4chan, AT&T, and Internet Neutrality
The Kerfuffle
Yesterday, users of AT&T found that their access to certain 4chan boards had been blocked. As can be expected, this did not sit well with the sort of people who like unrestricted speech. Reddit had an extremely long thread on it, wence the “beginning of the end of the internet” was proclaimed. Of course, AT&T claimed that it was only a mistake and was trying to defend itself against a DDoS attack. The post advertising this on Reddit is far less popular than the one about the original incident (not surprising, considering this is the place that falsely accused someone mildly critical of Obama as a Republican operative paid to smear him on social media sites).
The Implications
There are two ways the 4chan affair can be viewed. First, one can believe that AT&T is really telling the truth, and this was a giant clusterfuck resulting from a DDoS attack. Or you can believe that this was the Lexington of the War for Internet Neutrality that was valiently won when public opinion turned against AT&T. The latter is complete and utter bullshit; this can reasonably be assumed due to the fact that, when this thing was brought to light, AT&T reversed itself instead of pulling out some bullshit reason having to do with child pornography (as many had suggested). If AT&T had meant to censor 4chan, they would have; the backlash would have been minimal (the average internet user isn’t going to feel any sympathy for the /b/tards; I only care on principle), so no lost revenue, and they would even play up the fact that they’re a “morally responsible” web provider, who will protect your kids from bad things on the internet (so as to free you from doing your jobs as parents).
So, we’re pretty much on the same ground when we say this was an honest mistake on the part of AT&T. But this, coming shortly after the mass deletions of copies of a pirate version of 1984 off of Amazon’s Kindle devices (a very Orwellian move from a company that has apparently never heard of irony), brings the question of internet neutrality to the forefront by showing that the companies have the technical capability to alter/suppress data. The only thing that keeps, say, the government from creating a tiered internet, or censoring “potentially dangerous” sites (always to protect the children!) is to keep public opinion firmly against it. Unfortunately, public opinion among most Americans falls within the “protect the children(!)” camp, not realizing there isn’t neccessarily a contridiction. It would perhaps have been better for the Net Neutrality movement if this had been an attempt by AT&T at censorship that was valliently beaten off by our Scientologist-harassing, pedophile catching “friends*” over at /b/. The media would probably have latched on, and there’s a 50% chance they’d side with Neutrality, a victory would be won, and the politicians would be scared-off of trying any moves at internet censorship (for a short time). But alas, we get this non-issue which raises many concerns but doesn’t lead, in and of itself, to any solution either way.
*Calling them by an accurate name, like “troglodyte,” would have broken the mood and flow of the sentence.
Other
In one of the Reddit posts on this, someone mentioned how mutually interfacing wireless networks could potentially get around the grip of the big telecom companies on internet service provision. I wonder how a system like that would work out? How powerful of a wireless transmitter would you need to give service to a small town? If the actual house-to-house infrastructure wasn’t all controlled by one company, then there would be more competition in the market, and less chance that the actions of a few companies could imperil the entire internet.
Links
The Encyclopedia Dramatica Page
Amazon Secretly Removes “1984″ from the Kindle
House Vote on Illegal Images sweeps in Wi-Fi, web sites
First They Came… (Neat, but unrelated)
Eternal September (Neat, but unrelated)