Should non-Democrats really support Net-Neutrality?

[GennGreymane]

Nazi's have the right to spread racism and genocidal messages just as much as ISIS has the right to have a website to recruit new followers and post beheading videos.

Plus it makes them easier to track.

[Deleted]

Except when the website that was taken down was actually run by Nazi's. So yes while everyone that you don't agree with isn't a Nazi, in this instance they were fucking Nazis.

The point there is when the people we trust to filter out the Nazis sees very moderate people who don't adhere to their crazy logic as Nazis, we see people censors who don't follow the narrative the moderators want.

[Theodarzna]

Nazi's have the right to spread racism and genocidal messages just as much as ISIS has the right to have a website to recruit new followers and post beheading videos.

Considering its usually users like Lauren Southern and such I am talking about, I am unsure why you are fixated on ISIS or the Daily Stormer. As of yet nobody I know of expected them to defend Net Neutrality.

But everyone between Antifa and the Daily Stormer is at least told that Net Neutrality is in their interests. What I am saying is in material terms really anyone to the Right of Stephen Colbert is going to be fair game for being censored by the tech giants moving forward, so why does it really matter?

[Noomz]

No they won't because the investment barrier to compete is outrageously high. Nobody can even set up an alternative patreon yet without a massive investment.

The problem is there really cannot be equal access because realistically nobody can knock google, youtube or facebook out, especially since the three (really two since Youtube is Google) talk to one another and are pushing in the same direction. More over they do so with the approval of the Government who will never break those trusts up. So...... what does it matter?

- - - Updated - - -



From a practical perspective if Censorship is assured either way,

You are either censored by blue haired harpies or bottomless amoral greed. Idk, I cannot really see a difference from a practical day to day perspective.

And so you oppose net neutrality why, exactly? If it goes, your situation no matter how you twist it, will get much worse. With net neutrality you have freedom. Without it, you have less freedom.

Stop acting like a victim of oppression. Do you know who else acts like this? You refer to fringe elements as if they're the norm. Google make curate their platform as they see fit. You can choose not to participate. There are alternatives and they won't grow unless you support them.

[AeneasBK]

Because cutting off your nose to spite your face is a fucking retarded childish reaction.

[Adam Jensen]

Considering the Google Memo, and the revelations that have come out since, one should ask that if they are not Democratic Party loyalists or committed Social Justice types, should you support Net Neutrality.

Why Not? Well, considering it is now accepted that people who aren't part of a group think can be censored, blacklisted, harassed, deplatformed, demonetized ect into oblivion on any platform on the web, what would be the material difference from your perspective of an internet censored by giant tech conglomerates versus ISP's?

Clearly places like Google, Facebook, Youtube (by extension of being owned by Google), Twitter ect, the big players all wish to now censor speech and content they do not politically approve of. While that is their right, even if nakedly unethical, why then should you care if your not in with their political platform if some bigger player wrecks the internet for good?

If you are anywhere outside of that narrow platform of Social Justice meets "Hillary Clinton is Radiant Light unto All Nations!" types you are going to be driven from the internet by these types anyway, so what is the material difference between an internet ruled by Social Justice Techies, and an Internet ruled by the ISP's wanton greed?

Net Neutrality isn't censorship. The fact that Google blocked a racist website has nothing to do with NN.

[Noomz]

Nazi's have the right to spread racism and genocidal messages just as much as ISIS has the right to have a website to recruit new followers and post beheading videos.

I have no idea what you're trying to imply.

[Theodarzna]

And so you oppose net neutrality why, exactly? If it goes, your situation no matter how you twist it, will get much worse. With net neutrality you have freedom. Without it, you have less freedom.

Stop acting like a victim of oppression. You refer to fringe elements as if they're the norm. Google make curate their platform as they see fit. You can choose not to participate. There are alternatives and they won't grow unless you support them.

I don't oppose it really, I just no longer care for its existence or not.

With it I have no practical freedom, without it I have no practical freedom. A freedom is not a freedom if It costs a billion dollars or more to exercise, well unless you have a billion dollars.

An internet curated to Googles political beliefs is an internet that will require billions to actually have a hope of having a voice on. An internet choked out by the ISP's is an internet you would need billions to have a hope of having a voice on.

From the practical perspective of a user whose opinions aren't enthusiastically endorsed by Google for example, there isn't much of a difference between the two.

Google may curate their platform, and I am under no obligation to back their desire for Net Neutrality as a response.

- - - Updated - - -

Net Neutrality isn't censorship. The fact that Google blocked a racist website has nothing to do with NN.

I didn't say it does, nor the NN is censorship.

[Draco-Onis]

The point there is when the people we trust to filter out the Nazis sees very moderate people who don't adhere to their crazy logic as Nazis, we see people censors who don't follow the narrative the moderators want.

No offense but these companies are huge there's simply no way for moderators to watch everyone, what you are witnessing is basically AI learning things. I think people think it is all malicious when it is simply computer error, there is simply no way for companies like facebook and google to have humans moderate even 1% of the data they manage.

