You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Net Neutrality applies censorship laws to the internet.
Let's be open and honest and rational here for a few moments. There isn't a "ISPs will MAYBE direct me to content where content providers have paid a premium to send me to these content providers." It's a Guarantee.
Here's the difference:
- Yes, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. are already doing this.
- No, you do not HAVE TO use Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. to access the Internet.
- You do HAVE TO use an ISP to access the Internet.
- Access to the Internet is Not Free. You're paying (ISPs) for the right to access all of the content on the internet. By allowing ISPs to pre-filter your content, you're being censored WITHOUT Consent. By accessing Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. you're CONSENTING to have your content filtered by these content providers by Choosing to use these providers.
Excellent addition to the discussion. Given that many of us have only one provider of broadband internet available to us, the ISPs need to be prevented from restricting our use of the net. Unfortunately, this is already done. We can vote with our feet to avoid Gargle, Fakebook, and Twatter, and I do, and as that censorship becomes less tolerable, more people that care about censorship will join us.
However, there are plenty of people that don't care. Oddly, a lot of people actually prefer to be in echo chambers, and I have recently abandoned Ars Technica, where I have contributed to the fora for almost two decades, because it has devolved into a snarky popularity contest unsuitable for scientific debate.
I entered into a debate on a science issue there this week, and counted a ratio of about 30 insults and ad homina comments per actual substantive datum.
I reckon Steemit will have to settle for only the best content creators, instead of those who only want to hear from like minds, as Steemit can't offer them much of an echo chamber, being uncensored.
Oh, well. I can live with that. As long as my ISP lets me.
Well stated.