Announcing The Declaration Of Internet Freedom

from the join-the-discussion dept

A whole bunch of organizations and individuals are getting together today to launch the beginning of a process, the creation of an Internet Declaration of Freedom. We’ve seen how the internet has been under attack from various directions, and we recognize that it’s time to make that stop. The internet is an incredible platform that we want to grow and to thrive, and thus, a very large coalition got together to produce the following document as a starting point, hoping to kick off a much larger discussion which we hope you’ll join in.

We’ve set up our own Step2 discussion page where you can vote on the principles, discuss them, add your own ideas… whatever you’d like. You can, of course, also discuss them below in the comments. There are a number of other organizations setting up pages as well. The folks at Free Press have put up a Declaration of Internet Freedom site that lists out many of the organizations and individuals who were involved in putting this together and who are supporting the effort. There’s also a subreddit and a Cheezburger page. Lots of other groups have set up action pages where you can take part as well, including EFF, Access and Free Press.

We believe that a free and open Internet can bring about a better world. But to keep the Internet free and open, we must promote these principles in every country, every industry and every community. And we believe that these freedoms will bring about more creativity, more innovation and a better society.

We are joining an international movement to defend our freedoms because we believe that they are worth fighting for.

Let’s discuss these principles — agree or disagree with them, debate them, translate them, make them your own and broaden the discussion with your community — as only the Internet can make possible.

Join us in keeping the Internet free and open.

Embed This:

<a href=”https://www.techdirt.com/netdeclaration”><img src=”http://cdn.techdirt.com/i/net-declaration.png” title=”Declaration of Internet Freedom” /></a>

In case you can’t read the graphic, here’s the text version:

Declaration of Internet Freedom
We stand for a free and open Internet.

We support transparent and participatory processes for making Internet policy and the establishment of five basic principles:

Expression: Don’t censor the Internet.

Access: Promote universal access to fast and affordable networks.

Openness: Keep the Internet an open network where everyone is free to connect, communicate, write, read, watch, speak, listen, learn, create and innovate.

Innovation: Protect the freedom to innovate and create without permission. Don’t block new technologies, and don’t punish innovators for their users’ actions.

Privacy: Protect privacy and defend everyone’s ability to control how their data and devices are used.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Announcing The Declaration Of Internet Freedom”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
139 Comments
Anonymous Coward of Esteemed Trolling (profile) says:

Re: Re: they are more connected.... than at first glance

ahhh…The difference between “not knowing who you are” and “not knowing what you do”.
Both require spying on you, but why would your identity be wanted for no reason, surely it is because of “knowledge of what you do” ?
Sometimes the ID they want, could just be your age range, it could be your sex, it could be type of interests you have, it may be your location or even your full details.

The two are highly related, that’s why most sites are obliged to ONLY collect anonymous data of user habits, but they still end up with an ID of you, based on details that just happen to be, not personally identifiable on the surface.


Excuse for not signing up or just too Lazy ?

As for….OP not signing up, it can be rightly argued that giving your personal details out, is a privacy issue.
BUT, who would give out their real info ?
I just think it is laziness…. couldn’t be bothered..
guerrillamail for a temp email address.
Make up a name, password etc…
TOR when signing up

Laziness, it has to be. He can still sign up and keep relative privacy and anonymity


BTW… when I say anonymity, I do not mean ALL your personal details, ip / home address / bank account balance etc…
Your personal details can be….. the types of fonts your browser uses, the sites you visit, the comments you post, your preferences in food etc..

It is the level of privacy that states your level of anonymity

Blatant Coward (profile) says:

Re: I don't think you get it.

The purpose of signing is to show your support and approval as a person.

If privacy is your main concern, yet you want to show approval, take one of your hands (either will do) make a fist, and extend your thumb upwards. When you feel your opinion matches your shown enthusiasm, then allow your hand to relax to do whatever you normally do with it.

An audible statement such as ‘Good deal’ or ‘That’s fine by me.’ is an excellent way to amplify your expression of approval. For extra privacy your audible statement should of course be coded, such as ‘The blue chair is by the door.’ or “?Atenci?n!”.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: I got it just fine.

