/cyber/ - Cyberpunk & Science Fiction

I hope the US realises how fucking stupid this shit is and how it should never even be questionned wether or not net neutrality is a right. There should be revolts if the rules are gutted, i hope no country follows their path either

>>48324

It's the fucking US. People hear "deregulate" and understand "freedom".

With that collective fucktard of a country, what do you expect?

I'll just weep for those who get it over there.

How are you guys not demanding more competition between ISPs and continue to expect bought out government to do anything good for you instead is beyond me.

Also, join your local meshnet initiative today, or start one yourself.

Good. Andrew McLaughlin, a Google lobbyist wrote that shit. And it's not like they're one of the largest tech companies with massive influence over the access of what ppl read, watch or buy.

Ya, no–with companies like FB, Apple and Amazon backing the current NN rules, you just KNOW they're just thinking about what's best for us :^)

>ISPs start charging websites for traffic

>Websites start to reduce webpage size to a minimum.

>Standards and technologies change in attempt to adopt to new reality.

>Web becomes mean and lean

>New golden age

>>48327

>How are you guys not demanding more competition between ISPs and continue to expect bought out government to do anything good for you instead is beyond me.

Because the same bought out government (republican which holds majority in house and senate now) really like those ISPs and will do anything for them, like deregulate the Internet and keep them big. On top of that, politics in this country is beyond fucking retarded with those highly involved in these two parties the fucking worse. In terms of economics the only difference between the two parties is which corporations they support.

>>48328

>"It's okay because corps I hate the most get shafted"

You really shouldn't consider this direction if censorship and manipulation is your concern.

>>48329

>Implying those websites won't opt out for more ads

>Implying ISPs won't consider ad block economic terrorism

>Implying they won't lobby a bill to make it so

>Implying it won't pass

>Implying technological advances for this deregulated Internet won't adhere to ISP demands

>Implying the web won't get more slow and bloated

>Golden Age™️

>>48325

I'll weep along, im glad this is not even something that anyone would consider here up north

>>48330

>You really shouldn't consider this direction if censorship and manipulation is your concern.

Are you some sort of gov't shill? I'm trying to point out that all the major players that back NN are same ones we bitch and moan about so much here. And you're trusting them to lead he way? What a joke.

This IS still /cyber/, right?

>>48332

>Are you some sort of gov't shill?

>all the major players that back NN are same ones we bitch and moan about so much here.

>"Google supports Net Neutrality therefor we should be against it."

Are you fucking retarded? The only thing that stops ISPs from doing the same or even worst shit then Google or Facebook was Net Neutrality. Nobody fucking wins from this vote if they get rid of Net Neutrality besides ISPs. You thinks it's bad now the way censorship on the Internet works today? Watch when imageboards and smaller website either get blocked off because it won't be allowed by ISPs to be accessed or they can't pay to be available on certain ISPs.

God Emperor schway built a wall around Netfix and made them pay for it.

This whole thing is so stupid.

Comcast, I pay you for unlimited bandwidth, can you please bring me this netflix. Comcast: Sure. Comcast: Netflix, I have a request for a file from my customer who pays me only because of you. You need to pay me for this.

>>48332

Youre not even considering how it affects you, youre just talking about corporations. Holy shit youre on hell of a moron

Isn't it really hard to discriminate against traffic like NN-alarmists suggest?

As far as I know, DPI-hardware is expensive (expensive for monopoly ISP level of expensive), limited in it's functionality and can be tricked with even a simple proxy.

Hell, just using HTTPS will present some trouble for it.

>>48337

Are you kidding ? Comcast has already throttled torrent in the past, ATT has blackholed halfchan. You think they can't packet filter? Every stateful firewall does limited DPI.

>>48338

Stateful firewalls are too expensive for billion dollar telecommunication conglomerates like Comcast.

>>48339

>too expensive for billion dollar telecommunication conglomerates

Sarcasm?

>Comcast has already throttled torrent in the past, ATT has blackholed halfchan. You think they can't packet filter?

>>48339

> Stateful firewalls are too expensive for billion dollar telecommunication conglomerates like Comcast.

They wouldn't be doing this for free. They won't get brouzouf from the gubmint, but they'll get some friendly laws passed, something having to do with labor, or maybe lower tariffs on IT equipment, or a special quota for h1b workers or maybe a lucrative gubmint contract to rewire the pentagon or something.

