dburtsev (dburtsev) wrote,

О частной цензуре в США от Federal Communications Commission

We emphasize once again that we do not support blocking lawful content, consistent with long-standing Commission policy. The potential consequences of blocking or throttling lawful content on the Internet ecosystem are well-documented in the record and in Commission precedent. Stakeholders from across the Internet ecosystem oppose the blocking and throttling of lawful content, including ISPs, public interest groups, edge providers, other content producers, network equipment manufacturers, and other businesses and individuals who use the Internet. This consensus is among the reasons that there is scant evidence that end users, under different legal frameworks, have been prevented by blocking or throttling from accessing the  content of their choosing. It also is among the reasons why providers have voluntarily abided by no blocking practices even during periods where they were not legally required to do so. As to free expression in particular, we note that none of the actual incidents discussed in the Title II Order squarely implicated free speech. If anything, recent evidence suggests that hosting services, social media platforms, edge providers, and other providers of virtual Internet infrastructure are more likely to block content on viewpoint grounds.

Т.е. цензурой чаще всего занимаются частные компании как Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube и сервисы как GoDaddy and Cloudflare, а не государство США в лице FCC.
Tags: it, США, цензура

Recent Posts from This Journal

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.