Should non-Democrats really support Net-Neutrality?

[Zmaniac17]

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?

First if of all how would giving media companies more control fix the problems you listed?

And secondly why are you concerned about party affiliation with regards to this topic? I feel like you're looking for an excuse to disagree with people on a different part of the political spectrum. In my mind this is a bi-partisan issue.

There are very few people that benefit from removing net neutrality. I can list them here. The largest media companies, their investors, their employees, their CEO's and anyone in the government who is taking donations from said media companies. Everyone else should be very interested in keeping the internet relatively open.

I agree with you that many of the larger platforms on the internet have become walled gardens with a lot of content control and that is by design and by customer demand. The solution to this of course is to keep it open so that smaller niche sites can operate as alternatives. This has been the case as you can find many places outside of the main stream internet to consume media and distribute media of any kind (even illegal kinds).

There should be a balance here. Large media companies are easily manipulated and carry enormous influence. Giving them absolute control is not a good idea. I guess I just don't see what your argument for not supporting net neutrality is. It doesn't make sense to me.



EDIT
BTW: The reason companies like google, amazon, facebook and microsoft have so much power is that they own the software/hardware. It has very little to due with net neutrality. Net neutrality just keeps the ISP's from raining on their parade and taking control away from the tech companies.

In my mind what needs to happen, and is slowly happening, is distributed storage and computing power needs to take a larger hold of the internet. Combine that with open source software and you have a recipe for public control over a shared resource. For example, currently you are using a computer who's hard drive may not be full and processing power may be only partially used. It is connected to the internet and capable of doing work. You should be able to let others use it for a small price if you desire. This tech is years away but it's being worked on.

The internet is not complete. It will evolve much further. But if we abandon net neutrality the internet will look like whatever makes a large ISP the most money.

[LilSaihah]

Won't work.

Google has already displayed that it is more interested in ideologically-driven decision making than profit-driven decision making. You can't change their decision making by attacking their wallet. They aren't going to change their ideological decision-making because you try to hurt their wallet by letting the ISPs eat net neutrality.
The good news: You can just let Google gorge itself on poor decisions. Their two failed hits recently are pretty massive in terms of consumer and industry trust.

There should be a balance here. Large media companies are easily manipulated and carry enormous influence. Giving them absolute control is not a good idea. I guess I just don't see what your argument for not supporting net neutrality is. It doesn't make sense to me.

It's basically "this thing is important to my enemy, therefore it's important to me".

[Hooked]

No one even knows what net neutrality is, including me. If Obama was for it, I'm against it. I hope President Trump also bulldozes michelle obamas garden also. Get rid of every trace of them.

[Wyrt]

You know removing net neutrality would make google even more powerful on the net right?

And good lord the butthurt of people because google fired 1 person.

[Zmaniac17]

You know removing net neutrality would make google even more powerful on the net right?

And good lord the butthurt of people because google fired 1 person.

Technically yes, since google is becoming an ISP with their fiber optic services. There are many ways they could benefit. There's really no safe space for competition to develop. Launching successful internet companies today means getting big really fast (billion dollar big) or getting bought out by an established company.

But we aren't completely locked into a proprietary system yet. Users still have choice. At least on the content end. That's why ISP's regulating content is so scary because we have little choice when it comes to ISP's.

[arandomuser]

Uh getting rid of net neeautrality would give the "SJWs" even more control of the internet" if you werent aware time warner, comcast, all donated to hillarys campaign, along with google. For exxample if they get rid of net neutrality comcast could pick out every right wing or white supremacist website and say they will throttle there connection speed unless they pay 3-4x more than other people, I actually support getting rid of net neutrality now once i learned about that, hey and conservatives want to dig there own "free speech" grave shilling for corporations then be my guest.

- - - Updated - - -

You know removing net neutrality would make google even more powerful on the net right?

And good lord the butthurt of people because google fired 1 person.

Shh they might catch on

[De Lupe]

Anyone that uses the internet should support net neutrality.

The internet is not something you can be "driven from".

Winner in the first post. Nice.

[supertigerlamp]

Driven from the Internet? Get a grip.

Maybe these people who are being "driven from the Internet" should take two steps back and examine whether their ideas are worthy of being championed or if they are worthy of being shouted down. I don't view places like Youtube as complete "Elysium" where anyone can come and spout whatever the hell they want without potentially suffering consequences. Free Speech does not allow you to exist in a bubble where you can say whatever you want and exist untouched by those comments like you're a Paladin hiding safely away in your Divine Shield.