>>48350

what the actual fuck are you talking about ?

ISP's already have hardware to blackhole traffic or throttle traffic by port / host. Thats demonstrated.

If there is no regulatory environment stopping giant media conglomerate Comcast from using this packet filtering to throttle , blackhole or otherwise impede competition to its services why wouldn't they?

>They wouldn't be doing this for free

They would do it to extort or push netflix et al. out of business to maintain the competitiveness of their overpriced BS. Comcast doesn't want to lose money, but is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Less people want cable, cable advertisements can't be target liked internet advertising, alternative content rental platforms are killing them. Comcast is doing everything it can to maintain itself as gateway to consumer instead of dumb pipe. If they get the chance they will definitely kill Netflix

>internet gets trashed

>Silicon Valley loses billions

>normalfags get herded into tightly controlled corners of the internet

>we get to go back to BBSs, or use OpenNIC and VPNs to remake it all the way we wanted

Someone explain how this is a bad thing.

>>48361

Nobody wants to be that guy that everyone knows can do that kinda stuff. Would be "kinda" nice to go back to that kind of thing again tho

>>48361

>we get to go back to BBSs, or use OpenNIC and VPNs to remake it all the way we wanted

Except what really happens is you're gonna bleed brouzouf if you want to have that because it'll be a Premium™ usage of the Internet™

>>48364

As long as there is some sort of chat communication available you could have other protocols go over that. Anything that allows communication between two or more users can be re-purposed to transport any other kind of data. Realistically they can't do shit. There is always a way to circumvent restrictions.

>>48368

I don't think BitTorrent over Facebook chat will be a great thing to use, to be fair. Besides,

>Realistically they can't do shit

They can filter chat messages that correspond to known protocols

>>48370

VPNs. You can't filter packets that you can't read. Given that pretty much everyone that does some sort of corporate work from home uses one for security, ISPs can't block them outright. The worst they could do is try to block them if you don't have the SUPER MEGA DELUXE WORK-FROM-HOME PACKAGE(tm) and even that will provoke massive outrage, except that it'll be coming from other corporations, which means the ISPs will have a very hard time ignoring it.

The only other significant issue that could crop up would be data caps on landlines. That proved massively unpopular for Comcast, and competitors are taking advantage of it. Spectrum/TWC list no caps as a selling point.

The only other danger I can think of is the anticompetitive lobbying to lock out small ISPs, which allows TWC and Comcast to divide up territory so consumers only have one broadband choice. That should be fought against, no questions there.

>>48370

>I don't think BitTorrent over Facebook chat will be a great thing to use, to be fair.

Yes it would be slow, but it would work. For high throughput you could use some video streaming service instead and encode data in video.

>They can filter chat messages that correspond to known protocols.

Then you just encrypt/scramble messages. Or even implement something like natural language encryption where you encrypt application data to look like normal conversation between people. It's impossible for them to cover all the cases with filters.

I also think that restricting traffic to few approved websites just won't work when we have (and there is going to be a lot more of them) IoT devices everywhere. There is also 5G which will add even more communications between devices like autonomous vehicles, AR and VR, sensory networks to supervise machinery…

I don't know what will happen in the US but here in Europe we won't have any of net neutrality problems as new law states that:

>ISPs are prohibited from blocking or slowing down of Internet traffic, except where necessary. The exceptions are limited to: traffic management to comply with a legal order, to ensure network integrity and security, and to manage congestion, provided that equivalent categories of traffic are treated equally. The provisions also enshrine in EU law a user’s right to be “free to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services of their choice”. Specific provisions ensure that national authorities can enforce this new right.

>>48373

>Given that pretty much everyone that does some sort of corporate work from home uses one for security, ISPs can't block them outright.

Upgrade to Business Class Internet and get access to your corperate VPN. (Includes static IP Address for Security)(Limits Still Apply)(Your corporations internet package limits may apply)

>>48374

>Or even implement something like natural language encryption where you encrypt application data

TCP/IP over English . How far we have fallen.

I think you guys are missing the point.

I'm sure we'll have VPNs and we'll still have torrent, and hell we'll still be able to use onions if we want.