“If privacy is your main concern, yet you want to show approval, take one of your hands (either will do) make a fist, and extend your thumb upwards.”

Or alternatively, I could go to the comments page on Techdirt and write exactly what I wrote. Of the two, which do you suppose would be more effective communication?

Nick Dynice (profile) says:

Re: Re:

It is a public declaration. An anonymous declaration is meaningless. If you do not wish to publicly declare your support of privacy then you don’t believe that strongly anyway. By publicly declaring you support privacy does not mean you give up privacy in other forums. But you are probably just one of the regular AC troll anyway.

“I publicly declare a right to privacy!” said the AC. No, your doing it wrong.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Tacking sites on TechDirt

According to the collusion add-on for Chrome, these are the sites that seem to be tracking here:

When you visit this site, the following sites are informed:

googleapis.com
google.com
facebook.net
flattr.com
google-analytics.com
reddit.com
adtechus.com
twitter.com
wibiya.com
reinvigorate.net
scorecardresearch.com
quantserve.com
facebook.com
gravatar.com
feedburner.com
fbcdn.net
chartbeat.com
amung.us

SailingCyclops (profile) says:

Re: Re: Tracking

Governments are incapable and corporations are unwilling to provide any online privacy. So, you have to take personal responsibility for your own privacy. Like most everything else in life if you want it done right do it yourself!

Do Not Track Plus Blocking tracking @ techdirt.com

5 companies tracking you:
5 blocked
Google Analytics
Wiblya
Comscore Beacon
Quantcast
ChartBeat

1 ad network tracking you:
1 blocked
Quantcast

Tracking blockers, Judicious cookie controls, plus the use of an off-shore VPN, keeps my systems PRIVATE. I see little hope for any regulations or “declarations” replacing what each of us can do for ourselves. In today’s climate of rapacious capitalism, where money sets the paradigm and writes the laws, looking to corporations or to governments is simply a waste of time, and will only lull you into a false sense of security.

If you don’t like to be tracked, don’t allow it!

Jim Harper (profile) says:

I got yer 'Declaration of Internet Freedom'

I like this Declaration of Internet Freedom better. But the one I really like is the Bill of Rights. With gems like “Congress shall make no law,” and, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,” I think the original Declaration of Internet Freedom is the bees knees.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: I got yer 'Declaration of Internet Freedom'

I like this Declaration of Internet Freedom better. But the one I really like is the Bill of Rights. With gems like “Congress shall make no law,” and, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,” I think the original Declaration of Internet Freedom is the bees knees.

Hey… finally something Jim and I disagree on. 🙂

I actually think something like this is important for a few reasons. First, this is a global effort, not just US-based. The Bill of Rights you point to only applies to the US. Second, even with that Bill of Rights, Congress (and other governments) seem to want to treat the internet as something different. I think it’s important to speak out loudly and clearly about what internet freedom means.

Jim Harper (profile) says:

Re: Re: I got yer 'Declaration of Internet Freedom'

Don’t get too excited, folks. The Jim-Mike Schism is very likely to end if and when the actual meanings of the things said in this declaration translate to actual policy proposals.

It’s question-begging to say of the declaration that it’s important to speak out about what Internet freedom means. People know no more about what Internet freedom means after reading this document than before.

I view it as an attempt to reset who the authorities on Internet freedom are, from folks like the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, who produced a special and timeless plan for freedom in the U.S. (and worldwide, if others will have it) to a group of today’s popular activists and thinkers. No, thanks!

I really like what is in the founding charter of the U.S., even though I’m deeply dissatisfied with (and working daily on) its implementation in certain areas, such as its translation so far into the modern communications environment.

In the meantime, I’ve enjoyed this very special airing of grievances!

Anonymous Coward says:

I agree with most of this but I have one question.

“Access: Promote universal access to fast and affordable networks.”

What does this entitle? Will this universal access come about by having governments raise taxes or force companies to bring broadband into markets or areas that are not profitable for them?

It is not right to promote one freedom (internet access) by taking away another (economic choice).

E. Zachary Knight (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I think it could come from a variety of sources. For one, we can stop paying out the funds from the Universal Service Fund to companies that are unwilling to service rural areas like they are supposed to. Take that money and actually fund a rural broadband company or preferably more.

