Who's trying to break the internet today?

wonko the sane?

You may test that assumption at your convinience.
Citizen
You're thinking on it backward. It's not about charging the corporations more, it's about permission to gouge aunty pam and grandpa to visit amazon and facebook. It was never about giving preference for bandwidth, because bandwidth is functionally cheap and easy to scale. It's about being able to upcharge for websites people are addicted to or are almost irremovably integrated into peoples daily lives.

It's about exploiting the populace, not the corporations.
 

Pocket

jumbled pile of person
Citizen
You're thinking on it backward. It's not about charging the corporations more, it's about permission to gouge aunty pam and grandpa to visit amazon and facebook. It was never about giving preference for bandwidth, because bandwidth is functionally cheap and easy to scale. It's about being able to upcharge for websites people are addicted to or are almost irremovably integrated into peoples daily lives.

It's about exploiting the populace, not the corporations.
And I say that even collectively, what you'd get from doing that is small potatoes compared to what you'd get fleecing multibillion dollar companies. If they wanted to make more money off their customers, they'd just jack up prices across the board because that's less effort and comes with insurance against your customers just finding other websites to go to instead of the ones you're upcharging for.
 

NovaSaber

Well-known member
Citizen
The main issue is that they'd charge the owners of sites to not have their sites slowed down, which means the profitable sites owned by large corporations would be the main ones that wouldn't become less usable.
(Then they might also upcharge customers for those sites if they think they can get away with it.)
 

KidTDragon

Now with hi-res avatar!
Citizen
Republicans to Mitt:

IMG_6078.jpeg
 

Dekafox

Fabulously Foxy Dragon
Citizen

Apparently this is going in for markup tomorrow. On the one hand, it could make targeted ads illegal. On the other, there's concern it could override existing state laws that are stricter than it(due to interstate commerce clause in the Constitution). Since that article, it's also had COPPA 2 fodled into it(which seems to be covering collecting data on kids, not the age verification stuff, at a glance) and the data broker bit now has a universal deletion request added.

The bill itself:

 

CoffeeHorse

*sip*
Staff member
Council of Elders
Citizen
If they ban targeted ads altogether, then the age verification stuff becomes unimportant. It was an issue because sites already aren't supposed to be collecting data from kids, so if they want to keep collecting data then they need to find a way to make it a two tiered system. If they can't collect data on any of us then we're all in the same tier again.
 

Dekafox

Fabulously Foxy Dragon
Citizen

Interesting, but I have no idea how they'd enforce it, other than just banning all algorithm-driven social media - and then how that would even work without a Great Firewall of New York State. Pretty much all the culprits are big enough to sue though I suppose.
 

wonko the sane?

You may test that assumption at your convinience.
Citizen
I don't think the idea is enforceable, but I do think something like this needed to be done: if only to prove that governments, even if only on a local level, will not abide by proven to be bad for everyone and everything software will not be tolerated.

I hope more states, and eventually federal level governments across the world do this. Social media (as it is currently configured and used.) is just ******* bad, for everyone.
 

wonko the sane?

You may test that assumption at your convinience.
Citizen
Is your service dependent on the internet?

Then it will get hacked. It's been TWENTY YEARS we've lived in an online and integrated society: how do they not know this by now?
 

Rhinox

too old for this
Citizen
Good news, with the Chevron decision net neutrality policy means nothing. There is no longer any enforcement method that doesn't involve massive legal cases.
But, at the same time, that means that attempting to enforce ID laws online also have to jump through those hoops. no enforcement teeth means they have no real way to "protect the children".
 


Top Bottom