So this is a stupid and basic question but uh, this whole traffic shaping thing confuses me a lot even after reading a handful of Wikipedia articles about it.
I understand the part about giving all services the same speed, but why is it that individual users don't need to be limited in the total amount of data they use?
What exactly is different in our modern internet from the old days when I was told (although we had broadband) a lot of people using the internet at once would make it slower?
It doesn't make any sense to prevent employers from viewing social media feeds but it might make sense to prevent them from using the feeds to get around discrimination regulations.
You could learn a lot of stuff from a social media feed. You might learn that the person uses dialect, doesn't have a reliable car, is lgbt+, has a disability or other medical condition you didn't know about, or who knows what else. Many of these things could be ultimately illegal to reject somebody for, but with a bunch of things on a feed and any number of other data in the application, it would be easy to do a little "parallel construction" and claim it was for some other reason.
Not that even barring them from using/looking at social media feeds would really prevent that from happening anyway.
Oh boy... this is the same kind of logic that brings us people slapping NC licences on derivative works they "don't own" part of because they think they'll get in trouble for "granting" the public all the freedoms to use something... because they think that using a permissive licence with no explicit don'ts carved out of it could be seen as encouraging infringement.
(When really, an NC licence is designed to reserve their exclusive rights, effectively claiming more ownership over the thing they claim not to own. It's as good as stating they outright plan to make heaps of money on the thing they're afraid to infringe.)
If you find a movie unsatisfying, they've still delivered the service you asked for. We're talking getting all the advertisements on the screen but failing to even show the movie.
just to push out information to damage the United States
Why exactly does the United States government have so much damaging information on file again? Could that maybe just maybe have something to do with it not respecting its people?
If it had nothing to hide it'd have nothing to fear.
How national laws should relate to the internet is such a tricky subject, honestly. You want to say (or rather, governments do) that everything done online should be subject to the offline laws of a citizen's nation, but when it comes to things like geoblocking, region-specific censorship, GEMA obscuring every other youtube video in Germany with the excuse of "copyright!", threats to hold liable domain registrars and ISPs because they don't perform enough censorship, weird claims that a US embargo with Iran means you can't let them have source code of free software (???), just any time a government wants to take the internet and strangle it to prevent the ungodly horror of information flowing through it they don't particularly like because they don't know what else to do it's just like, we're living in the future now, I thought we were beyond this primitive stage of humanity. There has to be a better way.
piracy is "too benign of a term to adequately describe the toll that music theft" takes on musicians
You mean equating people who make unauthorised copies of music with the image of bands of destructive thugs with swords and cannons and stuff is too nice? Should we call it media terrorism instead?
[W]hile girls are increasingly succeeding in the real world, boys are retreating into cyberspace
Is it just me or is there buried in here a flawed premise in that we can't have women being more successful than men! If men stop expanding their opportunities at the same pace as women they're not going to be men any more! Alarming!
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Takumi.
So this is a stupid and basic question but uh, this whole traffic shaping thing confuses me a lot even after reading a handful of Wikipedia articles about it.
I understand the part about giving all services the same speed, but why is it that individual users don't need to be limited in the total amount of data they use?
What exactly is different in our modern internet from the old days when I was told (although we had broadband) a lot of people using the internet at once would make it slower?
It doesn't make any sense to prevent employers from viewing social media feeds but it might make sense to prevent them from using the feeds to get around discrimination regulations.
You could learn a lot of stuff from a social media feed. You might learn that the person uses dialect, doesn't have a reliable car, is lgbt+, has a disability or other medical condition you didn't know about, or who knows what else. Many of these things could be ultimately illegal to reject somebody for, but with a bunch of things on a feed and any number of other data in the application, it would be easy to do a little "parallel construction" and claim it was for some other reason.
Not that even barring them from using/looking at social media feeds would really prevent that from happening anyway.
Oh boy... this is the same kind of logic that brings us people slapping NC licences on derivative works they "don't own" part of because they think they'll get in trouble for "granting" the public all the freedoms to use something... because they think that using a permissive licence with no explicit don'ts carved out of it could be seen as encouraging infringement.
(When really, an NC licence is designed to reserve their exclusive rights, effectively claiming more ownership over the thing they claim not to own. It's as good as stating they outright plan to make heaps of money on the thing they're afraid to infringe.)
Re: Except
If you find a movie unsatisfying, they've still delivered the service you asked for. We're talking getting all the advertisements on the screen but failing to even show the movie.
Why exactly does the United States government have so much damaging information on file again? Could that maybe just maybe have something to do with it not respecting its people?
If it had nothing to hide it'd have nothing to fear.
How national laws should relate to the internet is such a tricky subject, honestly. You want to say (or rather, governments do) that everything done online should be subject to the offline laws of a citizen's nation, but when it comes to things like geoblocking, region-specific censorship, GEMA obscuring every other youtube video in Germany with the excuse of "copyright!", threats to hold liable domain registrars and ISPs because they don't perform enough censorship, weird claims that a US embargo with Iran means you can't let them have source code of free software (???), just any time a government wants to take the internet and strangle it to prevent the ungodly horror of information flowing through it they don't particularly like because they don't know what else to do it's just like, we're living in the future now, I thought we were beyond this primitive stage of humanity. There has to be a better way.
Life imitates lego movie
After we got "Thursday Night Football: Saturday Edition" I would not be at all surprised to see this happen.
piracy is "too benign of a term to adequately describe the toll that music theft" takes on musicians
You mean equating people who make unauthorised copies of music with the image of bands of destructive thugs with swords and cannons and stuff is too nice? Should we call it media terrorism instead?
[W]hile girls are increasingly succeeding in the real world, boys are retreating into cyberspace
Is it just me or is there buried in here a flawed premise in that we can't have women being more successful than men! If men stop expanding their opportunities at the same pace as women they're not going to be men any more! Alarming!