Trump FCC Pick Nathan Simington Wants You To Think Net Neutrality Is A Secret Cabal By Big Tech To ‘Censor Conservatives’
from the things-just-keep-getting-dumber dept
The modern authoritarian GOP knows its radical policies are widely unpopular, which is why it increasingly needs to rely on propaganda. That’s also why the party pretends that absolutely any effort to moderate online political propaganda is “censorship.” With young voters turning away from the GOP in record numbers, propaganda, gerrymandering, and race-baiting anti-democratic bullshit is all the party has.
It’s an argument that bleeds into pretty much everything these days, even net neutrality.
After the Biden FCC last week announced it would be restoring net neutrality, Trump FCC pick Nathan Simington came out with a rambling missive claiming that efforts to keep Comcast from screwing you over is, you guessed it, somehow an attempt to censor conservatives. Net neutrality is, Simington claims, secretly a way to help “big tech” censor poor, unheard right wingers:
“The leaders of Big Tech companies have anointed themselves the arbiters of which ideas are allowed to be expressed and which are not. These companies are, without a doubt, the biggest threat against freedom of speech that our country has faced in decades.”
So one, you’ll notice that Simington is incapable of talking honestly about telecom monopoly power and his party’s 40 year track record of coddling it. But his core thesis, that this is all secretly a favor to “big tech,” simply isn’t true. Why not? Because “big tech” companies documentably stopped caring about net neutrality a long time ago.
While Google used to care about net neutrality, it stopped somewhere around 2010. Once Netflix became successful, it too vocally stopped caring about net neutrality somewhere around 2017. While these companies originally supported net neutrality, once they became big and powerful they simply stopped caring. Facebook never cared, and long actively opposed net neutrality.
The GOP knows this, they just think (or hope) that you’re stupid.
Simington also tries to argue that because the internet didn’t explode into a rainbow of bright colors after the 2017 repeal of net neutrality (which required the use of fake and dead people to pretend the repeal had public support), that the consumer protection rules must not have mattered:
“It has now been nearly six years since we repealed the net neutrality rules, and as far as I know, no one has died yet, nor have any other of the solemnly predicted catastrophes come to pass.”
Folks opposed to basic consumer protection love to make this claim, but they’re actively ignoring that big telecom didn’t behave worse post repeal because numerous states rushed in to pass state level laws. Companies like Comcast didn’t want to implement major anti-competitive practices on their network, because they now risk running afoul of state net neutrality laws all along the west coast.
This gets conflated into “gosh, our removal of federal guidelines must not have mattered,” which is misleading bullshit. The FCC repeal of net neutrality didn’t just kill net neutrality rules, it gutted much of the FCC’s consumer protection authority. The GOP’s repeal even tried to ban states from protecting broadband consumers entirely, an effort the courts have subsequently shot down.
Focus on what matters: Net neutrality rules were imperfect, stopgap efforts to keep giant telecom monopolies from using their power over internet access to harm consumers and competitors. If you don’t support net neutrality, what’s your solution for concentrated telecom monopoly power? The GOP actively supports concentrated telecom monopoly power. There are 40 years of documentable evidence.
From Simington’s missive, do you gather he cares one fleeting shit about the problems created by telecom monopoly power? The high costs? They slow speeds? The patchy access in rural markets? The comically terrible customer service? The refusal of ISPs to upgrade poor, minority neighborhoods?
Simington can’t even be bothered to actually discuss the actual issue he’s trying to counter. Because what the modern GOP cares about is protecting its own power, and, at the moment, that requires propping up the delusion that anything the GOP doesn’t like is somehow “big tech censorship.” Even some basic, popular consumer protections designed to protect the public from big telecom.
Filed Under: big tech, broadband, fcc, high speed internet, nathan simington, net neutrality, propaganda




Comments on “Trump FCC Pick Nathan Simington Wants You To Think Net Neutrality Is A Secret Cabal By Big Tech To ‘Censor Conservatives’”
The GOP seem to have defined censorship as any opposition to our power, and so when will they define voting democrat as censorship of the GOP.
