Who controls the Internet? And should they? (2021)
berthub.eu
berthub.eu
I've opted out of these filters ever since they have been in place, Most providers will ask you during sign up if you wanted them on or off, I've always turned them off on day one. Since these filters have been in place I have been with (Who have the filters) Virgin Media, TalkTalk, Sky, 3 (Mobile internet) and I have never once recieved a letter from my ISP that tells me that I have opted out of the adult content filtering.
Well for one thing, when you come back from work at your corporation, you can go on the regular internet. Country-wide blocks don't allow that by design.
Comparing something like the great firewall to a corporate network is just not productive imo. (Plus, just because a private corporation is doing something does not mean that a government should do the same anyways.)
The impact is different*, scale is different, and countries doing it have track record of using it to hide their misdeeds.
*It's generally ok if you build a wall around your property. Not so much if a country does it.
And companies don't? Internet companies are media, so their function is not neutral to the existence and function of states. Constitutions all around the world have specific "free press" provisions because the press is not "just another private business" but it has very real consequences for the existence of states. So do tech companies today, but they are untouchable, they enjoy even more protections than free press.
We still live with memories of the liberal internet of the '90s (even though we know it's long gone) and we stick to this romantic view of the intent of tech companies. The scale of those companies is bigger than indivudual states so i dont think the comparison is apt either.
Very few private companies in history could have enough power to be able to commit crimes against humanity.
This is not OK, and "but private companies can do what they want" really needs to be rethought to reflect reality. We have governments essentially using corporations to get around their own legal restrictions.
Because everyone goes home from work but only very fortunate people go home from China.
> "Meanwhile, we have these big technology firms, that control the hardware, the software, and they run their own kangaroo courts that decide who wins and who loses. And there’s no way to appeal that or to have any insights from what they are doing, because they are encrypting what they are doing and hiding it from end users, while simultaneously moving more and more stuff to their control points"
> "This means 1) they have these kangaroo courts and 2) they’re moving more and more control to these kangaroo courts."
That's more about access to their public platforms (things like blocking some users, shaddow banning, algorithmic recommendation manipulation, etc.).
However, corporations aren't yet governments, although there are some indications that 'company towns' are becoming a thing, as they were in the early 20th century, where a company would own every house in a city and could evict anyone they didn't like, essentially becoming a de facto authoritarian government. In that case, banning someone from their private:w network would mean they had no access to any network.
This seems to sum up a lot of issues with the "internet"
I've got around many a ban by just switching out my computer and getting a new internet connection.
Just curious.
Why not Cogent, Verizon, AT&T, Level 3 or other 1-Tiers like them?
This does not touch that all of them need to bow to the local legislation.
If you don’t have your own ASN you’re just renting someone else’s access, so there’s an easy answer - they control your access and could cut it off if they wanted.
Conversely as you drop down the consumer chain to lets say a free service (eg twitter) the terms of service becomes markedly more complex and onerous.
In Liz Truss' first PMQs yesterday one of the questions was on pushing for a return of the online safety bill for further "regulation" of the internet, which Truss said is going to come back, for the under 18s of course.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_blocking_in_the_United_Kin...
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/parents-asked-if-adult-we...
> But ministers have always been clear that if industry did not go far enough or fast enough, the government would consider further action - including potentially regulation.
The filter is turned on by default from the biggest ISPs however each one of them asks if you would like to disable it during the onboarding process.
Same goes for mobile internet, the only diffence there is if you are using PAYG you have to validate your age via a credit card or using a form of ID at your providers local store.
As someone following this horrendous bill, can you tell me what gives you that impression, given that it's passed two readings in the Commons and HL doesn't seem to be particularly vocal about slowing it down?
The Internet in 20 years will suck even more (they don't really like free speech even if they claim they do).
Edit: Since HN doesn't allow me to reply to the child comment because "I'm posting too quickly", here is the reply to CharlesW.
Stealing is already illegal.... I like how they don't know how to use current laws and flood us with new ones to make their job easier... The truth is that they think that Crypto-currencies are a threat to USD and are trying to stop them. The least they could do is destroy one law every time they add one.
His reply was "CharlesW 40 minutes ago | parent | next [–]
> Governments control everything.... they are slowly trying to block crypto too.
I'm always amazed that anyone thought cryptocurrencies would somehow be the one form of currency that wouldn't be regulated.
It's clear that crypto can't self-regulate, and continues to actively hurt lots of people. As of July, $1.9 billion in crypto has been "stolen" — up 60% from a year ago¹, in quotes because we know a good percentage of these were inside jobs."
I'm always amazed that anyone thought cryptocurrencies would somehow be the one form of currency that wouldn't be regulated.
It's clear that crypto can't self-regulate, and continues to actively hurt lots of people. As of July, $1.9 billion in crypto has been "stolen" — up 60% from a year ago¹, in quotes because we know a good percentage of these were inside jobs.
¹ https://blog.chainalysis.com/reports/crypto-crime-midyear-up...
Right. Me too. If a government bans it, like USA or Australia or whatever, then that's that. Sure you can still use it, but you can also not stop for stop signs or you can sell meth or you can not pay income taxes. And maybe never get caught. But if you DO get caught....
"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."
- Detective Tony BarettaWho controls the internet?
1. Authoritarian govts with laws that are either agenda driven or arbitrary 2. Big Companies with kangaroo courts