Or we could end the monopoly privileges of current ISPs and work toward brig real choice to places like my home city that has one DSL provider and nothing else.

That is a start.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re:

What does this entitle? Will this universal access come about by having governments raise taxes or force companies to bring broadband into markets or areas that are not profitable for them?

It is not right to promote one freedom (internet access) by taking away another (economic choice).

You are wrong here. All social organisation removes some freedoms in order to preserve others. Without such tradeoffs there is no civilisation.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Affordable is not that hard. Let the appropriate agencies know that competition is 15-25, not 1 or 3. And that means 15-25 Cable AND 15-25 DSL AND 15-25 Fiber, etc. Make the central boxes open to any provider and have them contribute to maintaining the the rest of the infrastructure as a public utility.

One could argue my choice of 15-25 but I know that 1 or 3 does not work.

This should apply to other areas as well, like mobile phones, Newspaper conglomerates, TV channel ownership, Radio channel ownership, etc.

Chargone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

three’s fine if you don’t give them any particular protections and bring the hammer down on them if they start with the collusion and price fixing and such.

provided that’s three Small entities and you’re talking per town/city, not per state/country. (and even then, i’d expect each and every one of those three to operate in other towns as well as that one, and have a Different set of competitors in those towns.)

it’s a matter of scale too, ya know?

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re:

What does this entitle? Will this universal access come about by having governments raise taxes or force companies to bring broadband into markets or areas that are not profitable for them?

Roads are provided at public expense – so it seems reasonable that wherever roads are provided so should broadband be. Broadband is probably cheaper!

Anonymous Coward of Esteemed Trolling (profile) says:

OT. but relevant.
“In case you can’t read the graphic, here’s the text version: “
I can not tell you how much I approve of this text. (I have met some really cool blind people online)
Inclusion for visually impaired people is completely neglected by the majority IRL, on the web we have the ability and tech to work around it, but a shame exists, it is not done enough.

Anonymous Coward of Esteemed Trolling (profile) says:

Re: Education (but they have nothing to hide)

I approve this !

After putting your comment through my patented translation software
I also read your comment as…..
“please post a relevant video of Jacob Appelbaum (Tor)” amirite?

So here I go again…..

Linux.conf.au 2012 – Ballarat 2012
Keynote Presentation – Jacob Appelbaum
Runtime: 1hour 17minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMN2360LM_U

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Question

I went to the declaration site and wanted to sign it but Organisation is a required field. Why? I am not part of an organisation so I can’t sign.

The Free Press site is only for signing up organizations. Other sites will allow you to sign as individuals… There isn’t just one site at this point — but lots of sites taking part.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Not quite Right?

Yes, we do need to clarify if a sale is a sale or the down payment (or even full payment) on a rental. The easiest way to do this, in my mind, is to end the EULA’s. Anytime the seller retains rights after the sale there is a problem created. This is creating in their minds (the manufacturers or creators) the right to control after the fact of the sale. This I believe is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Keii (profile) says:

This got me thinking that the internet is evolving into its own country.
And THAT got me thinking of why the MPAA/RIAA and other “AA”s are so angry at Google. They can’t comprehend that such a big and successful thing has no gatekeeper for them to bribe.
But Google is right there, giving you everything you need! Surely they must be the gatekeepers of the internet! But they don’t play fair (accept bribes) so that makes the AAs upset. So they seem to be doing everything in their power to declare war against the internet.
Perhaps it’s time for the internet to declare itself a sovereignty? (not sure if that’s the correct usage/word)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

to Keii

why do you think that Congress, at least certain members of it, are constantly condemning Google? i obviously dont know, but i doubt if there is too much in the way of ‘encouragement’ from Google to politicians, unlike from the entertainment industries. but then consider that a good number of the execs are ex politicians, so what do you expect?

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: Re: How to heard cats.

In the past the entertainment industry and congress had a single entity or small group of corporations to deal with. It made it easy to make deals, put pressure, and keep things under their control.

