Supreme Court Nominee: ISPs have 1st Amendment right to block websites

[Arika]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

110.5% correct, bonus points awarded for successful detect magic roll. 

[mynameisjuan]

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

It's a series of tubes, magic tells the data where to go.

After being in the field for so long, sometimes it honestly feels like magic.

[Christophe Corazza]

4 hours ago, DuckDodgers said:

the First Amendment bars the Government from restricting the editorial discretion of Internet service providers

 

So we can sue ISPs for content that passes though their networks? 

[potoooooooo]

4 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

I think because he is 50+ or so, he does not know the Internet or how it really works because it is possible that he barely has any contact with that.

 

I know that because I have an "elderly" person right next to me and see that person every day and know how they use the "Internet". Or rather not use. 

My parents are deep into their fifties. They both got degrees in what today would be considered computer science, specifically with a specialty in internet architecture. The internet is pretty fukn old man

[Okjoek]

 

[Taf the Ghost]

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

Maybe a side effect of the Supreme Court ruling that corporations are people so then should also have 1st amendment rights? No freakin clue tbh,

Corporate Personhood was setup by the Government with the establishment of business licensing. Most of the discussion around the topic never mentions it could be changed by Law. The Left in the USA just wanted to do things via destruction of language in the Courts.

 

That's actually the entire fight about Courts in the USA. It's much "easier" to force the Courts to change what the meaning of a set of words is than change laws. That's also what NN & the FCC stuff has been about.

 

As for the topic at hand, DC Circuit Court Judge applies SCOTUS precedent to the question at hand. This is like basic appellate court stuff and utterly uninteresting. There's a reason the FCC did what it did. The Telecoms keep winning in Court over the topics involved. (I'd be down for an update of the 1930s Telecom Laws, but people act like everything should just have someone sprinkle pixie dust on issues & they're solved.)

[laminutederire]

6 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Honestly, with the way the US is going, the UK still pushing to ban pornography and the EUs Copyright Bill I'm worried over how the internet is going to look in 10 years time.

We'll use vpns to go to the free Chinese internet. Yay.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, Christophe Corazza said:

 

So we can sue ISPs for content that passes though their networks? 

ISPs have specific legal protections. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act

 

But ISPs also can't be forced to display every website, otherwise they could be sued whenever their DNS service crashes.

[asus killer]

2 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

 

But ISPs also can't be forced to display every website, otherwise they could be sued whenever their DNS service crashes.

you don't need to use their DNS, and they also don't display websites your PC does  they allow your traffic through 

[mynameisjuan]

7 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

ISPs have specific legal protections. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act

 

But ISPs also can't be forced to display every website, otherwise they could be sued whenever their DNS service crashes.

ISPs have nothing to do with the website host. They are just a road to get there. Also I dont see any reason how an ISP could get sued if the DNS server (of plethora of backups) failed. 

[Taf the Ghost]

6 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

ISPs have nothing to do with the website host. They are just a road to get there. Also I dont see any reason how an ISP could get sued if the DNS server (of plethora of backups) failed. 

Might want to read up on Liability Law. Depending on the business field, companies can be sued (and lose the cases) over weird things in their field. If ISP regulations were setup in a weird way, the inability to resolve to a specific IP address could end up a contract violation & result in lawsuits. Lawsuits are, mostly, about specific laws. If bad ones exist, companies get sued over them.

[mynameisjuan]

6 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Might want to read up on Liability Law. Depending on the business field, companies can be sued (and lose the cases) over weird things in their field. If ISP regulations were setup in a weird way, the inability to resolve to a specific IP address could end up a contract violation & result in lawsuits. Lawsuits are, mostly, about specific laws. If bad ones exist, companies get sued over them.

Connection is never dropped which is where the lawsuit come in. POS systems have statics enter, not domains for that exact reason. Suing over down time is def a thing but loss of DNS affects critical systems very little. Even then, if somehow the DNS servers did fail, remote DNS backup are in place. I dont think you grasp how much has to go wrong for DNS to go down down. 

 

SLAs are a different story, I wasnt talking about them because thats a no shit sherloc discussion, they can sue over 20 packets dropped. 

[Amazonsucks]

2 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

Not exactly true.  I'm not saying yes or no to them knowing how it works and all that, but you have to remember until the age of roughly 25 humans do not have a fully developed prefrontal cortex which can have an impact on learning.  At elder ages, memory and other issues can have an impact on both learning and memory.  But, there are plenty of other factors to throw in there not simply just age, like genetics and medical history.  Might not be the case for this guy, though as I don't know his full medical history nor his genetics crap.

Fluid IQ drops sharply from 20 onward

[Lady Fitzgerald]

10 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

What do you expect?!
He's old, 50+.

And with that he doesn't understand technology.

You have to be someone who grow up with the Internet to understand it. Youc can't just learn it.

 

ANd that means born in the 80s because the Internet rose in the late 90s and really came to fruitition in the mid 2000s. Its a brand new phenomena!

 

 

How can you expect a 50+ person to understand something that grew like mushrooms in the last two decades???

What a putrid parcel of pretentious pomposity (not to mention pure nonsense)! I'm pushing 70 and I understand the internet and other technology just fine (heck, I build my own computers). Granted, there are a lot of morons in Government that are completely clueless about technology but age has nothing to do with it.

[asus killer]

3 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

What a putrid parcel of pretentious pomposity (not to mention pure nonsense)! I'm pushing 70 and I understand the internet and other technology just fine (heck, I build my own computers). Granted, there are a lot of morons in Government that are completely clueless about technology but age has nothing to do with it.

he's neither old neither a moron, he's just a politician. worst... a US republican politician  

[Lady Fitzgerald]

2 minutes ago, asus killer said:

he's neither old neither a moron, he's just a politician. worst... a US republican politician  

Did you follow the interrogation of Mark Zuckerberg by congrees? Even some of the politicians admitted they knew squat about technology (yet they feel comfortable about making laws to regulate it).

