Should non-Democrats really support Net-Neutrality?

[GennGreymane]

Google without Net Neutrality

wonderful
/10

[Revi]

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

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

Given that the site doesn't have an 18+ age limit, allowing nudity is probably already a problem in a lot of countries, not to mention the difficulty of certifying that the pictures are posted by their owners or with consent.

Even if it was perfectly legal, I don't think nudes qualify as "open discourse" in this context.

[Blood Raven]

Everyone should support net neutrality, except for the ISPs since we know they never will.

[Pannonian]

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.

Gladly the lawgiver already made this distinction for us: Access to the internet is seen as infrastructure. Search engines not. I would actually support your cause if we would declare search engines basic infrastructure and therefore impose at least some government regulations on them, like we do with ISP.

[Machismo]

Given that the site doesn't have an 18+ age limit, allowing nudity is probably already a problem in a lot of countries, not to mention the difficulty of certifying that the pictures are posted by their owners or with consent.

Even if it was perfectly legal, I don't think nudes qualify as "open discourse" in this context.

That's the issue, where does that line get drawn?

[Pannonian]

Counter point, will those dirty liburls be mad? Because that's all that seems to matter these days.

Sometimes i wonder if the bigots would be protesting for gay marriage if the liberals were against it...

[Theodarzna]

Counter point, will those dirty liburls be mad? Because that's all that seems to matter these days.

Well if supporting X who intends to stab you in the back is the same as backing Y who will also harm X, might as well back Y and know X suffers with you.

- - - Updated - - -

Sometimes i wonder if the bigots would be protesting for gay marriage if the liberals were against it...

You played your hand.

So why back a series of corporations whose plans for the web are no different?

[Revi]

That's the issue, where does that line get drawn?

Somewhere between the extreme of "let everything including illegal things be posted" and the current approach (especially of Twitter) of "ban everything that we who run the company find offensive or disagreeable".

Laws are already pretty good guidelines. Speech encouraging hate or violence, for example, is illegal. Ban what's illegal. Don't ban people for disagreeing with politics. Notable example that got a lot of media coverage recently was Jordan Peterson who got all his google accounts blocked, g-mail deleted, and twitter shut down - whose crime was getting into an ideological disagreement with the transgender community. Got it back due to the media attention, but people with less support would not be able to do the same.

I think it's horrendous that such huge platforms for public discourse that are these days intrinsic part of politics and public opinion will use their power to stiffle peoples ability to engage in that simply because they don't like their opinions. Shouldn't be done, regardless of whether you're a hardcore communist or conservative right-winger. If what they say is legal to say in public, it should be okey to say on Twitter.

Not even advocating for a law against it, just for people not to be okey with it.

[Synros]

Sometimes i wonder if the bigots would be protesting for gay marriage if the liberals were against it...

I think they're more against the Left's constant use of meaningless buzzwords, and are annoyed with their insufficient vocabulary that mostly consists of "bigot", "racist", and "Islamophobe"... Just a thought.

[Machismo]

Somewhere between the extreme of "let everything including illegal things be posted" and the current approach (especially of Twitter) of "ban everything that we who run the company find offensive or disagreeable".

Laws are already pretty good guidelines. Speech encouraging hate or violence, for example, is illegal. Ban what's illegal. Don't ban people for disagreeing with politics. Notable example that got a lot of media coverage recently was Jordan Peterson who got all his google accounts blocked, g-mail deleted, and twitter shut down - whose crime was getting into an ideological disagreement with the transgender community. Got it back due to the media attention, but people with less support would not be able to do the same.

I think it's horrendous that such huge platforms for public discourse that are these days intrinsic part of politics and public opinion will use their power to stiffle peoples ability to engage in that simply because they don't like their opinions. Shouldn't be done, regardless of whether you're a hardcore communist or conservative right-winger. If what they say is legal to say in public, it should be okey to say on Twitter.

Not even advocating for a law against it, just for people not to be okey with it.

Then you are taking a significant amount of freedom away from those who run a site. It will be harder for them to maintain profits, because advertisers will pull out more easily. Imagine if YouTube were not allowed to remove advertising for certain videos, or even worse, were forced to play the ads for anyone who wanted to pay. They could be forced to sell air time to white supremacists and Nazis. It undermines the fundamental principles of the free markets and capitalism.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Well if supporting X who intends to stab you in the back is the same as backing Y who will also harm X, might as well back Y and know X suffers with you.

