What are the Pros and Cons between Net Neutrality and the Internet Bill of Rights?

[AlexDTX]

I noticed that every time I log onto CF the site is encouraging us to sign up for Net Neutrality. While the idea sounds good, as I understood it that only regulates the service providers preventing them from censoring content, not the websites. AT & T and the White House are promoted the Internet Bill of Rights to stop Facebook, Twitter and Google from censoring user content. However, I have not seen any specifics on the IBOR of how they would prevent website censorship. I have heard that IBOR would regulate large sites like Google, Facebook and Twitter like utilities are regulated. But, again, I have not seen any actual documentation on the matter. If anyone has further information, I would appreciate links that show what both proposals actually would do.

 

[SkyWriting]

I noticed that every time I log onto CF the site is encouraging us to sign up for Net Neutrality. While the idea sounds good, as I understood it that only regulates the service providers preventing them from censoring content, not the websites. AT & T and the White House are promoted the Internet Bill of Rights to stop Facebook, Twitter and Google from censoring user content. However, I have not seen any specifics on the IBOR of how they would prevent website censorship. I have heard that IBOR would regulate large sites like Google, Facebook and Twitter like utilities are regulated. But, again, I have not seen any actual documentation on the matter. If anyone has further information, I would appreciate links that show what both proposals actually would do.

The net has it's down sides, but has managed pretty well based on the idea of not being regulated.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I think it is possibly all "spin" / "fake news" as advertised in the last couple years.

Regardless what they say is or will happen, the actual results are likely to be similar to everything the government has taken control of or de-regulated in the last 150 years - worse for everyone.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I am divided on this, on one hand I would like a majority of the internet censored because it is sinful, unhealthy for the heart, mind, and soul, on the other hand where does the censoring stop? The same means of censoring of sinful content, can be used to censor righteous content. The Saint/sinner that I am is divided. Overall, perhaps it is best left to individual responsibility and the work of the Spirit to convict us and change our heart and minds to desire righteousness, rather than giving in to sinful desires. But it is most concerning for our children, that is the primary concern, but would be a long discussion, dealing with responsibility and the situation as a whole. However, can we trust government legislation and ISP's to censor content, considering the times we live in and considering errors of past legislation? I lean towards no.

 

[AlexDTX]

I am divided on this, on one hand I would like a majority of the internet censored because it is sinful, unhealthy for the heart, mind, and soul, on the other hand where does the censoring stop? The same means of censoring of sinful content, can be used to censor righteous content. The Saint/sinner that I am is divided. Overall, perhaps it is best left to individual responsibility and the work of the Spirit to convict us and change our heart and minds to desire righteousness, rather than giving in to sinful desires. But it is most concerning for our children, that is the primary concern, but would be a long discussion, dealing with responsibility and the situation as a whole. However, can we trust government legislation and ISP's to censor content, considering the times we live in and considering errors of past legislation? I lean towards no.

I am in the same quandry as you are. Years ago in the USA there was a Presbyterian (I think) organization that watched over the film industry. The film industry was not hostile to that group because they knew that following their guidance meant a larger audience which was greater profit. But the Presbyterian administrators felt like they were losing money, so they closed the organization. That left the film industry on their own, so they came up with the movie rating system so customers can decide for themselves whether they wanted to see a film with the rate as their guide. They found more people wanted to see the R and up rated movies so they made more and more of them. Television has adopted the same guidelines giving M-14 ratings and often broadcasting at a later hour. But what has happened to movies and TV? They make their products filthier and filthier pushing the boundaries of acceptability farther and farther away from the more wholesome shows of the '50s and early '60s.

It is obvious by the advertisement that the owner of CF wants to see Net Neutrality as legislation instead of the Internet Bill of Rights. As I understand it, NN regulates only the service providers which means the site owners remain free to put out filth or use politically correct censorship, if they want, which is what we have now. The Internet Bill of Rights has not been written as legislation (correct me if I am wrong), but would put the government in the position of regulating the sites. The White House endorses this, and I am a big Trump supporter, but this kind of bill puts all sites at the mercy of whoever controls the government. So if a new power come into control that is evil, they can remove any site they want. AT & T is a driving force behind IBOR, because they are a service provider, and are currently seeking a "hostile takerover" of Timer-Warner, another service provider.

I understand the reason the Trump admin is behind IBOR because they want to stop Google, Facebook, Twitter, and others giant corporations from censoring conservative news, which they are currently doing. So, I am in the middle.

At one time I leaned towards Libertarianism, but they do not assume the fallen nature of mankind, which needs some governing. Now I support limited government because I know so many people are truly evil and need to be governed.

The downside of Net Neutrality is that George Soros had shoveled buko bucks into getting Net Neutrality as law. That man is pure evil. I don't trust anything that man wants to do because his whole mission in life is to destroy countries to set up a global government. So, for me, at this point every time I see the CF ad for Net Neutrality I get sick to my stomach since it reminds me of that man.

 

[AlexDTX]

Net Neutrality will not control censorship. The intent of the Internet Bill of Rights is to guarantee freedom of speech on sites like Facebook, Twitter, and dare I say without being censored, Christian Forums. I believe this is why CF is endorsing Net Neutrality instead of the Internet Bill of Rights because this site still wants to be able to censor content. Here is an interesting quote regarding a supreme court decision.

 

[FenderTL5]

Net Neutrality will not control censorship. The intent of the Internet Bill of Rights is to guarantee freedom of speech on sites like Facebook, Twitter, and dare I say without being censored, Christian Forums..

The key to understanding is knowing the difference between the role of ISP (internet service provider) and a content provider.
Facebook, Twitter, CFs, news agencies, bloggers etc are 'content'.
News agencies, facebook, uber-right/left wing bloggers should control their own content.

