Should non-Democrats really support Net-Neutrality?

[Deleted]

If its going to happen either way, might as well make sure Zuckerberg and Google don't get what they want either.

Actions have consequences? Aren't they found of saying that. Let's introduce that concept to them.

Well usually it is that the consequences fit the action. Whatever this scenario that you have set up, is some weird stuff that I could initially even understand the meaning of.

[nazrakin]

Of course we “non democrats” should support Net Nuetraility, it is what’s best for everyone. The only ones who stand to benefit from it being gone are the ISPs who want more control and more money.

Left and right have nothing to do with the issue. Do you also not want to support the country anymore, since filthy liberals live in it?

[Theodarzna]

Several questions:

1. How is my stance anti net-neutrality? I'm speaking about what is commonly referred to as net-neutrality. If you're speaking about a truly neutral internet not censored by anyone - that's something different, but i'm talking not about that, but the specific term used in legal documents. I just want to make clear what we talk about.

2. ISPs: Net-neutrality is specifically targeted at areas where you don't have any other options. I live in the city. I can choose between 7 different ISPs. My parents living out of city don't have this luxury. If their ISP wants to sell netflix as separate package, they'd have no choice. That's the reason for all of this.

3. Yeah, maybe other smaller companies do the same, but at this point I'd ask myself the question: If no company exists that wants to profit of my views, they got to be in a very very small minority in our society, because i can see people make shit out of nearly anything.

According to the UN access to the internet is a basic human right. So i think that's another strong argument for that. If they think that access to an unbiased search engine is a basic human right too, then maybe we can talk about google, but it doesn't really matter in the context of net neutrality.

1. The "FREE MERKET!" approach of "Just start another Google" is the same as "Just start another AT&T." or Switch to a new ISP provider.

2. Realistically considering the clique nature of Silicon Valley and its culture, platforms to distribute ones ideas and opinions are practically in the same boat. If I have a message and the multi-billion dollar search engine owners and the owners of the well funded and financed platforms all have agreed "No, only X can be said or seen" then for all practical purposes I've been shut out of the ability to really express my message in any meaningful way. Thus the question from my perspective is, what good is net neutrality to me? I've been driven from the platforms so what difference will it make?

3. The UN is worthless in this respect. It matters because Silicon Valley on one hand wants Net Neutrality but at the other wants to curate the Internet. So really what is the difference.

[Dug]

Considering to some anything to the right of Chairman Mao is a Nazi, I think first you need a better metric and second you need to ask why all those people should still support an Open Internet your committed to driving them off of.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah? Market forces, like ISP's charging a price for using their networks they own and maintain and websites paying what they are worth.

You cannot say "I'm for the FREE MERKEETS!" with one breath but then say "These private companies have to be regulated so everyone can equally use their series of tubes" with the other.

I can if that's what the decision ends up being. You can pout and cry about hypocrites all you want but reality doesn't really care, things do not have to be 50/50 fair in all instances. But you're still most likely going to get your wish anyways so cheer up google might lose a bit of money and the CEO will cry himself to sleep in his mansion.

[GennGreymane]

1. The "FREE MERKET!" approach of "Just start another Google" is the same as "Just start another AT&T." or Switch to a new ISP provider.

2. Realistically considering the clique nature of Silicon Valley and its culture, platforms to distribute ones ideas and opinions are practically in the same boat. If I have a message and the multi-billion dollar search engine owners and the owners of the well funded and financed platforms all have agreed "No, only X can be said or seen" then for all practical purposes I've been shut out of the ability to really express my message in any meaningful way. Thus the question from my perspective is, what good is net neutrality to me? I've been driven from the platforms so what difference will it make?

3. The UN is worthless in this respect. It matters because Silicon Valley on one hand wants Net Neutrality but at the other wants to curate the Internet. So really what is the difference.

Hmm riddle me this

What is easier
Making a new website, or making a new cable company? One requires some time, the other requires a ton of infrastructure. More than just offices.

[Theodarzna]

You are proposing to legalize that behaviour. If Google or Facebook changes your search outcomes or your wall feed to give you more liberal results - that's an ethically dubious grey zone in the currently non-existent laws relating to information services.

What you are proposing, is that if the CEO of Comcast decrees that the only news shall be that which Alex Jones speaks, he is legally allowed to deny access to all other portions of the internet, to ensure his customers only have access to Alex Jones. If his stocks crash as a result, his board fires him, and a new CEO is appointed - who decides all news shall be Jezebel: that is legally permissible within the laws you are supporting.

Instead of protecting people from what you perceive as bias either way - you are codifying it in law, blessing this type of manipulation, and decreeing that ISPs shall control the flow (or cessation) of all information on the internet.

Seems destined to happen no matter what. So if I am censored by billion dollar tech companies I cannot possibly set up a competitor for or billion dollar ISP's I can't possibly set up a competitor for, there is, in my view, no real difference.

Why defend Silicon Valley's free reign to curate the web, they are no different than the ISP's.

If we accept the free market answer to Googles actions, or Zuckerberg than the Free Market for ISP's. Set up your own competitor to AT&T then, they can No Platform who they like. If Google is allowed to than why not AT&T?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm talking about actual nazis, like the daily stormer site or those at the unite the right rally.

Actual Nazi's to you could be anything.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmm riddle me this

What is easier
Making a new website, or making a new cable company? One requires some time, the other requires a ton of infrastructure. More than just offices.

One doesn't get to scream Free Market for Google but not for AT&T.

