TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
4 edits |  ISP's can filter anything they want
ISP's can filter anything they want and if you don't like it - switch providers. Why should an ISP provide services to those(unions) that are working against it. Just some more liberal claptrap that now thinks a business is obligated to assist those seeking it harm.
And why continue beating this subject to death? It was already discussed ad nauseum in this only days ago msg thread: »/forum/news,65819
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum |
|
dardin
join:2002-11-19
Tucson, AZ | They are not providing service to anyone. So why do you state they are providing service to the Union?
They are not hosting these Union websites, other hosts are. |
|
HockeyDude
Born To Run
join:2003-01-22
Brooklyn, NY | reply to TKJunkMail
What if its in a place where there are no alternative service providers? So ISPs should be allowed to have a monopoly and do anything they want? |
|
King75
King Of All And Nothing
Premium
join:2004-07-31
Stevensville, MD
clubs: | reply to TKJunkMail
I thought Unions were usually conservative mainly being white male middle class people as such who tend to be conservative they want better pay and lower taxes. This is a conservative view point isn't it? |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| reply to TKJunkMail
*sigh*
If they are filtering, then they are NOT AN ISP. Period.
ISP = "Internet Service Provider". By defition, if you are an internet service provider, you give me an IP address, and I can go where I want. If you filter sites, then you are a Limited Filtered Web Access Provider.
What Telus is doing is showing the world they are NOT AN ISP. That means they have ZERO legal protection from someone suing them for copyright infringement, hacking, identity theft, etc. Granted, they can do the filtering (probably a marketing doofuses idea), but by showing the world they CAN and WILL block a site, what's to stop ANYONE from suing them to block any other site. Slippery slope indeed.
--
Grand Poobah |
|
badisp
@sprintbbd.net
| Ya, I agree.
Even if I did not care about the Union or even like the Union at all. If I was a customer I would be thinking to myself, "what site are they going to block next or in the future"?
What right does a ISP have to deceide what website it is ok or not ok for me to view?
Very bad move.... |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| reply to King75
said by King75  :I thought Unions were usually conservative mainly being white male middle class people as such who tend to be conservative they want better pay and lower taxes. This is a conservative view point isn't it? Well that's what they tell their members then they turn around and give money to the most socialist political candidate they can find, while dropping hints that the company is lying about their profits.
Unfortunately for them their members are starting to wake up and jump ship...especially when they realize that they don't have to belong to a giant union to participate in collective bargaining.
Hopefully the trend continues and something new rises from the ashes, a "Union" whose purpose is to help their members get the best possible wages within reason; excising their current objectives of recruiting members to fill the coffers (by making management and non-union shops the enemy) and getting certain people elected to office.
--
Misfits lost in the dryer, take heart
Maybe there's a place up in sock heaven. |
|
WhyADuck
Premium
join:2003-03-05
| reply to G_Poobah
Finally someone gets it! The question is, do ISP's want to be a "common carrier", which basically passes along the data and makes not attempt to inspect or filter it, or do they want to hold themselves out as being able and willing to block any site at will? If the latter, then they should not be surprised if organizations like the RIAA and the MPAA demand that they start blocking access to certain sites. Also, given Canada's "hate speech" laws, I would not be at all surprised if the government presents its own list of sites it wants banned. Pretty soon Canadians (at least those in Telus territory) will have to find proxies in other countries if they want to be able to surf the entire Web.
It seems to me like Telus is opening themselves up to considerable legal difficulties with their actions. That's not to mention the increased problems they are likely to have with their union because of this - after all, by this action they are showing that they do not believe in fair play, and such actions are likely to further any spirit of mistrust between the parties. |
|
Orwell1984
@fdn.com
 from:
John Galt
| reply to TKJunkMail
So when your paper boy delivers your morning news with articles he doesn't like cut out that's ok to? |
|
Krispy
Premium,VIP
join:2001-12-11
the stix
| said by Orwell1984:
So when your paper boy delivers your morning news with articles he doesn't like cut out that's ok to?
Just to play devil's advocate...what about if the newspaper decides not to print the article in the first place (which I'm sure happens all the time)?
