Who's trying to break the internet today?

[wonko the sane?]

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.

 

[NovaSaber]

Well, it's no surprise that things are borked in Russia, but still:

Russia Clones Wikipedia, Censors It, Bans Original

Ruviki is intended to be a more “trustworthy” source of information for Russians by editing out anything that makes the Russian government look bad.

www.404media.co

 

[Pocket]

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]

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.)

 

[Dekafox]

Not entirely unexpected, TikTok is suing to block the law forcing their sale that was attached to the recent foreign aid/funding bill:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/tiktok-bytedance-sue-block-us-law-seeking-sale-or-ban-app-2024-05-07/

 

[NovaSaber]

Romney admits that the TikTok ban is because social media makes propaganda less effective:

Romney Admits Push to Ban TikTok Is Aimed at Censoring News Out of Gaza | Common Dreams

A conversation between Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the Republican senator offered an "incredible historical document" showing how the U.S. views its role in the Middle East.

www.commondreams.org

 

[KidTDragon]

Republicans to Mitt:

 

[Dekafox]

A real privacy law? House lawmakers are optimistic this time

Last time, a popular bipartisan proposal failed to advance.

www.theverge.com

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:

https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/PRIVACY_04_xml_d1d6b82f10.pdf

 

[CoffeeHorse]

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.