Re:
Given the failed insurrection one could make the case that we’re already at that point.
‘You voted for someone other than the republican candidate? That’s a fraudulent attempt to silence republican voices at the polls and must be stopped!’
It has been six years, and as far as we know, unfortunately Simington hasn’t died yet. But let’s keep our fingers crossed.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
I mean it might be
Afterall, the federal government has been caught red handed doing exactly that.
I think the much more important thing is:
1) The FCC literally does not have this power. It was not granted to it by congress, and agencies don’t get to just decide they have jurisdiction over things they do not, nor make up new laws.
2) It’s an fffing dumb idea. No government regulation doesn’t usually make things better, mm’kay? We have monopolistic ISPs because of government intervention to start with, dumbass.
Re:
…says nobody who has read and understands Title II.
…says nobpdy who understands the concept of natural monopolies.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
You don’t understand anything, so how would you know?
Re: Re: Re:
Behave like someone who lacks any reason and connection to factual reality, and everyone will automatically treat everything you say as wrong even when you on occasion are right. This is entirely your problem because you are are the sole cause of it.
Don’t like it? Start behaving like a rational being.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Stephen T. Stone-tier comment. You used to be so good at this. What happened?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
hi revenge porn enjoyer
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Incoherent comment
Re: Re: Re:
Your every accusation, projection.
I’ve done something you’re incapable of – reading the entire Open Internet Order.
Re:
When imposed in the Obama admin, Multiple courts found the FCC had the authority to implement Net neutrality as laid in the open internet order under title II and had the authority to reclassify internet communications providers as covered under Title II. None of the lawsuits claiming the FCC did not have authority succeeded.
When you claim the authority doesn’t exist, you’ll have to cite something more than I said so, because our most recent legal authority disagrees.
Re: Re:
Never mind that internetworks should have been under Title II from the get. That’s so far back i don’t even remember what the arguments for that were.
Re: Re: Re:
It was, from before Internet first existed (since the Carterfone decision) until Republicans (naturally) corruptly changed that in 2002.
Re:
Except for all the times you begged the government to regulate because you can’t stand the fact that you have to see people with darker skin or boys kissing other boys.
Re:
Then, why do other countries usually have cheaper, faster internet with more choice than the US, when they’re effectively regulated?
I miss child pornography
“Censoring conservatives” triggers my “and about time, go for it, and good riddance” reflexes. It just doesn’t have the same bogeyperson qualities.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
absolutely fucking insane subject line
Re: Re:
Mr. “I take everything out of context” takes everything out of context once again. News at 11.
Re:
WTAF bro
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
remember:
Net Neutrality for ISPs = good
Net Neutrality for social media companies = bad
Google owns residential ISPs, cellphone companies, VOIP companies, DNS, Domain Name services, identity authentication and password storage, credit card payment gateway, and is being investigated for antitrust…..
But google is a “information service provider” not a “common carrier”.
Re:
hi revenge porn enjoyer
Re:
Pro Tip: ISP != social media
test on friday
Re:
Subsidiaries of a company can be considered common carriers (Google Fiber, GoogleFi) while their main business and other subsidiaries are NOT considered common carriers.
Jesus, revenge pornographer, you really need to stay in the Kiwifarms Night Schools more. You clearly are not even that educated for a wumao.
Re:
Google operates under various sets of regulation, as regulations apply to specified business operations, and not the company as whole. Cell phone operations, common carrier; search engine, information provider; ISP, whatever regulation the FCC apply; advertising agency, whatever regulations apply to such agencies etc.
Re:
Nobody mentally competent things NN has anything to do with speech on platforms.
Evidence: Ben believes it.
Re:
Why are you trying to compare completely different things to create a completely bogus argument?
Re:
Yes, that’s correct. ISPs are the gateway to the Internet; they shouldn’t have the right to slow down or even block someone’s ability to access a given website. The websites themselves, including social media services, are not a gateway; they should have the right to decide what speech, first- or third-party, they will or will not host. If you can think of a good reason to allow the government to legally compel any website—from the smallest Neocities page to the largest social media service—into hosting any kind of speech it otherwise wouldn’t host, by all means: Offer it up.