The ISPs should not care.
If you have service (ISP) with AT&T/Comcast/verizon and you click on the link for CFs - you should get the site delivered at the speed you are paying for.

What's really muddying the water here, is that ISPs are purchasing content providers - so they own both. For example, AT&T is trying to purchase Time-Warner even as we speak.

By eliminating NN, this would allow AT&T to "prioritize" content from TimeWarner, and filter (slow, block, charge extra ) for content from elsewhere - such as CFs.

It's two separate issues.
Net Neutrality, which was once referred to as 'packet neutrality'
refers to the speed/bandwidth the content you choose is being delivered.. all is treated the same, neutral, regardless. Want to watch cat videos? You get those at the same speed you get serious news and vice-versa. The ISP merely provides the pipe.

What eliminating NN does, is allows the ISP to control which data goes fast, slow, or not all - or - eventually and more likely what content you pay extra for or not.

What the IBoR is proposing is that content providers would be prohibited from censoring their own content.. I don;t like that Idea, I meanWhy bother? If FB censors content to an objectionable level, I simply don't go there. I choose content elsewhere. IF CFs were to censor to an objectionable level, I wouldn't come here any more - I can choose my own content, simple as that.

 

[AlexDTX]

The key to understanding is knowing the difference between the role of ISP (internet service provider) and a content provider.
Facebook, Twitter, CFs, news agencies, bloggers etc are 'content'.
News agencies, facebook, uber-right/left wing bloggers should control their own content.

The ISPs should not care.
If you have service (ISP) with AT&T/Comcast/verizon and you click on the link for CFs - you should get the site delivered at the speed you are paying for.

What's really muddying the water here, is that ISPs are purchasing content providers - so they own both. For example, AT&T is trying to purchase Time-Warner even as we speak.

By eliminating NN, this would allow AT&T to "prioritize" content from TimeWarner, and filter (slow, block, charge extra ) for content from elsewhere - such as CFs.

It's two separate issues.
Net Neutrality, which was once referred to as 'packet neutrality'
refers to the speed/bandwidth the content you choose is being delivered.. all is treated the same, neutral, regardless. Want to watch cat videos? You get those at the same speed you get serious news and vice-versa. The ISP merely provides the pipe.

What eliminating NN does, is allows the ISP to control which data goes fast, slow, or not all - or - eventually and more likely what content you pay extra for or not.

What the IBoR is proposing is that content providers would be prohibited from censoring their own content.. I don;t like that Idea, I meanWhy bother? If FB censors content to an objectionable level, I simply don't go there. I choose content elsewhere. IF CFs were to censor to an objectionable level, I wouldn't come here any more - I can choose my own content, simple as that.

Thank you Fender. Very well spoken. Your reminder of the ISP being able to slow down load time to discourage visitors to websites they don't want you to see.

From the White House point of view, however, even the elected president of the United States has conflict with Jack Dorsey's Twitter. He chose Twitter as his means of talking directly to the people, yet Twitter has turned him off at least once, and I think twice.

As for Facebook, Google and Twitter, I personally do not use any of them because of their data mining policy and censorship. Even CF I am leery of using because the mods are like chickens on June bugs for the slightest infraction of how they interpret their rules. Mature adult discussion on this forum does not have freedom of speech.

Thanks for your input. It was excellent.

 

[DavidFirth]

CF is the best site on the internet because they keep trolls out of here. It is a Christian site so if you're not interested in Christianity you do not have the right to post whatever you want. If you want to bad mouth Christianity you need to go do it somewhere else, it will not be tolerated here for good reason.

We come here to fellowship with people, not to be trolled or hear a person talk crack.

 

[AlexDTX]

CF is the best site on the internet because they keep trolls out of here. It is a Christian site so if you're not interested in Christianity you do not have the right to post whatever you want. If you want to bad mouth Christianity you need to go do it somewhere else, it will not be tolerated here for good reason.

We come here to fellowship with people, not to be trolled or hear a person talk crack.

I am not bad mouthing CF in general. I alluded to their politically correct positions on homosexuality, Judaism and a few other items that if you say what the Bible has to say, you get marked or banned. Likewise, words that they prohibit, even when not goading or inflaming, you get marked or banned. There are quite a few restrictions on discussions which restrict mature adult conversations.

Your response is an example of what I am addressing. This post is an honest inquiry. I am looking for a balance yet you take offense by my pointing out a restriction even on CF. Despite what you think I am saying, I support the right of web sights to control content because it is their website. This is a private business. I own a website, too. I don't let spam or offensive comments to my blog be posted. I delete them.

However, the legal question I am asking pertains to various court decisions. For example, shopping centers are private businesses. Yet, various court decisions can be cited indicating that they are still subject to government regulation because of the public nature of the centers. Shopping centers have banned protesters on their property but court decisions (I speak of the USA only) have declared that they have the right to assemble on their property and exercise their free speech because, even though they are on private property, that property is given public access for the purpose of their commerce.

Another example is the private company that baked cakes and refused to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple with 2 men figurines on top of the cake. The courts ordered them to do so as a violation of discrimination laws or close their doors.

What makes the Internet even more complicated is that it has an international reach thus crossing many national laws. China could care less and censors everything on-line that contradicts their nation's laws. And on the flip side of this, Google and Facebook have freely handed over information they have collected on Chinese citizens requested by the Chinese government and have censored material for the Chinese government that the government told them to censor.... all in the name of continued profit for their businesses.

Hence my inquiry. CF is actively promoting Net Neutrality which legislates service providers but not them, which is understandable, whereas the Internet Bill of Rights puts certain restrictions on content providers, not unlike forbidding free speech at shopping malls or saying a bakery must not discriminate between customers.