682
Supreme Court to decide whether ISPs must disconnect users accused of piracy (arstechnica.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
171 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 217 points 1 year ago (24 children)

I'm not a judge, but isn't internet essentially a utility these days? Cutting someone off because of piracy seems like cutting off electricity or water because they did something illegal with it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
    •
  • [–] 142 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    This would be the case had net neutrality not been killed off nearly a decade ago

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Net neutrality is why your online jokes were censored under Biden

    -- John McRacist, Republican congressman, former CFO of Evil Inc., former lawyer of Vile Ltd., member of Christofascism Society and Roman Salutes to Jesus

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 92 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I'm pretty sure this supreme court would rule that people don't have a right to electricity, or even water. They'll probably be totally ok with people losing internet access as punishment for crossing media owners.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    or even water

    Already did.

    We never stopped the “lol treaties with Native American tribes don’t count” bullshit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    Besides your point but this is the aspect about Gorsuch that I can't seem to make internally consistent. He almost always rules in terms of native rights – even when, I think, it stretches his supposed originalist guiding principle – yet is more than happy to rule as a conservative on all other times and support "industry" and big business (even when it stretches his supposed originalist guiding principle).

    I know that nothing necessitates a person to act logically and most act from emotion, more than anything, but most people, I find, have a relative reason they think they're being logically consistent but I can't seem to suss even that out, with regards to him.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    They could even be totally innocent, the mere accusation is enough, wtf?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 60 points 1 year ago

    Pragmatically, yes. Legally, no. Progressives have been fighting for years to get internet classified as a utility in the US, and regressives and (ironically) internet companies have been fighting against that effort at every turn in the name of profit.

    And now look how well that's turned out. Gee, if only some people had warned them that deregulation was a monkey's paw...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I'm some places in the States they will cut off your electricity or water for sharing with a neighbor that has had theirs shut off. I have seen both happen personally, and not in some back water state. They both happened in upstate NY.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I’m not a United Statesian so I have no clue anymore how it works there, but other places have been making the case that the Internet is an essential service and that access to it is a basic right. So to leapfrog off your question, is that like a poor person stealing a loaf of bread being cut off from food because they didn’t food responsibly enough?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •