Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
@TheMadPirate the fcc also violates the constitution by enforcing morality clauses on TV, but the conservitards are nowhere to be seen on that one
-
Embed this notice
@TheMadPirate this is literally just line go uppers want the line to go up, and they can't get it by gigging people for outdated copper lines any more than they already are, so this is the next thing in the way.
if they were actually rolling out fiber (which they don't; they sued google every district they could) and technology was somehow being hindered, there could be an argument, but there is no sign that "you can't charge netflix more for being popular" is actually posing any problem but limiting stonks growth
-
Embed this notice
@icedquinn @TheMadPirate I'm not really defending morality clauses per se but airwaves are a limited resource held in a public trust meant to be accessible by everyone. internet is effectively infinite and privately owned.
my actual position on radio is that all commercial television and radio over a couple watts be banned and the frequencies only be used by communities.
-
Embed this notice
@sun @TheMadPirate congress shall enact no law blah blah
-
Embed this notice
@icedquinn @TheMadPirate you're right, I would fix it by not having the rules on content but you just can't broadcast more than several thousand feet and the problem solves itself
-
Embed this notice
@sun @TheMadPirate rationing airwaves isn't explicitly banned by the constitution so i'm not sure what the point is
unless you're arguing it abridges speech by limiting who can speak with a specific frequency
-
Embed this notice
@sun @TheMadPirate censoring radio hosts however IS explicitly banned and requires layers of retardation to argue otherwise (judges inventing exceptions that were not ratified by legislature)
so if the agency can violate the constitution in useless ways, and be defended for doing so, moral authority to stop them from using their misbegotten power to actually make our lives better is completely missing.
-
Embed this notice
@icedquinn @TheMadPirate you don't need broad encompassing rules when there is incredible diversity and limited range of individual broadcasters.
functionally it is absolutely required for radio waves to be managed nationally, I am sympathetic to libertarianism but it doesn't work for radio waves for numerous technical and organizational and uh, game theory reasons
-
Embed this notice
@sun @TheMadPirate i mean you could just take the policy and give it to the FTC instead?
-
Embed this notice
@icedquinn @TheMadPirate the FCC should primarily be responsible for enacting policies that enable the broadest amount of use of the radio waves without causing interference. It's mostly technical job but the value behind it is tons and tons of local use.
The way it is done right now is the FCC has auctions and only megacorps are able to buy it, and in large swaths. Instead of serving the public interest, they load it with the most peurile and low quality "entertainment" which serves as flypaper for getting people to watch ads. It absolutely 0% works in the public interest the way it is managed now.
-
Embed this notice
@sun @TheMadPirate what does this have to do with net neutrality
-
Embed this notice
@icedquinn @TheMadPirate that its too different to really be analogous
-
Embed this notice
@sun @TheMadPirate what i'm mostly hearing is just "we don't like the FCC lol" which is fine but like
that's just moving deck chairs around really
-
Embed this notice
@icedquinn @TheMadPirate @sun it doesn't and the FCC has no business being the regulatory agency in charge of the Internet (no one does imo but we probably can't get a regulation free Internet)
-
Embed this notice
@TheMadPirate @sun woosh :blobcatmage: i give this power to the FTC but now its called anticompetitive behavior on the internet instead
❓
-
Embed this notice
@pwm @icedquinn @TheMadPirate I don't totally get it either, I think the argument is that the federal government has jurisdiction over all mass communication mediums because it's a critical component in national security
-
Embed this notice
@pwm @TheMadPirate @icedquinn tbh I don't totally get the connection between net neutrality and content moderation stuff, I thought it was about last mile anticompetitive behavior? it's basically saying you can't discriminate on packets for commercial reasons. it doesn't totally make sense to me anyway because peering agreements have always been a thing, there has always been preferential treatment. I mean I am happy for the gov to say that your piece of shit ISP can't block or degrade your access to Netflix because they have started their own shitty streaming service.
-
Embed this notice
@sun @TheMadPirate @pwm the original article is about president musk and at&t basically don't want fairness enforcement laws lol
-
Embed this notice
@sun @TheMadPirate @pwm the connection is that its the same agency doing both things and conservatives are bitching that muh rights infringed to not be allowed to charge netflix more money for qos priority, but then shove it up their ass when the same agency does obviously illegal things
-
Embed this notice
@pwm @icedquinn @TheMadPirate I agree with you, I think the gov can regulate radio because it's a natural resource and limited and very susceptible to abuse by private actors. but internet is all private infrastructure
-
Embed this notice
@sun @icedquinn @TheMadPirate where's that written? Which amendment to the constitution adds the control of mass media?
Oh wait, that's right, the one that explicitly disallows government regulation of media is FUCKING FIRST.
For the purposes of national security I'm going to need you all to suck my cock so I can film it and blackmail you to get what I want later. Nation Security. Promise.
-
Embed this notice
@sun @TheMadPirate @pwm imagine if the police went around shooting school kids for fun but then beat up a drug dealer and everyone complained that beating up the drug dealer was a travesty that must be stopped
-
Embed this notice
@sun @TheMadPirate @pwm i could see the argument that regulating which bands you can screech on is technically abridging speech but i don't think anyone has honestly tried it and i don't think i'd expect it to work
-
Embed this notice
@pwm @icedquinn @TheMadPirate I would prefer this legislated through antitrust and consumer protection than FCC. your home is inherently geo-locked so government protection from companies exploiting your inability to move to change ISPs to force you to accept only their shitty services is appropriate
-
Embed this notice
@sun @icedquinn @TheMadPirate we already have common carrier. We shouldn't have to reinvent that from first principles imo.
-
Embed this notice
@sun @icedquinn @TheMadPirate em spectrum I can roll with at least in principle because someone needs to mediate access to the limited resource (don't like the current incarnation AT ALL but that's a separate issue).
I think the Internet is also ripe for abuse by private actors but cross contaminating the spheres of concern will only lead to bad things as rules for one place are misapplied elsewhere. So, the FCC should keep to it's fiefdom and if we must regulate the Internet it needs to be its own thing.
-
Embed this notice
@sun @TheMadPirate @icedquinn the FCC should probably be renamed so they don't get uppity. Call them the federal ham radio agency and fire 80% of the staff
-
Embed this notice
@sun @icedquinn @TheMadPirate "fair access" for consumer and producer I don't think should be this hard to regulate into existence and I again feel that it is just double edged common carrier, and not unlike an electric utility e.g. this problem is solved by other names already, I think.
iced depresso
dilbert 1
pwm
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the