Wednesday, November 22, 2017

NetNeutrality vs. Verizon censoring Naral

People keep retweeting this ACLU graphic in support of net neutrality. It's wrong. In this post, I debunk the second item. I debunk other items in other posts [1] [4].

Firstly, it's not a NetNeutrality issue (which applies only to the Internet), but an issue with text-messages. In other words, it's something that will continue to happen even with NetNeutrality rules. People relate this to NetNeutrality as an analogy, not because it actually is such an issue.

Secondly, it's an edge/content issue, not a transit issue. The details in this case is that Verizon provides a program for sending bulk messages to its customers from the edge of the network. Verizon isn't censoring text messages in transit, but from the edge. You can send a text message to your friend on the Verizon network, and it won't be censored. Thus the analogy is incorrect -- the correct analogy would be with content providers like Twitter and Facebook, not ISPs like Comcast.

Like all cell phone vendors, Verizon polices this content, canceling accounts that abuse the system, like spammers. We all agree such censorship is a good thing, and that such censorship of content providers is not remotely a NetNeutrality issue. Content providers do this not because they disapprove of the content of spam such much as the distaste their customers have for spam.

Content providers that are political, rather than neutral to politics is indeed worrisome. It's not a NetNeutrality issue per se, but it is a general "neutrality" issue. We free-speech activists want all content providers (Twitter, Facebook, Verizon mass-texting programs) to be free of political censorship -- though we don't want government to mandate such neutrality.

But even here, Verizon may be off the hook. They appear not be to be censoring one political view over another, but the controversial/unsavory way Naral expresses its views. Presumably, Verizon would be okay with less controversial political content.

In other words, as Verizon expresses it's principles, it wants to block content that drivers away customers, but is otherwise neutral to the content. While this may unfairly target controversial political content, it's at least basically neutral.

So in conclusion, while activists portray this as a NetNeutrality issue, it isn't. It's not even close.


Bryan Roland said...


We are Currently offering a floating loan scheme at interest rate of 2% with proper valid identity card for verification.
You can send your loan request for any amount of loan you need.
We offer loans ranging from $5,000.00 USD Min. $50,000,000.00 USD Max.
We long-term credit from five (5) to fifty (50) years maximum.
We give the following type of loan: Project loan, Refinance loan, business investment loans, car or vehicle Loans, Student loan, debt consolidation, housing Loans, Personal loans, travel and vacation loan, Christmas and new year loan.
Our company also need a person that can be our company representative in your country.
Contact our STEPHEN WILLIAMS FINANCIAL LOAN FIRM office via email:
If you are interested in our financial offer and wants to acquire a loan from us, contact us and give us the details below, and that will be needed to initiate the loan sum terms and conditions accordingly.
Name: ____________________________
Gender: _______________________________
Marital status: _______________________
Contact Address: ______________________
City / Zip: ________________________
Country: ______________________________
Date of Birth: ________________________
Amount Needed as Loan: ________________
Loan Duration: ________________________
Monthly Income / Yearly Income: _________
Occupation: ___________________________
Purpose for Loan: _____________________
Phone: ________________________________
Fax: __________________________________
In recognition of these details will be sent a well calculated Terms and Conditions including the agreement.
Thank you for your patronage!
Best Regards,
Twiiter: @stephenswillsl1
Instagram: stephenswillsloan

baburao1100 said...

No one understands the true birthday of Jesus! No particular date is given in the Bible, why do we remember it on the 25th Dec? The first Christians certainly acquired many arguments concerning when it ought to be celebrated! Also, the delivery of Jesus probably didn't happen in the entire year 1 but just a bit earlier, somewhere within 2 BCE/BC and 7 BCE/BC (there isn't any 0 - the years go from 1 BC/BCE to at least one 1!).
Merry Christmas Cards Images 2017