dagblog - Comments for "The Private Internet"

I understand the whole notion

Darline@ Hard Money Loans Los Angeles — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:26:42 +0000

I understand the whole notion of a privatized internet, somewhat censored and completely surveillanced... but do you think the "big man" really has the power to control the masses via what's accepted and what isn't. I think the internet's too big; it's beyond control. It's free doman terrain, as far as I'm concerned. And there's always loopholes.

Your compression socks can be

tmccarthy0 — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 16:59:39 +0000

In reply to I can understand an ISP

Your compression socks can be found at Zappos they can and will ship to APO addresses.

Excellent advice, sir. I'm

Michael Maiello — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 16:11:26 +0000

In reply to When trying to write satire

Excellent advice, sir. I'm trying!

You can't say corporations

Beetlejuice — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:39:25 +0000

In reply to Again -- their device, their

You can't say corporations are not granted the right to co-opt the constitution in determining what can be communicated by the users of the platform. As long as GOPer's are throwing wrenches into the spokes and Obama keeps talking about bipartisanship, corporations have implied consent to co-opt the constitution to make money at the expense of their user base.

I think what's going on is before the meltdown, the entertainment industry didn't think illegal downloading was a big enough fish to go after. However, with falling revenues because people are cutting back on expenses, those guppies are starting to look tasty. Hence the efforts to cut services at ISP's and at the platform.

This will keep growing simply because the business sector is still trying to keep the same levels of growth they had before the downturn. If their growth doesn't meet or exceed Wall St expectation they could loose investors and go out of business.

I can understand an ISP

Beetlejuice — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:22:23 +0000

In reply to The Private Internet

I can understand an ISP regulating the type of traffic thru their point of presence on the internet. While a user is leasing a portal for a finite period of time, they are ultimately responsible for the content going in and out 24/7 including week-ends and holidays. However, if I purchase a platform, such as a PC, iPhone or whatever, I should be the one to decide how I wish to use the device when accessing the internet.

My access to info/data on the internet should only be limited at the portal, not at the device I own. In fact, there are many flavors of ISP's available for users to select. One can shop around for the one that allows you the access you desire. So ISP restrictions are dependent on the the type of traffic an ISP is willing to accept. However, the legal beagles are stepping up their campigns to legally corral users so ISP's are being forced to curtail users access.

I suspect efforts to clean up the internet aren't working as quickly as expected simply because every time they close down one porno or bit torrent niche, it reappears somewhere else. Unfortunately, that's what the internet is suppose to do. So the next step is to curb access at the device itself. But that's infringing on users by eliminating the possibility of choice. Soon we may find we have little room to make choices...we will have to accept devices with pre-installed applications/limitations that force users to make choices with fewer options thus directing attention to what others want us to see. So for example, when price checking out a pair of men's red wool socks, you could end up with pages of nothing but women's pink silk ankle socks because someone needs to get rid of excess inventory. In fact, I've been using Google to search for running compression socks. I can't get to the US side so I keep getting redirected to European sites with similar socks but prices in Euros or English pounds, both which includes a 20% VAT tax...I'm looking for a site in the US with the product lines in dollars that ship to an APO.

When trying to write satire

MrSmith1 — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 06:53:20 +0000

In reply to The Private Internet

When trying to write satire inside a shoebox, is it any wonder you keep getting elbowed? Comedy by definition has anarchy in it. Having some guidelines isn't necessarily bad, but having non-funny people making decisions as to what is or isn't funny almost always leads to bad outcomes.

Of course, the cliche of working within and triumphantly overcoming such restrictions, has a long and cherished history in broadcasting. From Fred Allen's fight with the censors and stupid NBC vice-presidents, to David Letterman and Howard Stern's similarly well-publicized bouts with corporate numbskulls, we love to see comedy writers/performers take the restrictions imposed on them and turn them on their head. Comedy is also about context. So, my advice would be to stop being so literal that corporate idiots and corporate internet providers feel specifically offended, and make the parody appear to fit within the imposed structure, while also being totally recognizable as the comedic flaying of pomposity and corporate idiocy that it is intended to be. It can be done. It just takes some work. But when a piece of devastating satire hits home, it is a thing of beauty, isn't it?

There are not nearly enough

quinn esq — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 05:32:40 +0000

In reply to The Private Internet

There are not nearly enough fish in this story for me to pay attention to it.

Please rewrite. This time, with more fish. Your readership will soar, and - together in greater fishhood - we will defeat consorship.

{secret fish sign}

I was not aware that we were

Lazy KGB — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 02:58:39 +0000

In reply to I am not aware of the federal

I was not aware that we were discussing the federal government per se.

We have moved into a new era. Electronic information is wholly equivalent to printed content. Several corporations who ostensibly offer communications devices and services do indeed limit devices to delivering only approved 'zines. Likewise with carriers. They also reserve the right to inspect every bit of data and only transmit packets containing information they want to have delivered. The carriers have been less aggressive about it than those who are arbitrarily throttling capacity at the device level, but the underlying questionable justifications are the same - as are the negative practical impacts on free expression and market commerce in an age of modern technology.

Requesting content be delivered to one's physical communications device (fixed PC or mobile) is the modern equivalent of requesting delivery of a 'zine. If the post office won't deliver it, are we really going to argue that the theoretical ability for the publisher to physically hand deliver their content across the nation would mean the post office's decision didn't seriously curtail the publisher's ability to realize the same free speech benefits as those allowed to access the nation's communications infrastructure?

What we have today is as if mailbox manufacturers and the USPS have both claimed the right to tell people what information they can and can not have delivered - deciding who can and can not take advantage of the modern communications infrastructure. That's the whole deal with net neutrality; corporations assert they have a right to inspect detailed contents of every packet transmitted by bandwidth consumers and decide what is and what is not delivered based on what is inside - determined by their own corporate interests.

In the case of the internet, the taxpayer has funded the bulk of R&D, infrastructure and backbone (the cellular infrastructure sees plenty of public funding too). We just gave corporate America another $7.2 billion to establish access in low-income and rural areas.Yet somehow policy regarding access and proper standards of conduct are a question properly decided entirely by private corporations? Why is it accepted as given that the American people shouldn't even question when corporations restrict our use of a communications infrastructure we've spent trillions in national treasure to build for ourselves?

The federal government has not fulfilled it's regulatory responsibilities for over a decade. This is just another example. Back in 2008, there was a candidate for president who was very articulate about these sorts of things. He totally promised to restore the needed strong regulatory functions of government. In fact, he even addressed this exact issue. Sadly, he died.

I am not aware of the federal

Elusive Trope — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 01:31:24 +0000

In reply to One critical difference being

I am not aware of the federal government blocking people from passing information similiar to the zine between one another.

One critical difference being

Lazy KGB — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 00:53:54 +0000

In reply to One way to look at it is that

One critical difference being that the post office does not block delivery of your 'zine if someone decides they want to order it - even if the 'zine has dirty pictures in it.