. Every attempt to either fully enforce or completely bypass Net Neutrality has been shot down with speed. The former because it infringes on an ISP's ability to do business as it sees fit, the later because there's basically no way to do it without losing a chunk of your subscriber base to competitors with fewer restrictions.
Ah, so breaching Net Neutrality is like farting in public; sure there are no laws against it, but everybody goes ಠ_ಠ.
Crude, but spot on.
Lady Anne NO NOT THE BEEEEES
Join date : 2009-06-12 Age : 48 Location : The land of the fruits and nuts
No, owning something does not give you the right to do anything you want with it. On my street, the street name signs and stop signs are on people's private property. This does not give them the right to cover them so they cannot be seen. The electric lines stretch across people's property. This does not give people the right to let their trees grow into the lines, thus shorting out the power for the whole fucking neighborhood or causing a massive fire. My next door neighbor owns a swimming pool, but this does not make it right when he lets the pool fill with stagnant water and thus breeds a massive number of mosquitoes, which have the potential to carry West Nile and are always a nuisance whether they're infected or not.
Private property rights end where the public interest begins.
It does, in fact, give you the right to do anything you want with it - so long as it does not infringe upon the private rights of others. Those street signs are local government property temporarily leasing private land, so no, the person does not have the right to cover them, but it is not their responsibility to trim back bushes from covering, that is the responsibility of the local government. The power lines do not belong to the people, they belong to the utility, and the utility is responsible for trimming those trees back, not the person. And they have every right to let their pool water go stagnant - perhaps they keep bats in a bat box and want to let the mosquitos breed to attract more bats. That's their choice. Unless there is a local ordinance against it, at which point people can take up the issue with local government.
Public interest has shit to do with private property rights. Unless there are laws against what they are doing that explicitly state you are not permitted to do that thing on your private property, everyone else can go doodle themselves in the corner.
There may not be a law against something, but that still doesn't make it right (or intelligent--especially where things like potentially deadly diseases are concerned).
KelinciHutan Global Nomad
Join date : 2009-06-03 Age : 40 Location : USS Enterprise
No, owning something does not give you the right to do anything you want with it.
It does, in fact, give you the right to do anything you want with it - so long as it does not infringe upon the private rights of others.
Yeah, basically that. If you own something, it is yours. You may use it in whatever way you see fit, even if other people do not like it. The exceptions are when you infringe on their rights or break a law. Since neither you, nor I, nor anyone else has a right to net neutrality (no matter how much I am for it), and since filtering does not break the law (and if it did, I bet pop-up blockers would be illegal, too), then AT&T has every right to block 4chan, even if they are the only available ISP in a certain area. Doing so denies their clients neither food, nor water, nor air, nor justice, nor liberty.
Do I think that ISPs should play parent with regards to which sites I can visit? No, of course not. However, I most definitely will defend that they could and may, so long as they are not breaching any laws. I do not need the government or a company telling me what I can and can not view on the internet, but to a much larger extent, I definitely do not need the government or a company telling me how I may and may not use my own things when I am harming no one by doing so and breaking no laws. If it came to one or the other, I'll take an unneutral net over non-ownership of property every single day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Lady Anne NO NOT THE BEEEEES
Join date : 2009-06-12 Age : 48 Location : The land of the fruits and nuts
No, owning something does not give you the right to do anything you want with it.
It does, in fact, give you the right to do anything you want with it - so long as it does not infringe upon the private rights of others.
Yeah, basically that. If you own something, it is yours. You may use it in whatever way you see fit, even if other people do not like it. The exceptions are when you infringe on their rights or break a law. Since neither you, nor I, nor anyone else has a right to net neutrality (no matter how much I am for it), and since filtering does not break the law (and if it did, I bet pop-up blockers would be illegal, too), then AT&T has every right to block 4chan, even if they are the only available ISP in a certain area. Doing so denies their clients neither food, nor water, nor air, nor justice, nor liberty.
Do I think that ISPs should play parent with regards to which sites I can visit? No, of course not. However, I most definitely will defend that they could and may, so long as they are not breaching any laws. I do not need the government or a company telling me what I can and can not view on the internet, but to a much larger extent, I definitely do not need the government or a company telling me how I may and may not use my own things when I am harming no one by doing so and breaking no laws. If it came to one or the other, I'll take an unneutral net over non-ownership of property every single day of the week and twice on Sundays.
I think I'll tell this to the cops the next time they ask if I've smelled my neighbors cooking meth (after all, they own the chemicals, therefore, they can do what they want with them).
Penguin NO NOT THE BEEEEES
Join date : 2009-07-18 Location : Wild Gray Yonder
I think I'll tell this to the cops the next time they ask if I've smelled my neighbors cooking meth (after all, they own the chemicals, therefore, they can do what they want with them).
:law:
Reducio ad absurdum. First, here we're talking about something that is already illegal (meth labs), rather than something that isn't (limiting Internet service). Second, these issues aren't even similar. Then you get into whether or not you think the laws should be changed so people can kill themselves with whatever the hell they want...