Now they have this amorphous mass of 2 billion people they can not even begin to understand or control. It lacks form, has limited to no organization, and congeals into the shape of a rabid dog when poked at or for no reason at all. Like may things that can not be understood or comprehended the content types and politicians try to ignore it and place blame else where. They rationalize that since Google is the portal to the internet, they must control what is happening online.

They fail to realize they are dealing with the public at large. Which is why ever effort directed at a specific corporation like Google will fail, and all attempts at keeping the public at large out of the discussion will cause greater backlash.

Mr. Oizo says:

What a list of hollow words

Hello, this is a list of hollow words. No cooperation will ever be ‘against’ this. It will always be called differently. Hollywood doesn’t censor things because it ‘owns’ them. The state doesn’t violate your privacy because you can’t prove it. etcetera.

The 2 things that what would make this pamflet much more interesting are:

a- we are against software patents (let’s see how many of the big companies still sign it) because they are incompatible with an open internet
b- we are against restrictions on computation.

That would make the bill worthwhile, otherwise it is a waste of time.

Anonymous Coward says:

text versions

Instead of putting text versions of graphics with in import text under the graphic the way you always do alt text (alt=”[text without brackets]”) into the images HTML tag that will people with text-to-speech software and text-only browser (or normal browser with images disable) and also by people hoovering or the image with their or looking at the images proprieties.

Marcel de Jong (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Are you the same troll as this one?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120701/22394419546/announcing-declaration-internet-freedom.shtml#c86

The things tracking you are the ads on the website. It’s not Techdirt doing it by themselves, nor is that isolated to Techdirt.

Do you ever use Google? You do know that it keeps track of your search history? So much for privacy there.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I shouldn’t have to do anything.But I do.
My point is that it shows a disregard for the privacy of it’s users.
If I walk into Target I don’t have to provide them with information about where I have been…If I go to target.com,they want to track me and if I have that disabled on my browser I can’t go to their website,so I go to the competitors.
Of course you will say that I have a choice and therefore it’s OK to not respect my privacy.

Mike is all about reaching out and connecting with his readers and looking for alternate revenue streams.Well?

Anonymous Coward of Esteemed Trolling (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

no need to react, a fact is a fact, not a troll.
An act will suit your issue better.

You are not defending techdirt. (your intentions are GOOD but misplaced)
These are features you can opt out of.
Let people make up their own mind on the issue, after they have the facts.

The way you defend techdirt is…
Show people how to opt out of these features if THEY CHOOSE.

WE can’t just dismiss or “rationalize away” facts, because they are uncomfortable.
I wish we could, willful ignorance seems like a good disorder to acquire.

Anonymous Coward of Esteemed Trolling (profile) says:

Re:

You have a point: Expect a few misinformed “White Knights” to come your/our way.

17 scripts from 13 third party trackers.

It’s a fact, not opinion, so no need for “white knighting”.
It can also be argued that these trackers add features.
But they are uncontrollable by techdirt.

You can make your own opinion with the facts at hand.
Don’t shoot the messenger of facts.
It is a sign of willful ignorance.

Brett Glass (profile) says:

How about actual freedom for the Internet, rather than entitlements for freeloaders?

This entire discussion forgets what the Internet is. It’s a loose federation of independently owned and operated local networks that agree to exchange data with one another. From the beginning, the owner or operator each network that participates in this exchange has had the right to choose what traffic it exchanged, what kind of traffic it exchanged, and the policies that governed its own internal network.

Now, large corporations such as Google — which have benefited from the Internet — are seeking to wrest control of those independent networks (which are the operators’ property) from them, out of sheer corporate greed. Yes, they really DO want to use the pipes for free… and to take control of the private property of the network owners who built the Net. They’re masking this agenda with a claim of “civil rights” with regard to the Net, which is specious; it’s private property. Consumers will benefit if they stop supporting this corporate crusade by large, unethical companies and instead support the people who are building out the Net.

maclypse (profile) says:

Re: How about actual freedom for the Internet, rather than entitlements for freeloaders?

“Now, large corporations such as Google — which have benefited from the Internet — are seeking to wrest control of those independent networks (which are the operators’ property) from them, out of sheer corporate greed. Yes, they really DO want to use the pipes for free… and to take control of the private property of the network owners who built the Net.

Horsemanure.