We already knew that your grasp on reality was tenuous at best, but you didn't need to come right out and admit it.

[GennGreymane]

Have you no reply to me finding out that your true goal is to make google stronger, Theo?

[Pannonian]

Well if supporting X who intends to stab you in the back is the same as backing Y who will also harm X, might as well back Y and know X suffers with you.

- - - Updated - - -



You played your hand.

So why back a series of corporations whose plans for the web are no different?

I think we have a profound different philosophical mindset here. When it comes to political positions, i don't really think in sides:

If you support my position, you're my ally, i don't care if you're left or right.

If i don't like a position i won't support it, even if it's a left idea.

If i like a position i agree with it, even if it comes from the right.

And the same applies to net-neutrality.

I think net-neutrality is important, so i can side on the issue with Google, even if i think they currently wield to much influence. As net-neutrality doesn't increase their influence, that's not a problem for me.

I don't stick to an idea or oppose it because it originated on my side. I can change my allies based on political position. And let's be honest, it would be rather stupid to stick to any idea proclaimed in the name of "my side" - as my sides contains a vast spectrum of ideas stretching over hundreds of years.

[JohnBrown1917]

Actual Nazi's to you could be anything..

Not true.
Do you actually have a point? or what? Or do you agree that any business should be forced to service nazis?

- - - Updated - - -

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

In west europe? Probably not. But the US has some problems.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

https://www.statista.com/chart/899/u...december-2012/

Google arguably has a larger monopoly than ISPs, and just like ISPs they are a gatekeeper to the general public.

Google doesn't have a monopoly, they have a high market share. Just because you choose to use google by default does not mean you don't have other options.

[Pannonian]

I think they're more against the Left's constant use of meaningless buzzwords, and are annoyed with their insufficient vocabulary that mostly consists of "bigot", "racist", and "Islamophobe"... Just a thought.

If they're concerned about insufficient vocabularies, they clearly voted the wrong guy into the White House.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

You raise some interesting points, particularly that maybe Google, Facebook, and Twitter are FAR too powerful and are effectively giant monopolies.

No they're not. They're just popular. That's not a fucking monopoly. Not even close.

Don't like Google? There's tons of other search engines, video hosting sites, and so on that you can use. The only person stopping you from using them is you, because you LIKE their service. Ditto for Facebook, Twitter, and any other big company you have some idiotic hatred for but continue to use because you actually have a hard-on for them but refuse to admit it to yourself.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I think they're more against the Left's constant use of meaningless buzzwords, and are annoyed with their insufficient vocabulary that mostly consists of "bigot", "racist", and "Islamophobe"... Just a thought.

Well at least you specified that they're against the LEFT'S constant use of buzzwords, and didn't try to claim that the right isn't in constant use of buzzwords as well, considering the right's vocabulary of buzzwords and dog whistles is significantly larger. "Cuck" "Coastal Elite" "Killary Klinton" "Lazy freeloader"... I could go on, but all you need to do is watch Fox News for 30 minutes and you'll be able to fill a notebook up with all the dog whistles and buzzwords that constitute about one percent of one percent of the right's buzzwords.

- - - Updated - - -

Have you no reply to me finding out that your true goal is to make google stronger, Theo?

Her logic is holy, in that it is sacred to her, and more full of holes than a sieve.

[Iamanerd]

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

you want to make google stronger

There's no point in arguing with someone who lacks a basic understanding of how the internet works and how it would fuck consumers if net neutrality goes away. Paired with new companies/start-ups getting slammed it would not be good. Internet needs to be treated as a utility in this day and age, I'd rather not have internet divided up like a TV and get fucked for it.

[Synros]

Well at least you specified that they're against the LEFT'S constant use of buzzwords, and didn't try to claim that the right isn't in constant use of buzzwords as well, considering the right's vocabulary of buzzwords and dog whistles is significantly larger. "Cuck" "Coastal Elite" "Killary Klinton" "Lazy freeloader"... I could go on, but all you need to do is watch Fox News for 30 minutes and you'll be able to fill a notebook up with all the dog whistles and buzzwords that constitute about one percent of one percent of the right's buzzwords.

- - - Updated - - -



Her logic is holy, in that it is sacred to her, and more full of holes than a sieve.

Oh, did I trigger you by not condemning both sides in a single breath? Oh, you poor thing... Grow up. Perhaps you should look into the context of people's replies first, before spazing out? Just a thought. It'll save you the embarrassment.