If you want to believe that gender/religious/ethnic group(s) A is inferior to group B, and you even want to shout that from the rooftops you are entitled by the first amendment to do so. That same first amendment does not allow for protections for stupid, ignorant, hate-filled people saying stupid, ignorant, hate-filled things; if you lose a job or your youtube account as a result of doing that perhaps the problem is you.

[Strangebrew]

You should be asking why progressives and democrats defend net neutrality when in the same breath they defend multi billion corporations who even have monopolies, censoring and firing people for whatever reason they want.
Because that's what net neutrality boils down to.

Then again, progressives, sjw's and democrats are known for being hypocritical little capitalistic slaves without realizing it themselves.

[zorkuus]

You should be asking why progressives and democrats defend net neutrality when in the same breath they defend multi billion corporations who even have monopolies, censoring and firing people for whatever reason they want.

I'm pretty sure it's not "whatever reason". You can't spout your ideologically driven nonsense in the company's name (looking at you triggered conservatives). Free speech doesn't mean free of consequences.

[Sky High]

You should be asking why progressives and democrats defend net neutrality when in the same breath they defend multi billion corporations who even have monopolies, censoring and firing people for whatever reason they want.
Because that's what net neutrality boils down to.

Then again, progressives, sjw's and democrats are known for being hypocritical little capitalistic slaves without realizing it themselves.

google is an ISP guys, and not a company that only has control over it's own platform. who knew!

[Dr Assbandit]

You should be asking why progressives and democrats defend net neutrality when in the same breath they defend multi billion corporations who even have monopolies, censoring and firing people for whatever reason they want.
Because that's what net neutrality boils down to.

Then again, progressives, sjw's and democrats are known for being hypocritical little capitalistic slaves without realizing it themselves.

Good lord, the irony from this post alone could have set off the industrial revolution from the Stone Age .

[Strangebrew]

google is an ISP guys, and not a company that only has control over it's own platform. who knew!

Oh yeah, there is no such thing as google fiber.
Oh and it's irrelevant. I guess it only matters when it's something that affects you personally.

Private corporations are private corporations. You don't get to pick and choose.

[Sky High]

Oh yeah, there is no such thing as google fiber.
Oh and it's still irrelevant. I guess it only matters when it's something that affects you personslly.

oh, you mean THAT google fiber? yeah.. real contender with those Comcasts and time Warners. what's irrelevant? that your point is stupid? well I suppose that does make it irrelevant.

[Breccia]

everyone should support net neutrality.

There's really no other way to look at it from a consumer point of view.

[Theodarzna]

I don't think you're right that they're going to be snuffed out under the current situation. For the sake of argument though why in god's name would you HELP them fuck you over?

Because ultimately a situation where Google and all Silicon Valley giants must pay ISP's ever increasing rates to have access to traffic is effectively neutering them to a great extent.

Who censors the Internet then is largely amoral greed.

- - - Updated - - -

Thats really not actually the choice at all. Amoral greed is an ideology and is pushed as one. Ask the Kochs.

The choice is between openess and not. With isps throttling and shaping traffic youll get a closed internet. In an open internet youtube and google and godaddy may tell der strumer to go fuck itself but der sturmer can simple change hosts. Which it did.


You should all support net neutrality. If youre concerned that facebook and google are too big and exert too much influence thats fine. Thats a seperate issue that needs to be dealt with on its own terms. Not hey fuck net neutrality cause google is run by sjws.

Amoral greed is something I can at least tolerate because it has never not existed. The internet is already going to lack openness due to the nature of Silicon Valley. So censorship is a thing here and now.

[MoanaLisa]

It's a bogus and stupid game that Republicans are playing with it at the behest of Comcast and others. It's not really a partisan issue and has nothing whatsoever to do with YouTube censoring content.

Yelling SJW! SJW! at the top of your voice is just a distraction from what net neutrality is really about.

Everyone should support net neutrality. Everyone.

[Strangebrew]

oh, you mean THAT google fiber? yeah.. real contender with those Comcasts and time Warners. what's irrelevant? that your point is stupid? well I suppose that does make it irrelevant.

Let's just hope net neutrality gets removed so you sjw's get a taste of what it feels like being fucked over by corporations. Maybe you'll even stop valuing corporations freedom above people's freedom aswell.

[Flarelaine]

Anyone that uses the internet should support net neutrality.

The internet is not something you can be "driven from".

Tell that to Daily Stormer, though. (Good riddance, btw.)

[Sky High]

Private corporations are private corporations. You don't get to pick and choose.

now you're just demonstrating how little you understand about the subject, this is my surprised face:


- - - Updated - - -

Let's just hope net neutrality gets removed so you sjw's get a taste of what it feels like being fucked over by corporations. Maybe you'll even stop valuing corporations freedom above people's freedom aswell.

my cable company is AT&T, I'm well aware.