This has been said over and over, last time I saw it, it was the telecom companies that wanted google, facebook, etc to pay a fricking “tax” for using “their” precious bandwidth for “free”.

Only they forgot one thing: “their” pipes are paid for by the customers. We customers pay for maintenance. We customers pay for upgrades. The bandwidth is paid for!

Google do not generate data and broadcast it to customers. Customers ASK GOOGLE for data. We are using the bandwidth we bought and paid for, and we have a right to use it any way we damn well please. I’m using Google because they give me what I want, when I want it, at a price that’s right. That doesn’t make Google the bad guys; it makes them good at their fucking job.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: how about enforcing the real deals first

Please, no more “Declarations” and “Bill of Rights” proposals until we start honoring the originals. More on that here:

I disagree, strongly, with this. First, the “originals” are US only and our existing Congress doesn’t seem to think it applies to the internet.

There’s a reason to get behind this internet-focused one, because it actually RESPECTS the original Declaration and Bill of Rights by showing how such things should and need to apply online as well.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace

by John Perry Barlow barlow@eff.org

Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.

We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks. I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear.

Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. You have neither solicited nor received ours. We did not invite you. You do not know us, nor do you know our world. Cyberspace does not lie within your borders. Do not think that you can build it, as though it were a public construction project. You cannot. It is an act of nature and it grows itself through our collective actions.

You have not engaged in our great and gathering conversation, nor did you create the wealth of our marketplaces. You do not know our culture, our ethics, or the unwritten codes that already provide our society more order than could be obtained by any of your impositions.

You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these problems don’t exist. Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we will identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own Social Contract . This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.

Cyberspace consists of transactions, relationships, and thought itself, arrayed like a standing wave in the web of our communications. Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live.

We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth.

We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.

Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are all based on matter, and there is no matter here.

Our identities have no bodies, so, unlike you, we cannot obtain order by physical coercion. We believe that from ethics, enlightened self-interest, and the commonweal, our governance will emerge . Our identities may be distributed across many of your jurisdictions. The only law that all our constituent cultures would generally recognize is the Golden Rule. We hope we will be able to build our particular solutions on that basis. But we cannot accept the solutions you are attempting to impose.

In the United States, you have today created a law, the Telecommunications Reform Act, which repudiates your own Constitution and insults the dreams of Jefferson, Washington, Mill, Madison, DeToqueville, and Brandeis. These dreams must now be born anew in us.

You are terrified of your own children, since they are natives in a world where you will always be immigrants. Because you fear them, you entrust your bureaucracies with the parental responsibilities you are too cowardly to confront yourselves. In our world, all the sentiments and expressions of humanity, from the debasing to the angelic, are parts of a seamless whole, the global conversation of bits. We cannot separate the air that chokes from the air upon which wings beat.

In China, Germany, France, Russia, Singapore, Italy and the United States, you are trying to ward off the virus of liberty by erecting guard posts at the frontiers of Cyberspace. These may keep out the contagion for a small time, but they will not work in a world that will soon be blanketed in bit-bearing media.

Your increasingly obsolete information industries would perpetuate themselves by proposing laws, in America and elsewhere, that claim to own speech itself throughout the world. These laws would declare ideas to be another industrial product, no more noble than pig iron. In our world, whatever the human mind may create can be reproduced and distributed infinitely at no cost. The global conveyance of thought no longer requires your factories to accomplish.

These increasingly hostile and colonial measures place us in the same position as those previous lovers of freedom and self-determination who had to reject the authorities of distant, uninformed powers. We must declare our virtual selves immune to your sovereignty, even as we continue to consent to your rule over our bodies. We will spread ourselves across the Planet so that no one can arrest our thoughts.

We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.

Davos, Switzerland

February 8, 1996

John Q Public says:

Wow - just wow

Expression:
What has censorship got to do with expression?
No one anywhere in the US is stifling peoples ability to express ones-self in a manner that is respectful of others.
However, you want to express your bomb making talents? I sure as hell *DO* want you to be censored over that!

Access:
As long as private companies bought and paid for the lines that run the internet, access is entirely up to them.

Openness?
I want a Ferrari too. Then my mom told me wake up and grow up.

