Re: "Net Neutrality is bad"

Response to these images posted by Kopase:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/431591449348276224/450058911005802506/IMG_0330.PNG
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/431591449348276224/450059361759264769/IMG_0329.PNG

Starting with the first image...

Regarding ISPs and net neutrality in general: Verizon, AT&T, Comcast all were against net neutrality when it was being implemented and put forth an incredible amount of lobbying money to try and prevent it - and to remove it. There were also lobbying groups such as USTelecom that were also anti-NN in general. The classification of ISPs in "Title II" doesn't specifically matter to me, incidentally - what I would support is the prevention of monopolizing (clearly not happening) and prevention of throttling where monopolies have already been established.

Comcast **did** throttle specific websites without disclosure before - which was part of the issue. Netflix itself using more data doesn't mean it should be outright throttled - people and companies should indeed be charged based on the speed they pay for, and they should get the speed they pay for as well. Going to google alone doesn't use as much data as streaming a video, yes - but if you are already paying for the bandwidth to download it, and Netflix is already paying for the bandwidth to stream it, they **should not** be forced to pay extra for a 'fast lane'. That is the point. Competition is indeed increasing due to things like Google Fiber, simply because fiber is far better. However, that is only in bigger cities - not out in the country where there is no competition simply due to the sheer area of the US. Speaking of reducing competition, you may know that Sprint and T-mobile are merging, further reducing competition for cellular service, including internet.

Regarding laws and regulations, individuals and companies simply should be limited on the amount of money they can use for lobbying. That's all - politicians could alternatively be limited on the amount of money they can accept and use. I doubt this will happen though, as again - politicians taking bribes and companies using money to increase their profit are sharing a goal: Profit. The government isn't simply trying to ambiguously "gain power" - any company would do the same if they were capable of doing so. This is why government needs to have preventative measures taken to reduce political corruption.

I'm not going to address the "George Soros" conspiracy theory Kopase mentioned beyond this sentence, as donations to lobbying groups is done quite frequently and in quite large amounts on all sides.

Now, addressing the longer 4chan thread (image 2). "Globalism" itself isn't a bad thing - globalization will naturally happen as global communication and interaction increase in capability. Being prepared for that and making plans for it are both natural things to do - so further context of what specific 'plans' there are is necessary for this to actually be considered any kind of negative. Related, "moral relativism" - Morality does not exist without context. 'Good' and 'bad' are legitimately only useful 'relative' to some kind of goal. Otherwise, they have no meaning. No futher context to that was supplied in the thread.

Concerns about companies such as Google having access to data is natural - in my opinion, we should perhaps take the reverse approach to 'making our own data private', as that will simply not be practically possible. Instead, company and government data should be less private in proportion to individual data. I won't say too much more about this, aside from that the companies involved with the government aren't simply controlled by it - they are doing so because doing so will in the end be more profitable and they will also have more power. This... isn't particularly possible to prevent as the larger economy is not (and has never been) a genuinely separate entity from government. They go hand in hand in all places.

Regarding consolidation of media: ironic two of the three largest companies stated there are Comcast and Time Warner (being purchased by AT&T), particularly given they pushed against the basis of Net Neutrality as mentioned earlier.

Social media does not simply block 'right-wing perspective' outright. Plenty of reasonable, well-written perspectives do exist. On Google, it depends on how your search is phrased and the specific topic on the subject. Youtube and Twitter certainly do have an increasingly left leaning (and right demonetizing - or censoring in the case of Twitter) perspective, which I would agree isn't good. It is absolutely unfortunate that this has been shifting to a more extreme and censorship-based view over time, but this is not something that can simply be assumed to be because of government as implied in the 4chan thread - evidence should be presented for that claim since it does rather fail the test of occam's razor at the outset.

The internet in general: Regarding Title II as compared to Title I. After doing further reading on it, the actual anti-competitive practices started *after* DSL was reclassified from a telecommunications service (Title II) to an information service (Title I) in 2005 - those practices started showing more in 2007 after regulations were relaxed.

Regarding broadcast licenses: These are not needed for ISPs to operate on their own - these are actually to regulate the radio frequency spectrum in order to prevent overloading it, as a finite amount of information can be transmitted over specific frequency bands. Wireless service providers (such as for phones and satellite internet) do need these. Cable internet does not, as there are specific frequencies that are license-exempt for WLAN (wi-fi) and cables do not use wireless frequencies. Further citation is required for the claim that a broadcast license is required for ISPs under Title II - I could not find any evidence for it myself. (See: Forbearance. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/160 In simple, the FCC can choose to suspend specific provisions of Title II if it is unnecessary to ensure that ISPs are just and reasonable, unnecessary to protect consumers, or if the general public - the majority - supports the suspension. This would naturally apply to broadcast licenses that are not applicable to cable internet.)

The claims regarding Obama "coming in to save the day" and giving the government "sweeping authority over internet infrastructure" are not really supported either - the Title II classification did allow the FCC to regulate ISP's anticompetitive practices as they were not permitted to do under the prior Title I classification. However, the implication is that the power the FCC gains is beyond what is reasonable - yet to be demonstrated.

