I'm currently working with Kaitlin on a blog post that'll serve to announce this company's support for Fight for the Future's Internet-Wide Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality. I've done a fair bit of reading on this over the years, and believe this is a good cause - and one worthy of a loud and...
If if the decision is made that SE should support this, what does that mean? That site has a few suggestions as to what they hope participating sites might do. Is SE looking to do precisely that, or something [slightly] unique?
Current thought is a blog post explaining why we think this is a good idea and how readers can participate, along with some sort of (dismissible) banner linking to the post to be shown for the duration of the 12th, @Servy. The latter bit is still kinda TBD; we should do something, but ideally we're focusing on educating folks & not annoying them.
@Won't Yes indeed, good job, this time they started by actually asking for people's opinion, and their course of action is a blog post about it. Both of which were huge needs of the people that were so angry about Joel's post.
@Won't Net neutrality is something that affects all us internet users, regardless of politics...
user1228
@Rahul2001 That's a gross oversimplification. You would have to assert that there was some negative that needed fixing and that any potential solution would be better than having government regulations stay the hell out of it. I've seen nothing like that IRL.
@Won't The thing is, government regulations won't stay the hell out of it, so we might as well support it, generate awareness, and encourage others to do the same...
Has any government regulation ever done anything to fully benefit the issue they want to address? More regulation from the US government doesn't solve problems, it generates different problems. Why not wait and see if big ISPs need to be regulated before yelling the sky is falling? Notice how everyone is supporting the FCC in Net Nuetrality while saying the FCC can't regulate content on TV or radio. People are talking out of both sides of their mouth.
Two things, @Matt - first, you should write an answer so you can elaborate on this a bit more (I'm gonna eventually move all these comments to chat anyway). Second, the critical distinction here is that what we're looking for from the FCC is regulation that prevents discriminatory action - essentially, you can't determine whether or not you'll deliver packets to me based on who's sending them. Regardless of your political leanings, that seems like sort of a critical function of the 'Net, doesn't it?
It might be worth noting that the current Chairman of the FCC is Ajit Pai, who was not the Chairman at the time of the Title II change-- that was Tom Wheeler. Non-US readers might be confused or not up to speed on the details here.
@maxshuty Is that... is that a joke/satire website? Or is it a real thing?!
I've only found one article about Net Neutrality that clearly explains the case in favor and the case against, gives actual quotations from articulate and relevant proponents and opponents, and does not attempt to force the reader into agreeing with one side of the issue. For anyone who feels you are missing some orientation to why this is even under debate, I highly recommend "A Tangled Web" by Price Colman.
This actually affects every country in the world @AndrewGrimm. If traffic originating from the united states is slowed down, do you really assume any other country will not be affected?
Moreover, if this precedent is made, do you really not think other countries will follow in the tracks?
I was very close to doing something about recommending a post of this type, but ended up not doing it, because 1) lazy 2) you guys did it already! This is one of the main reasons I love stack: you do care about your users and internet in general.
@Matt I really don't understand the position that "regulation" is necessarily a bad thing. Surely that depends on the content of the specific regulations concerned?