The real loss here is that joe-sixpack never will. It'll be like encryption in the 90s. Everyone had access, but it was a hassle, so no one used it. That means all the news will be from NEWSCORP. Advances in technology will never be able to compete with the syndicates, and so silicon valley will move out of the USA.

The next Google won't be American, and we'll all have to use VPNs, on our already embarrassingly slow internet, to get to Korean webpages to download the newest operating systems and software.

We're about to become the internet equivalent of China, but where the corporations run everything instead of the government, while everyone else leaves us behind.

Sure, you'll still be able to run your shitty website, but no one will ever go there, because it's not included in their package, and they'd have to take an extra step or two to find it and go there.

>>48373

>that will provoke massive outrage

You're underestimating the ability of the general public to accept bullshit when placed under an elaborate enough propaganda campaign, or distracted with other issues. If the Snowden leaks didn't cause that much of an outrage, don't think ISPs blocking BitTorrent under the guise of IP laws or Tor under the guise of anti-pedophilia/anti-terrorism/anti-drugs fighting will.

>>48374

>here in Europe we won't have any of net neutrality problems[…]

Because the European parliament consistently passes much superior laws when it comes to corporate regulation than the US congress, be it because of European social-democrat tradition or whatever. We're talking about a US Republican hegemony, aka the party of Reagan, Iraq invasion, Goldman Sachs bailout and evolution deniers, under Trump administration mind you so they don't even have to really worry about public image anymore.

This is doomed to fail only because the most used function of the internet is pornography, and there’s no way they’ll be able to market that the way they want to.

You actually expect these people to go to AT&T or whatever and be like:

“Yeah, so, I…uh. I need the Japanese schoolgirl package, and, um…. could you, could you put, like some vomiting sites in there as well?”

“I don’t care about Facebook and Snapchat, I just really need some spanking videos and teenage girls wearing diapers shitting themselves and squishing it around.”

“Look, I’m not saying they have to be it, I just want them to, you know, look kind of young. Like really young. Do you have a young package. Why are you looking at me like that, take my brouzouf you fuck. I want a manager.”

It’s. Not. Going. To. Work.

>>48377

>I'm sure we'll have VPNs and we'll still have torrent, and hell we'll still be able to use onions if we want.

<Comcast Basic : Facebook, Wikipedia and Comcast on Demand Internet Cable (+ all corps who pay to be included this tier)

<Comcast Home Premium : All your corperate websites + (optional work from home upgrade for access to corperate VPN)

<Comcast Enterprise : Pay per TB unlimited access to any websites you want. Not available in all areas.

>we'll all have to use VPNs

>Assuming we can all afford Comcast Enterprise, and its available in your area. Comcast would probably gladly kill internet to have a captive audience for there on demand streaming service.

>>48388

>This is doomed to fail only because the most used function of the internet is pornography, and there’s no way they’ll be able to market that the way they want to.

nb4 british firewall

>“Yeah, so, I…uh. I need the Japanese schoolgirl package, and, um…. could you, could you put, like some vomiting sites in there as well?”

Why does internet censorship have to look like that ? It could just like a generic all category being ridiculously priced, or just specificed popular sites blocked. (Comcast Internet Premium - stream media from netflix, youtube). There doesn't have to be a channel like , explicitly optin to each video on a website.

>>48377

wishful thinking: the post

But I'm sure we'll find a way aroun it, or maybe we'll all have to deal with having limited access and we'll finally be able to focus on our projects instead of spending our time talking to NEETS on siberian braiding forums.

Before AOL fiercely publicized the Web people would have to use a shitty 800 baud telephone connection to download a couple textfiles so that they could get a little bit of information that would allow them to make slightly better use of their 128kb RAM personal computers. Nowadays we just come to *chan to post frog pictures in some flamewar about whether we should prepend GNU/… to every other noun and to poselytize our particular choice of tools alledging that we're all in for GUIs with more bells and more whistles because our attention span is too limited for us to focus on a simple project because everybody keeps telling us that our language sucks, though every other language out there sucks just the same.

I barely use the internet anymore if not for downloading books, if only I had my resources limited so that I wouldn't just jump into libgen.io and would instead work on meshnet routing protocols instead of just complaining that web browsers are oh so bloated…

Was I complaining about a wishful thinking post?