Re:
Is there a problem with social media platforms not treating packets the same across their networks, or are you simply confused about what NN is?
Does Google do anything that requires it to be a common carrier, outside of the Google Fiber business?
Bring it on...
If community-based Internet is socialism, then call me “comrade.”
Re:
Hi Comrade ThatOtherOtherGuy, I’m Comrade Abram.
“Nice country you’ve got here. It’d be a real shame if something were to happen to it…” – Donald J. Trump
Wait, all I have seen lately in the news are GOPer’s doing this that and the other thing. How are they being silenced? Wasn’t it the big guy himself that wants to try news outlets for treason because they disagreed with him?
Re:
It’s exactly because they are being silenced that there is enough space left in the news to tell you just why they want to drone out what they are actually doing.
They don’t want their deeds reported but their words.
Re:
Because the places that are most popular are the ones that tell Nazis to GTFO.
They’re still able to speak, and very loudly at that, but they’re annoyed that they can’t get the biggest platforms and their associated ad revenue.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
I’d like to know if the author of this piece, KB, believes that “trans women are women” – ie, does he think that mentally ill biological males should have access to women’s single-sex spaces?
Re:
hi jhon loser
Re:
Fuck off with your irrelevant bad-faith commentary.
Re:
It’s ok to cross dress Herman. No one here cares.
Re:
There’s places you can go where you can satisfy your humiliation fetish in private, you know.
Re:
I am whatever gender the fuck I say I am and you’re not going to stop me from entering your bathrooms, you fucking uterus-bearer.
Net neutrality would be great, but it’s not like we’ve had similar ‘equal opportunity for all businesses’ in other industries historically. Why are we expecting Internet/Data businesses to be any different? Monopolies suck — until you’re the entrepreneur wanting to go public in order to expand your business. The purpose of a business is to make a profit, but greed is when you want to be so sucessfull/profitable that you drive out your competition. Greed is still the problem.
Re:
Not remotely true if you know what NN actually is.
Re:
Your Telcomms company provides you with both ISP services and phone service. They are required to be neutral as a phone provider, so why shouldn’t they also be required to be neutral as an ISP. The services are similar in that a phone allows you to talk to people, and an ISP allows you to talk to websites,
Comparing?
Comcast internet access and the Big tech that Took advantage of the corps Shooting anyone that TRIED to create something in the early internet.
Then as Capitalism takes over, they all want to go Private and Imprison and restrict Its users to only Use those feature it has created.
90% of which is making money on ADVERTS.
But I cant get any one of them to State that they will be Liable for any 3rd party adverts that Install CRAP on my machine. Love those 13000 trackers per month, that Iv never been to 99.99% of sites.
So 1 sides wishes to complain about ANYTHING, that isnt happening.(Shepard story)
Other side wants to let it go abit wild, with few restrictions. AND FEW CONTROLS over the capitalism.
Which will create abs many Closed environments as there are nations in the world. And SLOWLY the smaller Interesting places get taken over by the BIG guys.
Sneeze near a republican? Must be an attempt to censor them
‘The government telling ISP’s that they’re not allowed to discriminate and give preferential/detrimental treatment to different companies’ is ‘censoring conservatives’?
I know ‘honesty’ is a foreign concept to modern republicans but at this point they might as well just come out and admit that ‘doing anything we don’t like’ is the definition they’re using for ‘censoring conservatives’, much like ‘woke’.
Re:
Sneezing?
Nah, merely existing within the general vicinity of a Republican (read: Nazi) is enough to get them worked up into saying your mere existence is censoring them.
And by “censor” I really meam “how dare you exist, die”.
Re: Are you sure
its not Toilet paper and the Other end, that you are wiping?
These poor censored conservatives that I have to listen to on various websites, media programs, social media platforms all screaming how they are being censored…
Re: Dirty trick #1
In a loud discussion(argument), its a strange affect to Slowly Lower your voice, so the loudest thing the other hears, is THEMSELVES.