--
you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink...you can put a man through school but you cannot make him think --ben harper |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :ISP's can filter anything they want and if you don't like it - switch providers. Why should an ISP provide services to those(unions) that are working against it. Just some more liberal claptrap that now thinks a business is obligated to assist those seeking it harm. So, what you're saying is, businesses that are ostensibly in the business of providing information flow should be allowed to determine what their customers are allowed to see and hear on any given topic?
By way of example, what you're saying is, if Time/Warner was in the middle of a questionable dispute with a business partner, that any news outlets they controlled should be allowed to simply omit coverage, or they should be able to edit the news coverage of the broadcasters they carry on their cable systems (CNN, MSNBC, local outlets, etc.)?
At least think through the potential consequences of the garbage you spout.
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) |
|
Orwell1984
@fdn.com | reply to Krispy
That would be equivalent to the website owners not putting info on the site.Telus might own the network they do not however own the packets being transmitted across it. |
|
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| reply to Combat Chuck
It's painfully obvious that you know nothing about the history of the middle class and the role of unions to that end. I find your line re "wages within reason" interesting; reasonable wages relative to what? Do you have a metric for reasonable? Part of the reason unions have fallen from public favor is the unrelenting attack from those who oppose them. Ask yourself why any business, with plentiful labor pools and high profits, would fight to kill unions?
But it's of no matter; the health care crisis in our country makes unions a non issue. Toyota just moved potential southern-state American operations to Canada for two reasons: they couldn't afford the extensive training that bubba required (part of which is due to their no-union history having created scads of untrained and untrainable workers), and health care is provided in Canada. Both are a direct result of the very mindset that wishes unions dead: Bottom-liners and top 1%'ers that want a nation of lower class consumers rather than an educated middle class -- people like that are contrary to profits, aren't worker-droids, and know the history of worker exploitation in this country.
You're simply creating, selling, and marketing the very rope that will hang you by killing unions, denying there's a health care problem, and cutting education.
Good luck.
--
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." -- Frederick Douglass |
|
KUppiano
Karl Uppiano
join:2003-02-02
Ferndale, WA
| reply to nixen
The mainstream media filters and contrives news all the time. Only the technology has changed. I used to work at a local radio station where the news director would simply refuse to post stories he did not agree with. He didn't even realize he was doing it.
Furthermore, if it is true that a massive DDOS is in the works, I would take preventative measures. |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| said by KUppiano :The mainstream media filters and contrives news all the time. Only the technology has changed. I used to work at a local radio station where the news director would simply refuse to post stories he did not agree with. He didn't even realize he was doing it. Yes, but that's PRODUCTION of content, not delivery of others' content. Telus isn't making websites, they are filtering their content from view. In this way, it's more akin to a cable service running all the news outlets they carry on a delay and blipping any stories they don't want their subscribers to view.
It's ethically questionable, at best. At worst, allowing such practices to stand makes a mockery supposedly open society.
said by KUppiano :Furthermore, if it is true that a massive DDOS is in the works, I would take preventative measures. In the case of a suspected DDoS in the offing, it's a matter for police investigation. Otherwise, it's just a little "too convenient" an excuse for silencing your opponents' views.
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) |
|
KUppiano
Karl Uppiano
join:2003-02-02
Ferndale, WA
| In the case of the news director, it was not the production of content. We got our content from the UPI wire. The fact is, filtration was done on a daily basis. First by hand, and ultimitely by machine. UPI gave us the tools to filter. By region, by subject. It is just a different granularity now. If I wanted to, I could set up a conservative ISP that blocks all liberal content. Or vice-versa. People would pay for that. In fact, I feel a whole new industry coming on. I'm looking for startup capital if anybody is interested.
ISPs, like newspapers and broadcasters can filter anything they want. True, the ISPs should be up front about their agenda, but so should the mainstream media. They're not, though.