Innovation:
You’d have a hard time finding a more stupid sentence that meant absolutely nothing.

Privacy:
It’s dead dip shit. It died when you put your entire f’ing life on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram…etal.

This list and this post is a major step backwards for anyone wanting to take change seriously.

Anonymous Howard says:

Re: Wow - just wow

Expression:
Define “respectful of others”. Mike might feel your calling him a dip shit is disrespectful, so is that grounds to censor him? No, it’s protected speech made possible by the First Amendment, part of the document Mike said this declaration is attempting to bring in line with the Internet.

Access/Openness: No comment; not to be taken for tacit approval.

Innovation:
Since you have no specific complaint with this point, perhaps you don’t understand it’s alluding to the DMCA, secondary liability, and copyrights in general. What exactly is your complaint with this?

Privacy:
I’ll half-agree with you here; this is the reason I don’t register for these platforms, use a pseudonym, etc. However, what’s your opinion on the right to be forgotten?

As it stands, I do believe the list is toothless, vague, and hopelessly idealistic. Granted, the presentation of the list as such is perhaps necessary to make a ‘catchy’ graphic, but it feels lacking.

It’s important, however, to refrain from discounting the message for the vessel. We should all want an Internet where the rights of the users, the content providers, and the service providers are respected. We should want the laws that apply to Internet usage to be written with the medium in mind, and to be written with consideration for the aforementioned rights. If a discussion would help clarify and specify these points, and lead to action, then let’s have it.

Anonymous Coward says:

empty false hollow words

Expression: Don’t censor the Internet.

So you support pedophiles, snuff films, rape movies, live murders and any other thing that is illegal????

Access: Promote universal access to fast and affordable networks.

Oh yeah, this is priority, fuck clean water, clean air, health care, safe food, who needs that shit, I need high speed internet to watch porn faster…..are you really this stupid??

Openness: Keep the Internet an open network where everyone is free to connect, communicate, write, read, watch, speak, listen, learn, create and innovate.

Yes, fuck countries sovereign right to rule their own countries and make the laws for themselves, they all have to abide by the internet rules…..

Innovation: Protect the freedom to innovate and create without permission. Don?t block new technologies, and don?t punish innovators for their users’ actions.

yes, no one has ANY rights to ANYTHING they create, I am not responsible for all the pedophiles here at findatenyearoldchild.xxx I am not to blame for telling them where your child is, or the prostitutes or illegal drugs, hey I am not to blame for being the one place to get the directions from, take responsibilities for your actions, if I tell you where the illegal item is to be found or bought, I should also have some blame in it

Privacy: Protect privacy and defend everyone?s ability to control how their data and devices are used.

this goes against the other internet “rights” you want, expression and openness, how can you do this?? if I have the right to control whatever I put on the internet??? proving your a fucking moron

Anonymous Coward says:

I would say that this is perhaps the most telling example of the freetardian mentality at work.

They try to disguise their desires by hiding them behind the duck blind of free speech and internet freedom, but at the end of the day, most of them rally for the free content.

Internet freedom is the friendly face, the you can’t argue with it point similar to “think about the kids”, but in the end, most aren’t worried about internet freedom, just a free lunch.

Gjh33 says:

Maybe a little too strong

Basically, this bill sounds alot like “let me pirate what I want.” I think what it should be re worded such that things remain the same. The internet right now is fine. Some people get caught for pirating but the majority don’t. This way, hollywood has something to threaten with and thus they will still make money. Basically, I’m sayinf this bill is a bit extreme. Also, to soecify the internet section: “ISPs cannot slow down or inhibit internet use based on the amount the customer pays. Internet must be one set price, no limitations, no data caps.”

Gjh33 says:

Maybe a little too strong

Basically, this bill sounds alot like “let me pirate what I want.” I think what it should be re worded such that things remain the same. The internet right now is fine. Some people get caught for pirating but the majority don’t. This way, hollywood has something to threaten with and thus they will still make money. Basically, I’m sayinf this bill is a bit extreme. Also, to soecify the internet section: “ISPs cannot slow down or inhibit internet use based on the amount the customer pays. Internet must be one set price, no limitations, no data caps.”

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...