Should non-Democrats really support Net-Neutrality?

[Pannonian]

Just saw basically the same thread, with the same argumentation, on the_donald posted 8 hours ago. Is this forum now spawning thread on the_donald. Wasn't it supposed to be the other way round.

(Not to discredit the idea itself, even the_donald can (rarely) make a point. Just curious)

[Aphrel]

Ye, no, you should be allowed to refuse services to Nazis, hardcore fundamentalist christian/Muslims and etc...
Becease that is just what we need, special treatment for wanting to commit genocide.

So because these groups excist we should have no laws on the matter at all and allow the companys to ban for whatever reason they choose? Be it reasonable or completely unreasonable?
What if a diehard trump supporter manages to land a job highup in their companies? Whould it be fine to suddenly start banning ppl that criticise trump? I think not, ppl shouldn't be banned for opinions on political matter. Thats what democracy is all about.
As long as what is being said isnt breaking laws (wich countrys laws? well thats a tough one, a subject worthy of discussion) it shouldnt lead to exclusion of the company services.

[JohnBrown1917]

So because these groups excist we should have no laws on the matter at all and allow the companys to ban for whatever reason they choose? Be it reasonable or completely unreasonable?

I never said that.

[LaserSharkDFB]

How can there be so many people that fail to understand such a simple topic. How.

Net Neutrality means ISPs cannot limit access to websites based on their content. That's it. Whether the limiting is done based on bias or censorship or in the pursuit of money is irrelevant. The 'agenda' of the websites is irrelevant. There is no reason to be against NN unless you think people should pay more to access certain sites based on the whims of their ISP.

This thread is so stupid.

[Tijuana]

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.

Google is the biggest effective monopoly on earth. No search engine even comes close to theirs. The data storage capabilities of Google are unmatched by any three close competitors. I don't think you understand how search engines work.

Facebook is absolutely a monopoly. I know of NO other platform that does what they do. If you can name one, I would be interested to hear your attempt.

The rest of your argument is just straw man shit that I never even remotely said.

- - - Updated - - -

What exactly do you think those companies have a monopoly on?

Google has an effective monopoly on search, as their capability far surpasses that of any other. Facebook is factually the only service like it out there. If you know of another, by all means let us know.

This is typical for Liberals though. Rather than consider my point, that these companies wield a lot of power with little competition, you just say, "nuh uh there are a lot of facebooks". SAD!

- - - Updated - - -

You mean like US based ISPs will now essentially decide in the US what you will consume whether you like it or not, in absence of net neutrality?

You can always opt to use Google's competitors unlike ISPs which run nation wide oligopolies with absolutely no alternatives.

Saying Net Neutrality is a left wing thing, and you oppose it because you oppose anything "left wing", is just fucking stupid.

This entire thread is stupid.

- - - Updated - - -



Huh? You just spewed out a massive word salad.

Net neutrality is the basic principle that all online platforms have the same access to broadband from the smallest businesses and individuals to the largest corporations, and that physical ISPs don't get to decide who is allowed access and who is not.

- - - Updated - - -



This./10 char

110% straw man post. I never said any of what you are responding to. I have yet to give my opinion in this thread, in any post, on net neutrality. My point you quoted merely points out that social media outlets wield a lot of power, given they are effectively monopolies.

[Tijuana]

They're not charging for their service and they're also not selling a commodity in the first place. You seem to not know what a monopoly is.

You seem to not know what is involved with operating search engines. You seem to also be unaware that Google is giant corporation that makes billions a year in advertising. They wield tremendous power and like I said, the are an effective monopoly. Yes, there are other search engines, but they are factually supremely inferior in their scale and scope.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

Google is the biggest effective monopoly on earth.

Wrong. There's no such thing as an "effective monopoly" first and foremost; it either is or it isn't. Second, Google is only 78% of the market, which even if there was such a thing as an "effective monopoly," 78% wouldn't cut it. It'd need to be in the 90+% to even come close.