[Raunchy]

Haha nazis.... people actually think nazis are a problem lol

[Dug]

One doesn't get to scream Free Market for Google but not for AT&T.

They do though! They really really do!

[GennGreymane]

So small minded, its such a broken version of Tenn's routine.

For people interested i the subject, and not simply posting for the sake of pretending.

New websites are the issue with net neutrality. Established sites like Google, Netflix, FB, these won't have an issue. At most you will spend more on Netflix.
But new websites. No. They won't survive without it.
Also, just imagine having a cable company set up your internet just like TV packages.

[Pannonian]

1. The "FREE MERKET!" approach of "Just start another Google" is the same as "Just start another AT&T." or Switch to a new ISP provider.

2. Realistically considering the clique nature of Silicon Valley and its culture, platforms to distribute ones ideas and opinions are practically in the same boat. If I have a message and the multi-billion dollar search engine owners and the owners of the well funded and financed platforms all have agreed "No, only X can be said or seen" then for all practical purposes I've been shut out of the ability to really express my message in any meaningful way. Thus the question from my perspective is, what good is net neutrality to me? I've been driven from the platforms so what difference will it make?

3. The UN is worthless in this respect. It matters because Silicon Valley on one hand wants Net Neutrality but at the other wants to curate the Internet. So really what is the difference.

I think we reached the point where we can just spin in circles.

You argue that google not showing search results is the same as not getting access to the search results because your ISP deemed it so. The thing is, while there are areas you have only 1 ISP, you never have only google, there is already a plethora of search engines you can use. If every person had the access to 2-3 ISPs, I think we wouldn't need laws on net-neutrality. The fact that there are people who have only access to 1 is the main reason fo it in the first place, and you cannot compare that to google, as you'll never be in the position to have no access to another search engine.

If Google would be the only search engine, and it would be deemed as part of the infrastructure, then yes, we should have laws for Google to not filter any search results. But as both aren't, i don't see any need for that.

[Revi]

I don't think huge established platforms for social discourse like Facebook and Twitter should ban certain speech either, unless it breaks the law.

Everyone should support Net Neutrality. And everyone should support open discourse. Just because not everyone believes in the latter idea, doesn't mean less people should support the first.

Sounds like a weird call for more harmful division just for the sake of division.

[GennGreymane]

One doesn't get to scream Free Market for Google but not for AT&T.

You are thinking too small. No wonder you choose to steal Tenn's posting style. What of smaller websites? Like this one? Will Curse be fine when throttled? How about discord? What about other mid size or smaller sites just gaining popularity now? they need net neutrality. They need equal access. Google would be fine without it because Google would become even greater of a monopoly.

[Machismo]

I don't think huge established platforms for social discourse like Facebook and Twitter should ban certain speech either, unless it breaks the law.

Everyone should support Net Neutrality. And everyone should support open discourse. Just because not everyone believes in the latter idea, doesn't mean less people should support the first.

Sounds like a weird call for more harmful division just for the sake of division.

Does that mean that Facebook shouldn't be able to take down pictures with nudity? After all, that is censorship.

[Theodarzna]

I think we reached the point where we can just spin in circles.

You argue that google not showing search results is the same as not getting access to the search results because your ISP deemed it so. The thing is, while there are areas you have only 1 ISP, you never have only google, there is already a plethora of search engines you can use. If every person had the access to 2-3 ISPs, I think we wouldn't need laws on net-neutrality. The fact that there are people who have only access to 1 is the main reason fo it in the first place, and you cannot compare that to google, as you'll never be in the position to have no access to another search engine.

If Google would be the only search engine, and it would be deemed as part of the infrastructure, then yes, we should have laws for Google to not filter any search results. But as both aren't, i don't see any need for that.

If I am paying for someones network and they decide what cannot and can flow on it, well, is that different?

At this point you are arguing scale debates. That its MORE burdensome to set up ISP infrastructure than to compete with Googles bandwidth infrastructure but IMHO that is a "Which is more fatal, a fever of 115 or 150." It doesn't matter because you died at 105.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Actual Nazi's to you could be anything.

You seem to have missed 110% of Charlottesville and everything that happened in its wake.

[Theodarzna]

You are thinking too small. No wonder you choose to steal Tenn's posting style. What of smaller websites? Like this one? Will Curse be fine when throttled? How about discord? What about other mid size or smaller sites just gaining popularity now? they need net neutrality. They need equal access. Google would be fine without it because Google would become even greater of a monopoly.

Well should I care what becomes of MMO-C? I mean, was MMO-C expecting me to defend it?

Google would have to pay ever increasing protection money to AT&T and Comcast and the like. I can live with that.

[GennGreymane]

Well should I care what becomes of MMO-C? I mean, was MMO-C expecting me to defend it?

Google would have to pay ever increasing protection money to AT&T and Comcast and the like. I can live with that.

ah so you ignores the point and fell into your own logic loop.

you want to make google stronger

[Dug]

Google without Net Neutrality

[Cthulhu 2020]

Well should I care what becomes of MMO-C? I mean, was MMO-C expecting me to defend it?

Google would have to pay ever increasing protection money to AT&T and Comcast and the like. I can live with that.

It's okay to extort a company as long as it's an evil leftie SJW coastal elite hive of scum and multiculturalism.



@GennGreymane am I doin it right? Tenn posting that is. Low effort dog whistles.

[Synros]

This isn't a partisan issue. Everyone should be support Net Neutrality.