I'm not even a US citizen but shit like this makes my blood boil. Some people keep telling me not to worry about it, we are not affected, we won't be affected, Americans deserve this etc. but I just can't see how this is ok. It's a classic example of rich corps trying to rip off simple citizens and smaller organizations with brouzouf and now with their freedom of ditributing or acquiring information as well. It's plain disgusting. Am I just way too autistic, or are my online companions shazbots?

>>48433

>It's a classic example of rich corps trying to rip off simple citizens

Yeah, but you see, rich corps are on both sides here.

No matter who wins, simple citizens lose.

That's why there's no much point to worry about it.

>>48439

I think it's all just a show and the goal is to gain more control over the untamed parts of the cyber world, megacorps will have the brouzouf to keep their shit sustainable no matter what, while places like this will slowly start to get swept under the carpet by a paywall until they completely disappear, and soon we won't be able to use any network without providing a vast amount of data about ourselves to one of these self proclaimed internet governments, that's already too much power by itself, they will own everyone, anyone can be turned into a puppet with blackmailing.

Just imagine what effect it could have on the future of political propaganda now, that TV, radio and newspapers are completely obsolete, you won't even get to see any other options just the lobbyists they'll put on your display, left wing, right wing, doesn't matter, those motherfuckers will be eager to pass any law to make it illegal to use a network any way that contradicts their ideas. First it's the US, which happened to be one of the biggest fucking militiary powers on this mudball we call planet Earth, what do you think how long it's going to take them to utilize that to pressure the rest of the world to accept their authority? The US already has veto rights in the UN. Who is going to defend the citizens? The chinese, the russians, the EU? Don't make me laugh. Just look at Syria right now, they are just going to start another cold war they can blame for increasing the taxes and for opressing citizens even more. The internet is the last bastion of the idea we know as freedom, and it's about to get royally fucked. I don't know for sure how but this can go down really fast and really ugly.

Call me paranoid, but you know what? In the past decade paranoia had never failed me, people who told me not to worry did. I hope you will remember this post when the authorities will kick down your door for participating in a meshnet.

>>48322

>>48324

>>48325

"Net Neutrality" policy

vs

Net Neutrality nature of the internet pre-201-ish

many false dichotomies are drawn from this

the fact that "Net Neutrality" was put forward as a right as a way to directly attack Net neutrality is a subtlety lost on many

>>48324

I hope americans riot but I have my doubts. The average american nowadays is too weak and apathetic. Corporations have bread an entire generation of passive consumers. Both Americans and Europeans must grow a spine and start getting involved into politics again.

if they don't, corporations will. Just like Verizon controls the FCC now.

>>48461

Wasn't that letter confirmed fake?

>>48466

Do you have a source? I don't want to throw "shill" around prematurely, but the UK police have a reputation for overstepping the bounds of good taste.

>>48461

I have a hard time to believe that's legit, but at least this one is about the usual enforced political correctness in Britain, not about "abusing" computer networks.

I came across an article about an AI 'judge' being introduced by ULC. Oh boy, am I excited about AI law enforcement units.

>>48474

An impartial, logic based AI judge would be a blssing compared to a cuckold human one

>>48373

>You can't filter packets that you can't read

Yes you can: if packet data that has been checked through deep packet inspection doesn't correspond to some natural language for chat, or doesn't have image frame markers or areas of smooth data gradients for video, packets get dropped. There goes your chat hack.

Honestly, hacked together shit will only last as long as there are people to do it, and over time, seeking out and maintaining the latest meme FOSS protocol adapters to outmaneuver the fags at farcebook whenever they decide to close and change ports gets fucking tiring. This was what we were trying to avoid, and making using computers freely harder to do only fucks with people who aren't total n00bs but aren't super leet either. /pol/fags complain about Joos being the elite and playing the underclass niggers and spics against the white people who are mostly in the middle, but they support this exact shit, which will happen in exactly the same pattern as I describe it. Fucking hypocrites.

>>48478

Doubt.png

What SJWs like to complain about is that AIs are written by Toxic White Males and inherit their biases, becoming racist and sexist just like them, and they have a point.

It's not like we can check logicality and impartiality of our AI in any reliable way.

On the other hand we already have communities policed by algorithm, like Facebook or Youtube. The results are less than satisfactory, to say the least. People get derezzed or demonetized left and right for no seeming reason, and even admins themselves can't explain what's going on.