If you listen closely, there are 2 sides yelling, but they are BOTH the same side, countering each others yelling. the democrats Just SHUT UP, to wait till they FIGURE WHO THEY ARE YELLING AT.
Are any of these evolutionary-throwback Fascist GQP assholes capable of tuning an AM radio? Do so, then try to tell me with a straight face that so-called “conservatives” are being “silenced”. The airwaves are thoroughly saturated with a sickening overabundance of spewed right-wing bullshit: poor trump is innocent and persecuted for being a Patriot; White People are the ones being oppressed and constantly discriminated against; the evil Libs are the ones out to destroy our precious Amerika, and the golden land it has become under fat trump and others of his ilk; that same Amerika was always intended to be a Good Christian nation anyway; people sporting darker-tone skin are all out to “replace” the noble White Man; etc.;etc.;etc., an endless cacophony of far-right Fascist bullshit, with too many spewers to name here. Ah, but there’s a VAST conspiracy to “silence” these pure Patriots-(ironically another prime example of said Fascist bullshit). And if the goal here is to flush our struggling Democracy, to appease the fat orange dotard-god who is pitching a fit to be dictator-for-life, then hell, why NOT “suppress” the firehose-flow of bullshit? (But we don’t, thus alluding to the honored tradition of actually allowing these points of view, no matter how ill-advised and perverted they happen to be!) And of course, it’s only the large number of drooling, knuckle-dragging Amerikan idiots in their pickup trucks with their Jason Aldean 8-tracks, who enable these trumpeting assheads spewing said bullshit. So there!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Inevitable timeline of woke left responses to “conspiracy theories”:
Re:
…hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re: And you
Think Christ, is white as the snow of the far north.
And you have no concept of what the bible is trying to TEACH. Its called SOCIALISM/.
What points are being censored
I keep saying this every time a right-wing Republican says he’s being “censored”:
What conservative speech was removed? Were you talking about government fiscal policy? Were you talking about reducing the size of the government?
Or were you repeating lies about Trump winning the election, about how COVID is fake, and so on?
Let’s have a discussion about why you think lies and hate should be acceptable speech. Oh right, because it’s easier to cry “censorship” than to take responsibility for saying something terrible.
Re:
And more to the point: When that speech was removed, did the platform try to stop conservatives from reposting that speech elsewhere?
A social media service like Twitter, regardless of literally any factor other than it being privately owned, has every right to determine what speech it will or will not host. The government doesn’t (and shouldn’t) have the right to make a social media service host any legal speech the owner(s) of that service don’t want to host. The same goes for literally everyone else.
Re: Re:
The fact that a platform’s control extends no further than its platform makes impossible for a platform to control/silence someone’s speech.
Re: Re: Re:
Well, unless you are so misinformed and/or you’ve got such a massive sense of self-entitlement that you believe that the right to speak includes the right to use any platform you want, even if it’s privately owned and the owner doesn’t want you there, to speak from.
Modern conservatives: ‘For the good of the public we must seize the means of (speech) production!’
Re: Re: Re:2
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/12/legal-right-to-post-free-speech-social-media/672406/
Re:
The problem is that they’ve been unable to differentiate between their culture war nonsense and actual conservatism. So, they’ll claim that their attacks on someone they don’t like is because they identify as “conservative”, whereas it’s really just because they’re an asshole who happens to be right wing.
Re:
Going by Musk’s Twitter, CSAM is censored conservative speech
How are we in 2023 and still people don’t understand that NN has nothing to do with content?
I mean, I know the reason and it’s a slimy cesspool of wilful misinformation, but it’s still incredible to me. That’s even before you get to the obvious fact that they can damn well be the arbiters of what happens on their property.
Yeah, I’d be careful there. Nobody died because of the lack of actual net neutrality (largely because it’s difficult for Twitter to kill you by throttling certain sites as they have been shown to do), but if you’re going to bring in content to the argument then you only have to look at the graphs of red vs blue states after the COVID vaccines were available to see that they actually have.