I will re-iterate, if I were running a business, I would take whatever measures necessary to keep it online. If I thought a DDOS was in the offing, I would take all necessary countermeasures with absolutely no apologies. It would beat the heck out of the number of apologies I'd have to make when hordes of users can't connect. I might call the police too, for all the good it would do. |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| said by KUppiano :In the case of the news director, it was not the production of content. We got our content from the UPI wire. The fact is, filtration was done on a daily basis. First by hand, and ultimitely by machine. UPI gave us the tools to filter. By region, by subject. It is just a different granularity now. If I wanted to, I could set up a conservative ISP that blocks all liberal content. Or vice-versa. People would pay for that. In fact, I feel a whole new industry coming on. I'm looking for startup capital if anybody is interested. Terribly interesting, and all, but not germane. Telus is primarily a transport, not a content aggregator. If Telus has their own portal for their customers for which they create and aggragate content, then editorial decisions for said portal would be equivalent to your newspaper example. As such, Telus is more equivalent to a cable system operator. If they are selectively preventing customers from accessing content based primarily on the fact that it comes from a source they'd rather silence, it is, in fact, wrong. They are acting in their own PR interests rather than the interests of their customer base.
If Telus employed networking engineers worth a rat's ass, they'd be able to both protect themselves from the supposed coming DDoS attacks, yet still provide access to the Union-related web sites. The fact that they don't is simply proof that they are simply interested in silencing opposition.
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) |
|
Orwell1984
@fdn.com
| reply to KUppiano
No they are still producing content by deciding which stories to carry and aggregating them. What Telus is doing is more akin to the delivery boy then taking that newspaper and removing articles from it. Newspaper=website ISP=delivery boy. Now if the spin Telus is using as an excuse is true then I can't blame them for attempting to stop a DDOS attack from a whole 3 websites(I thought it took an army of zombies to DDOS an ISP but I am just an ignorant shlub not a big time corporation so what do I know) |
|
KUppiano
Karl Uppiano
join:2003-02-02
Ferndale, WA
1 edit | said by Orwell1984:
No they are still producing content by deciding which stories to carry and aggregating them. What Telus is doing is more akin to the delivery boy then taking that newspaper and removing articles from it. Newspaper=website ISP=delivery boy. Now if the spin Telus is using as an excuse is true then I can't blame them for attempting to stop a DDOS attack from a whole 3 websites(I thought it took an army of zombies to DDOS an ISP but I am just an ignorant shlub not a big time corporation so what do I know)
Actually, I think the newspaper/delivery boy argument is a straw man. The only reason it appears to work is that it has worked that way for so long. The newspaper could fire the delivery boy if he further edited their content. There is no such relationship between the web sites and the ISPs.
By the way, I'm not saying I would like it if my ISP started filtering my content. But I don't like mainstream media bias, either. But there was not a damn thing I could do about it until very recently. |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| reply to Titus Pullo
said by Titus Pullo :I find your line re "wages within reason" interesting; reasonable wages relative to what? Meaning, demanding major increases in pay when the company you work for is on the verge of collapse would be unreasonable and counterproductive.
But counterproductive is the status quo with the major labor unions. They'd rather sabotage the nonunion contractors work areas (as opposed to a protest), force union members to protest (when the union members don't want to do the job in the first place), whine about Walmart (rather than encouraging their mostly minor members who work at the supermarkets to provide better service), and protect workers who can't/won't do their job from being fired or even placed in other jobs where they can/do but don't particularly enjoy ("I'm not working to slow, you're doing all the work cause you working too fast" - a coworker); than actually do anything that makes sense. All this is just from personal experience. Hell they aren't even willing to wage a proper protest; everyone lounging around in chairs talking like they're having a little get together with the friends at home.
Maybe the reason I see it this way is because I have enough self respect to be willing to quit if I'm mistreated and I've been smart enough to create an environment where I can do so and survive. Too bad most people have no idea how to put money away for when they need it, and lack the will to give up their cable TV to make it last; so they've created a situation where they are chained to their current employer due to their short sightedness and lack of self control.
I think it's telling that just a couple days ago the AFLCIO announced that they were pissed off that the other unions were stealing members.
--
Misfits lost in the dryer, take heart
Maybe there's a place up in sock heaven. |
|