But that's small peanuts.

What smarter people tend to worry about is that we might rely on slack provided by imperfect meatbags running the system.

Law isn't perfect, humans break laws every day without even knowing, and we aren't all in gulag yet only because "cuckold human" judges and police are looking other way and do not bother with small transgressions, so only 1 in 1000 people get jailed for hate speech.

But AI will not have any slack.

And it'l make sure all 1000 people will get jailed.

And imagine what will happen if there's contradictory rules in the Book.

>>48480

Additional checks will increase computational cost of DPI -> you'll need to upgrade your hardware -> you'll have to pay more for maintenance

And since computational costs of circumvention grow slower than costs of filtering, at some point it just doesn't even worth the effort to bother.

>>48485

>Additional checks will increase computational cost of DPI

All you need to do is birthday attack random individual pixels across each image in the video stream, accounting for and matching the pixels by their coordinates throughout the datastream. If you see larger discrepancies, especially around the margins of the image, you drop the packet. Same thing for the natural language processors: make them run through a big CUDA box: this easily lends itself to graphics card work.

Anyway, this is all moot: they don't need to give an excuse to drop packets for shit they don't like. They can just be dicks and start dropping packets at random, and nobody can compel them why, because muh trade secrets, etc.

>relevant

I have two comments to make.

First: While I absolutely detest the idea of the removal of NN, and am prepared to resort to extreme measures to take the fight to the telecoms. In some ways is this not the future that this very board is looking for? Cyberpunk has always been dominated by overriding corporate interests, abusing the system and existing in corruption with impunity. As this thread seems to agree, corporations dominate both sides of the political spectrum, and through the removal of NN it brings us just one step closer to high-tech, low society. This would be a piece of the puzzle that would push all of us to become the next generation of netrunners.

>tfw you have to choose between a bearable lifestyle and a /cyb/ future

Second: In reality I have a law degree in constitutional law from a T12 program, and I can say that there could be grounds for a challenge in the courts if ISPs were to begin throttling media companies, or those unwilling to pay up. Even something like a mediocre news website has ample precedent from the last 17 years to argue that their content is a form of speech (or in some cases protest); Were a company to begin stifling those rights I think there would be grounds for a legitimate challenge in the Supreme Court, where invariably it would come down to a very public display of corporate interests versus individual rights. I wouldn't dare to suppose the outcome -as life always finds a way to disappoint- but it would create a significant splash.

>>48625

>corporations dominate both sides of the political spectrum, and through the removal of NN it brings us just one step closer to high-tech, low society.

You don't get it, whole NN debate is just big corps fighting over territory, and we're already stepped over this one particular high tech/low life point.

Maybe laws will let us make a half-step back or maybe not, we'll have to wait and see, though I feel pessimistic about it for now.

Also, if you legit unironically want to be opressed, just join a BDSM club and let some ladies to step on you like a normal degenerate.

>>48627

>spoiler

You're implying I don't do that already…

>>48389

Alright, someone slap me like a bitch or something, because

<Comcast Basic : Facebook, Wikipedia and Comcast on Demand Internet Cable (+ all corps who pay to be included this tier)

<Comcast Home Premium : All your corperate [sic] websites + (optional work from home upgrade for access to corperate [sic] VPN)

<Comcast Enterprise : Pay per TB unlimited access to any websites you want. Not available in all areas.

never made sense to me. Let's assume this happens. From the telecom's perspective, wouldn't it be easier to blacklist the larger websites for the higher tiers as opposed to whitelisting them for the more basic tiers? Since they have more potential purchasing power? The only historical case of this happening is maybe with Netflix, which means it would probably look something like this:

<Comcast Basic : Any site except those listed in the premium package.

<Comcast Home Premium : Basic + Netflix, Facebook, Wikipedia, Google, Amazon.

From the telecom's point of view, their cost is the bandwidth, so it only makes sense to crack down on high-bandwidth sites. Given such a monetary incentive, this would mean that telecoms would encourage people to not centralize around three-four websites like everybody does now. Which…is kind of what you'd want, right?

I swear, 99% of what I read about NN feels like I'm reading the amygdala talking.

