NetNeutrality vs. AT&T censoring Pearl Jam

So in response to my anti-netneutrality tweets/blogs, Jose Pagliery asks "what about this?"

The FCC plans to completely repeal #NetNeutrality this week.

Here's the censorship of speech that actually happened without Net Neutrality rules:#SaveNetNeutrality pic.twitter.com/6R29dajt44

— Christian J. (@dtxErgaOmnes) November 22, 2017

Let's pick the first one. You can read about the details by Googling "AT&T Pearl Jam".

First of all, this obviously isn't a Net Neutrality case. The case isn't about AT&T acting as an ISP transiting network traffic. Instead, this was about AT&T being a content provider, through their "Blue Room" subsidiary, whose content traveled across other ISPs. Such things will continue to happen regardless of the most stringent enforcement of NetNeutrality rules, since the FCC doesn't regulate content providers.

Second of all, it wasn't AT&T who censored the traffic. It wasn't their Blue Room subsidiary who censored the traffic. It was a third party company they hired to bleep things like swear words and nipple slips. You are blaming AT&T for a decision by a third party that went against AT&T's wishes. It was an accident, not AT&T policy.

Thirdly, and this is the funny bit, Tim Wu, the guy who defined the term "net neutrality", recently wrote an op-ed claiming that while ISPs shouldn't censor traffic, that content providers should. In other words, he argues that companies AT&T's Blue Room should censor political content.

What activists like ACLU say about NetNeutrality have as little relationship to the truth as Trump's tweets. Both pick "facts" that agree with them only so long as you don't look into them.

The post NetNeutrality vs. AT&T censoring Pearl Jam appeared first on Security Boulevard.

from NetNeutrality vs. AT&T censoring Pearl Jam