[asus killer]

4 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Did you follow the interrogation of Mark Zuckerberg by congrees? Even some of the politicians admitted they knew squat about technology (yet they feel comfortable about making laws to regulate it).

that happens everywhere (any country), usually they have staff that helps them. Completely different from a judge that simply does a 180º on freedom of speech.

[Master Disaster]

25 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

What a putrid parcel of pretentious pomposity (not to mention pure nonsense)! I'm pushing 70 and I understand the internet and other technology just fine (heck, I build my own computers). Granted, there are a lot of morons in Government that are completely clueless about technology but age has nothing to do with it.

11/10 for alliteration there.

[Amazonsucks]

43 minutes ago, asus killer said:

he's neither old neither a moron, he's just a politician. worst... a US republican politician  

Because which party theyre in makes a difference to their technical literacy? May i remind you that Al Gore singlehandedly invented and built the internet?

 

https://youtu.be/IejjnZYvMF8

[asus killer]

23 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Because which party theyre in makes a difference to their technical literacy? May i remind you that Al Gore singlehandedly invented and built the internet?

 

https://youtu.be/IejjnZYvMF8

that's you discussion not mine. What the hell does a judge deciding a ISP should censure the Internet has to do with technical literacy? ZERO. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech no matter if it is the internet or a newspaper.

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

Not exactly true.  I'm not saying yes or no to them knowing how it works and all that, but you have to remember until the age of roughly 25 humans do not have a fully developed prefrontal cortex which can have an impact on learning.  At elder ages, memory and other issues can have an impact on both learning and memory.  But, there are plenty of other factors to throw in there not simply just age, like genetics and medical history.  Might not be the case for this guy, though as I don't know his full medical history nor his genetics crap.

I didn't say age is not an impairment (even though it isn't in absolute terms), I said is does "not dictate what you can and can't learn". Meaning age doesn't dictate that you can learn about gardening but not the internet, or you can learn about lawn bowls but not electronics.  Individual conditions determine that, age does not.  And the person I was responding to directly made the claim that this bloke couldn't possibly understand the internet because he was 50 and didn't grow up with it.

[Stefan Payne]

2 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

What a putrid parcel of pretentious pomposity (not to mention pure nonsense)! I'm pushing 70 and I understand the internet and other technology just fine (heck, I build my own computers). Granted, there are a lot of morons in Government that are completely clueless about technology but age has nothing to do with it.

Pls read my later comments.

 

My point was: your generation grew up without technology, and learned to do other things.

You have to actively choose technology and most just do not.

With more recent generations, you are pushed towards technology, especially cellphone. 

 

That was my argument.

Not that _ALL_ Older People have no clue about Technology but that _MANY_ Older People don't because of their life choices and that it wasn't a thing at the time for them.

[Jtalk4456]

I feel like this thread should have a don't get political, be nice to each other warning at the top...

[Stefan Payne]

2 hours ago, asus killer said:

he's neither old neither a moron, he's just a politician. worst... a US republican politician  

Statements like that are the Problem - and don't belong in a Tech Forum.

As if belonging to a Political Party have anything to do with that - it does not. 

 

But there was a democratic lead woman that called the President "Bush" - and that was last year and a couple of times. 

Some of them seem to show their age and should resign because they show signs of Dementia or Alzheimers.

 

So I'm for a mandatory retirement age of 60 Years, 65 at max. If you turn 60/65, you have to vacate your seat till the end of the year and retire.

because it shows that in Politics right now the advanced age of some people seems to be not the best thing. People at the age of 80 or more should do stuff they liked, they worked long enough!!

 

So stop showing your political affiliation in this Forum. Even though this is a Forum, it doesn't have to be a  religious battle over which party is the best...

 

But what I really don't like is people demanding harrassment or violence. Especially if they are members of a political party. Those should be thrown out, regardless of Skin Color, Gender, hight and age!

[Jtalk4456]

10 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Pls read my later comments.

 

My point was: your generation grew up without technology, and learned to do other things.

You have to actively choose technology and most just do not.

With more recent generations, you are pushed towards technology, especially cellphone. 

 

That was my argument.

Not that _ALL_ Older People have no clue about Technology but that _MANY_ Older People don't because of their life choices and that it wasn't a thing at the time for them.

The various people who have commented to you have gotten your point from the start. The problem is while your premise is understandable 

Quote

You have to actively choose technology and most just do not.

Your conclusion is off. When you say younger people are pushed into technology, you seem to equate all kids having cell phones at a young age with all kids knowing how a cell phone operates, which is two very different things. The generation who knows the most about how it works are not the kids growing up USING technology, but the baby boomers in their 40's and 50's who were young adults getting jobs putting together the infrastructure of the internet, the ones who invented modern computing as we know it. They know HOW IT WORKS because they are the ones who made it work. Take Bill Gates as an obvious example. I grew up with tech all around me, but it wasn't until the last 3 yrs that I started to learn about tech and how it works. Until that point I had only USED it, not learned about it. Knowledge is an opportunity, not a guarantee based on age. Some old people don't know computers such as my grandmother who was a real farmer reluctant to even own a tv in her later years, let alone a PC. Then again there's a large portion of the new generation who doesn't own a computer either because they live off cell phones and don't need a full computer. The fact is that current generations are not ACTIVELY CHOOSING to LEARN about technology, they only use (and abuse) it.

There is a large difference between knowing and using a piece of technology, let alone the backing infrastructure that allows it to function