https://freethefuture.org/blog/2015/02/26/fcc-can-now-regulate-and-censor-the-internet/ The FCC just claimed it has the power to censor the internet, I feel that this should be cause for concern for this website, what do you guys think?
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
FCC claims it can censor internet now
- Thread starter WEM
- Start date
On January 31, 2015, AP News reported the FCC will present the notion of applying ("with some caveats") Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 to the internet in a vote expected on February 26, 2015.[38][39][40][41][42] Adoption of this notion would reclassify internet service from one of information to one of telecommunications [43] and, according to Tom Wheeler, chairman of the FCC, ensure net neutrality.[44][45] The FCC is expected to enforce net neutrality in its vote, according to the New York Times.[46][47]
On February 26, 2015, the FCC ruled in favor of net neutrality by applying Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 706 of the Telecommunications act of 1996 to the internet.[48][49][50]
en.wikipedia.org
On February 26, 2015, the FCC ruled in favor of net neutrality by applying Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 706 of the Telecommunications act of 1996 to the internet.[48][49][50]
Federal Communications Commission - Wikipedia
Afaik we're not censored in countries like China with already high censorship.
Call me a dreamer but the nexus might be one of the most important forums for humanity.
I think they might wanna keep us around for that...
"In case of emergency break glass" :want:
moment
Call me a dreamer but the nexus might be one of the most important forums for humanity.
I think they might wanna keep us around for that...
"In case of emergency break glass" :want:
moment
Yeah the more articles I read the more uncertain of what exactly they just passed... here's the New York Times article about it: F.C.C. Approves Net Neutrality Rules, Classifying Broadband Internet Service as a Utility (Published 2015) this article makes it look like it's focusing more on internet speeds and not content... still unsure what to think...
concombres
Rising Star
Printing copies of all teks to be converted to hardback & distributed privately in 3...2...1..:lol:
Yep . We are going to have to wait a few days untill they clearly say what they plan .
The whole thing seems to me to hang on the word utility ? That in the states something that is declared as a utility has special protection ? But again we hang on the definition of words like protection and how they think that they should be interpreted .
Pesonaly ........ if the republicans are against it it must be a good thing .
The whole thing seems to me to hang on the word utility ? That in the states something that is declared as a utility has special protection ? But again we hang on the definition of words like protection and how they think that they should be interpreted .
Pesonaly ........ if the republicans are against it it must be a good thing .
Code:
$ host dmt-nexus.me
dmt-nexus.me has address 46.105.136.217
dmt-nexus.me has IPv6 address 2001:41d0:c:1c6:f1ee:ea75:a11:da7a
dmt-nexus.me mail is handled by 10 dmt-nexus.me.
46.105.136.217 - France | Public IP Address | IPAddress.comFCC now also governs and censors websites hosted in France? Wow.
I think that article is plain incorrect or misinterpreting the events? The one you posted makes it seem like new laws were passed to allow corporations to start charging for the internet like we've all feared. But the article I was just reading basically says the movement was defeated and they've installed laws that establish the internet as free domain for everyone, hopefully to prevent future political threats to the internet. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...net-neutrality-up-for-vote-today-by-fcc-board
We won.
We won.
concombres
Rising Star
Icon said:
Corporations don't charge for the internet?
Strange. I pay a monthly fee just to have wifi in my home.
I'd think at & t, comcast, dish network, etc. are corporations & charge for connection to the internet
Could be a CT. Or just a different point of view.
Certainly not, but they could deem the content of the website to be inappropriate and force all American providers to blacklist the site. But I don't know if they are really entitled to do so.
concombres
Rising Star
Ufostrahlen said:
This is confusing. It seems like the people writing these articles don't understand what this means either.
Some make it look like it's censoring the internet & others make it out to be protecting against censorship.
EFF statement:concombres said:
So congratulations, Team Internet. We put the FCC on the right path at last. Reclassification under Title II was a necessary step in order to give the FCC the authority it needed to enact net neutrality rules. But now we face the really hard part: making sure the FCC doesn’t abuse its authority.
For example, the new rules include a “general conduct rule” that will let the FCC take action against ISP practices that don’t count as blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization. As we said last week and last year, vague rules are a problem. The FCC wants to be, in Chairman Wheeler’s words, “a referee on the field” who can stop any ISP action that it thinks “hurts consumers, competition, or innovation.” The problem with a rule this vague is that neither ISPs nor Internet users can know in advance what kinds of practices will run afoul of the rule. Only companies with significant legal staff and expertise may be able to use the rule effectively. And a vague rule gives the FCC an awful lot of discretion, potentially giving an unfair advantage to parties with insider influence. That means our work is not yet done. We must stay vigilant, and call out FCC overreach.
The actual order is over 300 pages long, and it’s not widely available yet. Details matter. Watch this space for further analysis when the FCC releases the final order.
Dear FCC: Thanks for Listening to Team Internet!
Today the FCC voted three to two to reclassify broadband Internet access as a common carrier service under Title II of the Communications Act, and forbear from the parts of the Act that aren’t necessary for net neutrality rules. This reclassification gives the FCC the authority to enact (and...www.eff.org
BundleflowerPower
Esteemed member
GOD said:
When it comes to the govt, it doesnt really matter what they say, it's what they do.
"...Thursday's vote comes after Commissioners Michael O'Rielly and Ajut Pai asked that the FCC "immediately release the 332-page Internet regulation plan publicly and allow the American people a reasonable period of not less than 30 days to carefully study it."
That request was denied; we'll post the document here when it's available.
Why can't the public see the document? And more importantly were the internet providers and other corporations able to see it? Did they write it for the FCC?
A republican tactic to try to delay it so that they can spend some time trying to find ways to shoot it down ?
Strange that an unelected organisation like the EFF repesents the interests of the people of the US better than the elected representatives ........ of partys . The important word in that sentance being ...... PARTY . IF people would think about the word party and what it means ...... and then think about pregnant questions like ---- > " Are partys democratic ? " you have a good chance if solving your problems . Partys are part of the problem not part of the answer . Partys are divide and rule . Partys are antisocial . They repesent their interests against the interests of the majority .
Another GEM for US citizens is " For the people by the people " is one of the definitions of socialism ........ Democracy is another word for socialism .
Anyway . I'd rather listen to the EFF than to poly-trickers .
Strange that an unelected organisation like the EFF repesents the interests of the people of the US better than the elected representatives ........ of partys . The important word in that sentance being ...... PARTY . IF people would think about the word party and what it means ...... and then think about pregnant questions like ---- > " Are partys democratic ? " you have a good chance if solving your problems . Partys are part of the problem not part of the answer . Partys are divide and rule . Partys are antisocial . They repesent their interests against the interests of the majority .
Another GEM for US citizens is " For the people by the people " is one of the definitions of socialism ........ Democracy is another word for socialism .
Anyway . I'd rather listen to the EFF than to poly-trickers .
Similar threads