It's much more comparable to other services. Say you have two competing Italian restaurants. They serve identical menus, except that one does not sell pizza. Should the other restaurant be required to sell pizza?
KelinciHutan Global Nomad
Join date : 2009-06-03 Age : 40 Location : USS Enterprise
No, owning something does not give you the right to do anything you want with it.
It does, in fact, give you the right to do anything you want with it - so long as it does not infringe upon the private rights of others.
Yeah, basically that. If you own something, it is yours. You may use it in whatever way you see fit, even if other people do not like it. The exceptions are when you infringe on their rights or break a law.
...
I definitely do not need the government or a company telling me how I may and may not use my own things when I am harming no one by doing so and breaking no laws. If it came to one or the other, I'll take an unneutral net over non-ownership of property every single day of the week and twice on Sundays.
I think I'll tell this to the cops the next time they ask if I've smelled my neighbors cooking meth (after all, they own the chemicals, therefore, they can do what they want with them).
Except that's not what I said. Whatever you like provided that it is not illegal and does not infringe on others' rights. Producing meth is a] dangerous on a potentially explosive scale, thus exposing nearby people and their property to danger, and b] illegal. No one has a right to free and unfiltered internet access guaranteed by law. Unless and until we do, people who own an ISP do have a right to block whatever sites they like. I'd much prefer that they chose not to do so, but that's a different argument.
Since neither you, nor I, nor anyone else has a right to net neutrality (no matter how much I am for it), and since filtering does not break the law (and if it did, I bet pop-up blockers would be illegal, too)
people who own an ISP do have a right to block whatever sites they like
As much as Rupert Murdock would like to switch Fox over to 24 hour hardcore porn for the raitings, he can't. People in the communications sector are regulated by the FCC. You can't just do anything you want to people's ability to talk to each other, just because you happen to own a company.
Aside from enforcing decency standards, the FCC is charged with ensuring that the lines of communication are open, so that our first amendment rights are not curtailed by corporate interests, which is exactly what happened here. Net Neutrality is not just a catchphrase, it's the law (or at least as close as you can get to one), and if AT&T had considered anything but a temporary block, then it would have been illegal, no question.
Penguin NO NOT THE BEEEEES
Join date : 2009-07-18 Location : Wild Gray Yonder
Actually at this point in time it would require specific legislation to give the FCC the authority to say "you can't block websites." It's in the works, but I haven't seen anything saying that it's law yet.
Harley Quinn hyenaholic Knight of the Bleach
Join date : 2009-06-12 Age : 39 Location : Taking that picture...
Subject: Re: AT&T Blocks 4Chan.org, Prepares Will Tue Jul 28, 2009 3:19 am
We need better legal regulation for the Internet. And it's no good saying it's pointless because there's not enough people; they monitor TV and you wouldn't think there's enough people to do that.
Freezer Epic-Level Pornomancer
Join date : 2009-06-10 Age : 51 Location : Memphis, TN
Subject: Re: AT&T Blocks 4Chan.org, Prepares Will Tue Jul 28, 2009 4:04 am
Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:
We need better legal regulation for the Internet. And it's no good saying it's pointless because there's not enough people; they monitor TV and you wouldn't think there's enough people to do that.
Actually most FCC investigations/fines are triggered by viewer complaints. (See: Wardrobe Malfunction). So the FCC themselves do not that much actual scanning of the airwaves.
Ceres Sporkbender
Join date : 2009-06-10
Subject: Re: AT&T Blocks 4Chan.org, Prepares Will Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:33 am
Quote :
Since neither you, nor I, nor anyone else has a right to net neutrality (no matter how much I am for it), and since filtering does not break the law (and if it did, I bet pop-up blockers would be illegal, too), then AT&T has every right to block 4chan, even if they are the only available ISP in a certain area.
Quote :
Doing so denies their clients neither food, nor water, nor air, nor justice, nor liberty.
Weeeeellll... it MAY deny them freedom of speech, which is protected by the Constitution. In other words, it is not so simple.
This is beyond my expertize, BUT you MAY be able to make the argument that AT&T is acting like a monopoly if it's the only ISP in the area. A lawyer cleverer than I could sue AT&T, take it to the Supreme Court and force them to decide if the Internet is as important to free speech as a newspaper, which has extraordinary protections that normal businesses don't have. That is, that the internet is a matter of public interest, like a public utility. I mean, I know some states like California have private enterprises selling stuff like electricity, which is a public interest. Since it's so important, they can sell it, but there are rules.
Using the pop up blocker example, that technology is for an average person to use. He has to take affirmative action to download the thing and install it. ISP filtering content, however, takes if off the person's hands, so that's a potential no-no.
A test case would be, ahdunno: testy blogger gets blocked by AT&T, gets allies at ACLU, and fights fights fights all the way up.
You would be correct if you think the Internet isn't necssary to live. But the same thing could be said about newspapers. You don't need newspapers or TV like you need water, but that doesn't mean it's a matter to be left up to corporations.
Home 
So basically, you could've saved yourself some typing by saying, "No, I don't."
Why can't we have nice things? Like corporations that are not greedy?