[pathora44]

I have no idea what you're trying to imply.

Mainly that I find that a website like Daily Stormer is really no different then an ISIS website meant to recruit new followers. They both spread a message of hatred and genocide. So really if Theo is really so upset that the Daily Stormer got taken down and he/she has this huge beef about "censorship" then he/she should be totally for ISIS having their own protected website.

[Dug]

Hmm tough question, pay x10 more to get your shitty views blocked by the same tech giants or pay the same to get your shitty views blocked by tech giants. Real tough one yeah I honestly can't tell the difference.

Y'know what fuck libruls I'll pay x10 more just to kek @ them

[Mittens]

Break them?

[ryan92084]

Still trying to figure out what most of these comments have to do with net neutrality.

[Draco-Onis]

I don't oppose it really, I just no longer care for its existence or not.

With it I have no practical freedom, without it I have no practical freedom. A freedom is not a freedom if It costs a billion dollars or more to exercise, well unless you have a billion dollars.

I am not sure I follow your logic there are alternatives to platforms like youtube, facebook, you can also forsake using them I know lots of people do. In most places in the US there are 1 maybe 2 ISPS, you need the internet there is no competition for ISPS nor choice in terms of using one.

[Noomz]

I understand well what it means. I am not saying one is the other.

I am saying that if the central hub of the internet for all practical purposes is going to act as it does, what is the difference for me as a consumer with opinions that are not "#WithHer".

Sure, maybe someone can rally 20 billion or so dollars to challenge Google, but probably not since nobody will bust that trust.

So from my perspective as a user, there difference between ISP ruled internet, and Silicon Valley Tech giant ruled internet is nothing.

What central hub? You think Google control the internet? It's not Google that shuts down your websites or throttles your surfing. Google is for net neutrality because they want to keep the internet open and free. Isn't that worthwhile? Or are you just against it out of spite?

Nothings gonna change with such an apathetic attitude like yours. "I want change, I want things to be different, but I don't want to work for it or make an effort". That's you.

You've invented a strawman. There is no "Silicon valley tech giant"-ruled internet. You're inventing a ghost and flailing at it and the rest of us can't see your imaginary ghost, so we're wondering what the hell you're flailing at. You are here right now freely expressing your opinion without this imaginary ghost trying to silence you. You aren't being censored. You aren't being oppressed.

[HumbleDuck]

Yes, this not a political issue. Don't make it one.

[Adam Jensen]

Simple solution, use Bing, DailyMotion and Instagram.

Other solution, stop using x-Chan, Reddit, Tumblr or whatever platform has convinced you Google is run by blue-haired harpies.

Third solution: Don't be a racist piece of shit.

[Noomz]

Mainly that I find that a website like Daily Stormer is really no different then an ISIS website meant to recruit new followers. They both spread a message of hatred and genocide. So really if Theo is really so upset that the Daily Stormer got taken down and he/she has this huge beef about "censorship" then he/she should be totally for ISIS having their own protected website.

Though the Daily Stormer isn't an enemy of the state. But when it comes to freedom of expression and opinion, it's our responsability to argue against the things we think are bad with a superior argument. Further antagonising and marginalizing a group for their opinions is a poor way to deal with them. ISIS on the other hand are at war with most of us, so they are dealt differently, because they sincerely want to kill us all.

[Flurryfang]

Considering the Google Memo, and the revelations that have come out since, one should ask that if they are not Democratic Party loyalists or committed Social Justice types, should you support Net Neutrality.

Why Not? Well, considering it is now accepted that people who aren't part of a group think can be censored, blacklisted, harassed, deplatformed, demonetized ect into oblivion on any platform on the web, what would be the material difference from your perspective of an internet censored by giant tech conglomerates versus ISP's?

Clearly places like Google, Facebook, Youtube (by extension of being owned by Google), Twitter ect, the big players all wish to now censor speech and content they do not politically approve of. While that is their right, even if nakedly unethical, why then should you care if your not in with their political platform if some bigger player wrecks the internet for good?

If you are anywhere outside of that narrow platform of Social Justice meets "Hillary Clinton is Radiant Light unto All Nations!" types you are going to be driven from the internet by these types anyway, so what is the material difference between an internet ruled by Social Justice Techies, and an Internet ruled by the ISP's wanton greed?

..... What the fuck?? The internet is not controlled my Social Justice Techies nor can they. That is the entire point of net neutrality!! They can censor all they want, but they can never stop a website from working! That is what the ISP greed corps can do! They can control what works and what does not, and that is where we will actually see censorship, where you can't watch something because it is closed down by your provider. Want to create a new site to compete? Well fuck you, not gonna work. Wanna make it so that more then a 100 people can go on your site without major lag?? Well better pay up or that is not gonna happend by the provider!

THere is no reason at all not to want net neutrality! Unless you are 1 of 5 people who run the Verizon or some other internet company, you want net neutrality and you better not do anything to destroy it.

[Dezerte]

Seems childish or irresponsible to me, to argue that Net Neutrality shouldn't be a thing because of other issues.