Now we come to the centerpoint, where the claim is that "everything comes together". The Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692) - seen here under page 593, Sec. 1287: https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt840/CRPT-114hrpt840.pdf and also the initial version here for full context: https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/s2692/BILLS-114s2692is.pdf

Anything in "quotations" during the following paragraph will be a direct quote from that text, with [paraphrasing] to simplify text or [...] to remove unnecessary text. Please read the full text for verification.

In brief, the bill is meant to counter propaganda from foreign governments, with a "comprehensive strategy" to develop a "fact-based strategic narrative". It also states that "an important element of this strategy should be to protect and promote a free, healthy, and independent press in countries vulnerable to foreign disinformation." It establishes a "Center for Information Analysis and Response" (Global Engagement Center), made via coordination by "relevant departments and agencies" (a few major examples are given in the text). This "Center" is meant to collect/analyze information obtained relating to "foreign government information war efforts" (propaganda), to establish a framework for integrating the data & analysis into response strategies, and to "develop, plan, and synchronize [...] whole-of-government initiatives to expose and counter foreign [propaganda campaigns against the US] and proactively advance fact-based narratives that support [the US]." The specifics of how the Center is meant to do this is further specified in the text, but importantly the basis is to operate to "expose and refuse foreign misinformation and disinformation and proactively promote fact-based narratives and policies to audiences outside the United States."

In even more brief, the bill establishes a type of 'Propaganda Response Center' meant to reduce the effects propaganda (misinformation/disinformation) from foreign countries and instead establish fact-based information by distributing it through standard media.

Now to respond to the 4chan, using quotes directly from them:

"an interagency center housed at the State Department" [...] "usually agencies are created independent from other branches of government" - This is not an independent agency/center. It is specifically meant to address foreign propaganda/disinformation campaigns as specified in the actual text. The Department of State is the primary U.S. foreign affairs agency, so it makes perfect sense to have an agency related to a more specific piece of foreign affairs based in the Department of State. There are already several other offices in the Department of State, such as the Policy Planning Staff and the Office of Civil Rights. Nothing is unusual here.

"The head of the Center... shall be appointed by the President." - This is, again, not without precedent (even assuming it does not require senate approval as normal). The Director of the National Cancer Institute is also a "PA position" (as they are called) and, more applicable to foreign policy, representatives to UN organizations can be PA positions.

"Foreign state and non-state propaganda" "Literally everyone on the planet is not a state. And how exactly is propaganda defined?" - Ironically, the context of "non-state" is already given. Foreign propaganda from a source that is not the foreign origin's government. For instance, propaganda from a religious group that does not control the government of their country, or an individual seeking to cause instability. That much is already extremely clear. As for how propaganda is defined, there indeed is not a specific technical definition of the term... just as there is not a specific technical definition of the term "disseminate" or "trends". The overall description (including terms such as "misinformation and disinformation" and originally "information warfare" support the standard definition of propaganda as typically misleading or dishonest information meant to support a particular political viewpoint. An alternative definition of the word "propaganda" is not needed, just as any other word in the english language does not need to be redefined in every bill passed.

[Obama didn't pass the bill through Congress but hid it in the 2017 annual military budget.] - This is paraphrased as it is put over three lines. It is also blatantly false. It was passed through both Congress and the Senate. Please see the following links to show that members of the Congress and Senate did in fact read the bill:
https://lieu.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-lieu-statement-house-passage-2017-ndaa
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/3274/all-actions?overview=closed#tabs

"They started by flooding the internet with disinformation and then branding the cute term 'fake news' to generate a demand for fact-checkers. And then they satisfied the demand that they created." - Quite simply, citation needed. Fact-checking is legitimately reasonable and appropriate to do and, further, a natural development of a community. Independent fact-checking is important for quick verification of facts, as long as the fact-checker has demonstrated reliability and neutrality. This does NOT elimanate the importance of doing your own fact-checking, but for the general population and mainly those that do not have the time for in-depth checking, it is useful as long as it is generally reliable.

"[The evil globalists] were planning to use bots to auto-flag-and-censor any content that contradicts the fact-checkers... across the entire internet." - Here is where the conspiracy theory comes to a real head. There are bots that do auto-flag and censor content... on Twitter. Google, to my understanding, does not do this - though there has been talk of a rating system being put in place to rate the reliability of a source. Even Youtube does not do this. I do not know about Facebook, and will not speak about it. Regarding the government, if you read the full text that the 4chan user does not quote in their long speech, the method being stated to combat the propaganda and other misinformation is rating the reliability of information and promoting fact-based information. No censorship is stated or implied - no statement of removing or censoring other information. Simply rating it based on a checklist to verify facts and promotion of fact-based information.

In other words, while the information is correct... for the most part (with some exceptions and misleading points thrown in), it does use misleading tactics, lies of omission (such as the point about promoting fact-based information in response), and even actual direct lies (such as claiming that the bill did not pass through Congress). Ironically, it fits the very definition of "propaganda" that is standardized.