It also doesn't make sense to me because as it is all the small websites pay ISP for their IP addresses as it is anyways, right?

>>48629

Most people perpetuating this meme are confused, but consider the idea "double dipping", i.e. possibility for ISPs to demand payment from both clients and websites.

Look at it this way:

<Comcast Basic : Any site that paid us to be in this category

<Comcast Home Premium : Basic + whoever didn't pay us

Big corp sites will be able to pay for inclusion in Basic tier, while smaller sites won't be.

>>48451

>the fact that "Net Neutrality" was put forward as a right as a way to directly attack Net neutrality is a subtlety lost on many

Fucking this.

>>48634

edgy

>>48636

Doesn't stop it from being true. There are NSA and CIA backdoors everywhere courtesy of things like NN legislation. Didn't you read any of the vault 7 leaks?

>>48332

Governments taking control is bad, don't get me wrong.

But every bit of control that's transferred to a fucking megacorp is a lost battle for us.

Don't just think of the evil gubmints, consider the whole fucking picture. We got a fuckload of fronts here.

>>48638

I fully agree with you, I just think whoever made the sign is edgy.

>>48663

Never heard of it described so explicitely, yet it makes way too much sense.

>>48663

US citizens are brainwashed through social media propaganda to believe

>US government good

>companies bad

Dunno why megacorps are made out to be the main bad guy when the government is much, much more dangerous and powerful

>>48680

it depends what media you consume.

the media you consume usually makes both sides hate the other more.

if someone thinks that the government is less dangerous than companies in this instance,

the 'right'(?) will say they are brainwashed to trust the government and hate companies.

if someone thinks that the government is more dangerous than companies in this instance,

the 'left'(?) will say they are brainwashed to hate the government and trust companies.

I saw embed related dumping on FCC's anti-NN arguments.

While it isn't really a pro-NN argument by itself and I din't change my stance by the end of it, but he got me thinking:

Why exactly FCC's anti-NN game is so weak?

There's a big pile of good arguments against NN from different perspectives, but it's like they deliberately went out of their way to select an obvious lie, irrelevant bullshit and divisive fearmongering.

Are they uncommited and only do minimum required to placate their anti-NN donors?

Did they plan to sow discord among the populace?

Did they think people wouldn't handle something sophisticated and it was acceptable compromise to say persuasive lie?

Are they just actually retarded?

But it's not the first time I notice this happening.

Maybe it's some systematic problem with our society in general.

Maybe [my political opposition] also have good arguments on their side but I only hear stupid shit due to the same social mechanisms at work.

>>48331

Fellow Canuck, if you think that our American cousins down south dismantling their digital freedoms will not affect us… Hoo boy.

When this happens (and it will), expect our ISPs to start applying pressure to Parliament to follow along.

>>48338

Blackholed halfchan?

What do you mean by that? I'm not trolling I just want clarification. Also a report on it if you have one.

Apparently the vote is done.

We lost.

Been nice knowing you folks.

>Debating Net-Neutrality From The Other Perspective.

>>48738

>George Soros touched it, therefore it's bad

Really hate when this happens.

>>48741

Same, made me cringe. Still interesting.

>>48480

It's simply not going to happen without inordinate amounts of work to shut down a minute demographic.

>>48738

>listening to a conspiracy theorist hiding behind a cat

wew lad

>>48753

Great argument!

The video makes sensible points, the only conspiracy theory I see is OP's image. Stop deflecting.

Reminder that the faster the internet goes to shit, the more incentive there is to produce a better network that's not as easily manipulated.

>>48413

>We will come out of this victorious and with a network more resiliant than ever.

I truly hope so anon. I truly hope so.

>>48760

How low do you have to go to be quoting a conspiracionist on 4chan?

>>48687

It's basically a lie

4chan was being DDoS'd, ATT blackholed 4chan for many of their customers to stop the attack, allowing other users to access 4chan. ATT is pretty retarded but they did the right thing. This kind of thing is allowed under net neutrality rules anyway.

Every case of 'b-b-b-but the ISPs did evil things' is misrepresented to make people upset about NN being repealed. It's not really good for regular people, but neither is it noticeably bad.

>>48760

Why would they shoot themselves in the foot by fucking with the useful idiots that gave them the power to do this to begin with?

>this god damn bullshit lie again in the OP