Entrusting our speech to multiple different corporate actors is always risky. Yet given how most of the internet is currently structured, our online expression largely depends on a set of private companies ranging from our direct Internet service providers and platforms, to upstream ISPs (sometimes...
Correct: not their job. They rent pipe.
Sites can do any damn thing they please. ISPs need to follow the same rules as phone carriers, and ideally not even know what you’re doing. (Key word: *ideally.)
How do you feel being sandwiched between hundreds of slurs?
I’d feel like an irrelevant hypothetical.
Wiping shit off a website is not the ISP’s job.
No, you misunderstand. Someone posted the n word a few hundred times and your comment was in between them. Hopefully they’re removed by now.
In an ideal world a user could choose an ISP that shared their values and agreed to block certain awful content. Unfortunately, in the current world, there are a bunch of monopolist / oligarchical ISPs that face no real competition and have their users locked in based on geographic monopolies.
Because they’re monopolies, they can’t be allowed to choose what content is and isn’t allowed on their network. If they’re allowed to do that, they’ll abuse it to do things like block access to a pro-union website.
The real fix would be to wreck the monopolies. The lack of monopolies is why Europe is kicking North America’s ass when it comes to Internet access and pricing. But, until the monopolies are gone, the monopolies can’t be allowed to choose what content to block, because we know they’re going to abuse that power.
Again, not the ISP’s job.
You can already filter stuff. Yourself. Right now. You could also pay someone else to filter it for you, e.g. via VPN or some kind of monitoring software. The delivery mechanism for packets plays zero part in that, and never should.
Their entire job is right there in the name: they provide internet service. Anything more is a scam.
Yes, but I shouldn’t have to if I don’t want to. In an ideal world I could choose from a list of ISPs, one of them maybe blocks nothing, another blocks anything that might offend a muslim, another blocks porn, etc.
Are you saying that the company I contract with to provide my Internet service never should? Why not? If there’s fair competition I can choose from the list of companies that blocks what I want and lets through what I don’t want. The only problem now is that there isn’t any competition.
Again, not the ISP’s job. If you want those filters… the ISP is not where they go.
The thing you’re describing only works in an impossible flawless market, with infinite choice and infinite time. In practice there’s always some bullshit forced on everyone because enough people want it… or enough people will tolerate it. You’d get stuck choosing between the ISP that has porn but censors criticism of religion, or the ISP with free speech except praise for Israel, or the ISP that does everything you want except also blocks Google.
The service is fundamentally incompatible with the variety of choice required to cover something as fuzzy and individual as “stuff I don’t like.” So it’s not their fucking job. You pay that company to physically connect you to the internet, and if you want that data filtered, go right ahead. The physical-layer packet-delivery company is not responsible for what you do with the packets. You wanna run that shit by your minister or whatever? They cannot stop you.
Why not?
See rest of comment.
What the fuck.
“rest of comment” is nonsense about how it’s not possible for an ISP to do that job, but that’s clearly nonsense. It’s like saying that a supermarket can’t choose what goes on their shelves because someone might not be satisfied, so a supermarket must carry every item known to mankind.
… rest of comment explains why it’s not desirable for ISPs to be the ones doing that job. What you want will never be what happens. That degree of choice and control is not what those markets do.
The supermarket analogy is genuinely illustrative of your confusion. You want AOL. You want a service that’s like the internet, but silo’d and filtered, with someone else choosing what people get to see. You imagine that’s fine and dandy so long as you get to choose which silo controls your experience. But that’s fundamentally the opposite of how the internet works. That’s why Compuserve and Prodigy died.
Tech analogies are worse than useless. An ISP’s role is to connect you to the in-ter-net, the actual network, so that other machines can send stuff to your machine. They don’t control what any machine has or does. If you don’t want websites from some weird-ass server… don’t go there. If you can’t trust yourself not to do that… put in a filter. There’s already third-party filters available, right the hell now. They have the drop-in variety you expect from the company that rents pipe. Why in the name of god would you want those two things combined, as if conflating them would make the awful marketplace better?
The only things ISPs should be competing on are bandwidth and latency. That is the product they sell. Anything else is a trick being played on you.
They also own the pipes and that means they have free reign over what goes through the pipes. That’s how free speech works in the USA, it’s protected in the public space, not in the private space. You can’t enter a restaurant and start calling the waitress a bitch and expect them to not kick you out because of the first amendment.
No! They’re common carriers, god dammit!
AT&T doesn’t get to dictate your political opinions over the phone, and ISPs have no goddamn business even looking at your traffic. They. Deliver. Packets.
And if you don’t think they can do that job as private entities, nationalize them.
Seeing how pedos came out of the woodwork to defend the freedom to share whatever they want on ISPs infrastructure in this very discussion, I don’t mind them having a minimum of oversight on the traffic going through.
You want censorship from snooping because you don’t understand websites.