Former FCC Commissioner Tries To Claim Net Neutrality Has Aided The Rise Of White Supremacy

[crua9]

 

 

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/08/former-fcc-commissioner-tries-to-claim-net-neutrality-has-aided-the-rise-of-white-supremacy/

 

Quote

When last we checked in with former FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth, he was rather grotesquely using the Manchester bombing to try and launch a completely bizarre attack on net neutrality over at the Forbes op-ed pages. Furchtgott-Roth, who served as an FCC Commissioner from 1997 through 2001, now works at the Hudson Institute, which not-coincidentally takes money from large incumbent broadband providers. The Hill, Forbes and other similar outlets then publish not-so-objective “analysis” from such individuals without really disclosing the money or motives driving the rhetoric.

In his missive for hire last May just days after the Manchester attack, Furchtgott-Roth tried to argue that protecting net neutrality somehow aids and abets terrorism and murder:

“A sensible question is why civilized governments do not seek to deprive terrorists of unfettered access to the Internet…Sadly, here in America, limiting access to the Internet would be illegal under the euphemistic term “network neutrality,” the two-year-old experiment in federal regulation of the Internet…To its supporters, network neutrality is a bulwark of civilization. But network neutrality is also a shield for terrorists who seek to destroy civilization.”

 

As we noted then, Furchtgott-Roth doesn’t appear to have even the remotest understanding of how the internet or net neutrality works, and conflated the issue of net neutrality with his own deep-rooted desire to see greater government censorship of the internet. That lust for censorship runs so deep, Furchtgott-Roth envisioned a future where ISPs could compete with one another (as if that’s a thing) by how heavily they censor internet content:

 

“Under network neutrality, broadband companies–such as AT&T, Charter, Comcast, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon—are prohibited from discriminating against any lawful websites or content. There is no clear distinction between lawful and unlawful websites and content. The net result is a broadband company could and likely would be sued for blocking websites housing information about recruitment and organization for ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Ku Klux Klan, or other terrorist groups. It is also illegal to block content that instructs viewers on how to manufacture explosives such as nail bombs.”

Again, that has nothing to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality encourages the internet as a level playing field free of the anti-competitive or editorial meddling of giant telecom conglomerates comfortable in uncompetitive markets. And while ISPs are banned from blocking legal websites under the rules, few ISPs have interest in outright blocking of content in the first place due to political and PR backlash. In other words, eliminating net neutrality would do nothing to expedite Furchtgott-Roth’s vision of a filtered internet anyway. ISPs simply aren’t interested, and individuals have every right to avoid or filter websites as they see fit.

 

The former FCC Commissioner turned think tank “expert” simply conflated two completely unrelated issues (either intentionally for effect or unintentionally out of confusion) to try to demonize popular net neutrality protections. Apparently undaunted by his previous run in with extreme myopia and insensitivity, Furchtgott-Roth has since published a second, horribly ill-timed screed against net neutrality over at Forbes, this time blaming net neutrality for the resurgence of neo-nazis and white supremacy:

“In many countries around the world, national governments block much content and decide which websites its citizens can access. In the United States, we should allow individuals, not the government, to make those decisions. Broadband companies, including those currently regulated by network neutrality rules, should be allowed to offer various filtered services and filtering technologies to allow individuals to avoid content that they would rather not see, or have their families see. Families that want to block Daily Stormer and its ilk from the Internet should be allowed to purchase such a service directly from any business, and not have the FCC tell them that such a service is unlawful in the name of network neutrality.”

That’s an even deeper layer of bullshit than Furchtgott-Roth’s original treatise. There’s absolutely nothing in the net neutrality rules preventing individuals from using any filtering technology they’d like at any time under something known as personal responsibility. At no point has the FCC everindicated that families can’t purchase any filtering or parental control service they want. This is a completely made up and bizarre claim, made with total insensitivity to the recent attacks in Charlottesville, all to try to demonize some basic, popular consumer protections for the open internet.

At this point it feels like Furchtgott-Roth is just sitting around waiting for tragedies so he can blame them on the pure evil that is net neutrality. It would be lovely if he would fucking stop that.

 

[LienusLateTips]

not in tech news format

[crua9]

Thanks for the heads up. I have to check the style. It's been a while since I joined

give me a sec

 

Update: I think I fixed it

Edited August 22, 2017 by crua9

[RadiatingLight]

TBH, I can see his side of the argument, even though it's wrong. I can see where he's coming from.

[LienusLateTips]

BS!

[JaegerB]

Courtesy of IH8myPP, Imgur's greatest giffer:

http://i.imgur.com/Rmxhrxp.mp4

 

[Mira Yurizaki]

Oh joy, the cherry picking or whatever you want to classify this weak excuse for an argument to continue pushing your personal gain agenda. I bet he's still butthurt ICANN is no longer under US oversight.

[captain_to_fire]

51 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

I bet he's still butthurt ICANN is no longer under US oversight.

Ted Cruz is also butthurt about that https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/16/us/politics/ted-cruz-internet-domain-names-funding.html 

[HalGameGuru]

This is why we can't have nice things. Leave us the heck alone. You have a problem with how certain individuals use a service take it up with them, do not penalize the millions of law abiding and benign service users who have done nothing wrong because you cannot think up a solution to non-nail problems that don't involve a hammer. 

[MrDynamicMan]

White supremacy is the new boogeyman to the cold wars communism. 

[suicidalfranco]

57 minutes ago, MrDynamicMan said:

White supremacy is the new boogeyman to the cold wars communism. 

and comunism is the new superman

[GoodBytes]

This post does not meet the posting guidelines:

Quote the whole or near whole article is plagiarism. And you should explain the news in your own words. Use quote to support or complete what you are saying..