Exactly. And the early internet lead directly here. Which is why going back makes about as much sense as picking up your baby and dropping it on the floor again.
All of those changes were choices. Like setting icann as a for profit entity at the behest of a corrupt libertarian faction. We didn’t have to destroy peer to peer communication. We didn’t have to cede email to google. None of those things were inevitable. Could have become anything really.
Yeah but we didn’t do it, because our political system is built around deference to large corporations and we’ve abandoned antitrust and taking on corporate power.
But here’s the thing. This effort to stop these corporations from delivering unlimited porn to children is a step in the right direction. Which is restraining the activity of these companies to hurt people.
Which is why calls for the old “free” internet are now, like then, bullshit.
Bullshit. This about enacting tboughtcrime and normalizing that two Americans cannot exchange whatever arbitrary information the current administration has decided is disallowed. It starts with porn and ends with any form of dissent. It's another step towards Newspeak.
I know they taught you about slippery slopes in elementary school social studies, and I assume you've educated yourself not only of the past but also with speculative material such as 1984. If not, I'm not sure why you feel qualified to make the claims you're making.
Yeah that’s the libertarian techno utopian Silicon Valley point of view. It’s not that I don’t understand it, it’s that I think it’s pretty clear at this point it’s just a PR pitch for a group of sociopathic assholes who think they deserve to run the country.
Giving unlimited porn to kids is not “good, actually” and it was illegal before the internet and it’s a frustrating accident of history that nobody understood the implications of Section 230 at the time.
The internet is a core infrastructure commercial enterprise and what it produces should be subject to standard product regulations.
I'm not a libertarian, and I don't live in SV. I'm also not a sociopathic asshole. Your argument is filled with ad hominem, then presents a ridiculous straw man, and never actually addresses the argument I made.
< This about enacting tboughtcrime and normalizing that two Americans cannot exchange whatever arbitrary information the current administration has decided is disallowed. It starts with porn and ends with any form of dissent. It's another step towards Newspeak.
No, it's not.
It's about regulating consumer product safety. The above argument is one employed to avoid that obvious fact. Nobody wants to decide what you can email another adult. We want to make these giant conglomerate tech companies accountable for the harm they cause to people. Giving massive amounts of unlimited porn to children is harmful and we shouldn't be OK with it.
I get that "oh think of the children" is often used disingenuously. So what? This isn't one of those times.
You've doubled down on the straw man. Literally no one is talking about "giving massive amounts of unlimited porn to children" but you.
> So what? This isn't one of those times.
It 100% is, and you cannot see it because you yourself are caught in the fervor.
If you don't want to visit a website, don't visit it. If you don't want your child to visit a website, block it. But to force website operators to check IDs at the door through sketchy third party services so that other consenting individuals can use their services is just batshit insane and a gigantic slippery slope towards a State-run internet that criminalizes all non-sanctioned speech. You need to look past your little hang up and understand the bigger picture.