No search engine even comes close to theirs. The data storage capabilities of Google are unmatched by any three close competitors. I don't think you understand how search engines work.

Yes, Google is popular and yes, Google is very good. Which is why it's fucking popular. No one with half a brain would deny that. Why you think "good" and "popular" equates to "evil monopoly bent on world domination" is a total mystery, however. Only a completely ignorant fool would think they were one in the same.

Facebook is absolutely a monopoly. I know of NO other platform that does what they do. If you can name one, I would be interested to hear your attempt.

What? Yes. Facebook is the only social media platform in the world. Okay...

But if you're focusing more on web services that give you a free homepage and ability to post things on it? Which is all Facebook really is, POPULARITY aside, then nearly any blogging service does the same thing, as does any service that offers free websites. Of which there are tons. And for ones set up to be more like Facebook in style and connectivity, annoying as that shit is, there's Fiverr, MySpace (which despite what you may think, is still going strong), Ello, Google's whateveritscalled, and etc.

Again: Popularity + Quality of Service does not = Monopoly.

monopoly, n. the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.

The rest of your argument is just straw man shit that I never even remotely said.

No, it's just cold hard truth that morons can't accept. Google isn't the only search engine, and it's not the only search engine that gives good results. YOU CHOOSE TO USE IT BECAUSE YOU LOVE IT. But for some idiotic reason you think that means they're an evil monopoly who wants to steal all your information; information you FREELY and WILLINGLY give them with zero guns to your head, and 100% free choice in using something else.

Just because you keep saying something is something doesn't make it that something. And that's what's happening here. No matter how much of a fucking hyper intellectual you think you are.

[Tijuana]

That's still not what a monopoly is. Again, they are not selling a service or commodity which is required to be considered a monopoly in the first place. They sell advertising space but they are far as fuck from having a monopoly on advertising. You've still yet to even argue why them being a monopoly IF they were (they aren't) would be a problem.

You are splitting hairs about monopolies, when I have said effective monopoly the entire time. That qualifier is there for a reason, and the reason wasn't for you to ignore it, and make a semantic argument anyway.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Decent and civilized people wouldn't be going around calling people "Nazis."

Calling random people nazis, no.

But decent and civilized people do call Nazis "Nazis".

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong. There's no such thing as an "effective monopoly" first and foremost; it either is or it isn't. Second, Google is only 78% of the market, which even if there was such a thing as an "effective monopoly," 78% wouldn't cut it. It'd need to be in the 90+% to even come close.

They love free market giants.

Until that free market giant is liberal.

Then it must be taken out.

[LaserSharkDFB]

You are splitting hairs about monopolies, when I have said effective monopoly the entire time. That qualifier is there for a reason, and the reason wasn't for you to ignore it, and make a semantic argument anyway.

You can't make up terms that you haven't defined then complain that people aren't using the definition you haven't defined.

[unfilteredJW]

You can't make up terms that you haven't defined then complain that people aren't using the definition you haven't defined.

Unfortunately, this warping of the language to push their sad worldview is picking up steam.

[BrerBear]

Ridiculous, pseudo-intellectual and slanted “analysis” from spoiled girl Theodarzna?
That’s so fresh!

Net neutrality is what prevents the big players — you know, the Googles, the Twitters, the Facebooks you are moaning about — from cutting deals to stifle access to their upstart competitors.

So you got it completely wrong. Again.

[Xarkan]

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?

Should that be their right though?

Some companies get so big (or so big a part of the information flow) that their capacity to manipulate opinions become greater than what was feared from states when freedom of speech / expression were made things

Perhaps these companies should be brought under the same principle, if you wish to peddle your product here (here in the abstract, here is a place where democracy is felt to matter) then you cannot censor information.

[edit:] obviously i was not bothering to read the full thread. Someone else has said it already

[Adp]

Just to address the OP real quick about the video explanation:

That is a stupid plan. "Siding with the ISPs" doesn't give you any leverage whatsoever as a user. The ISPs aren't beholden to you any more than the content providers. All it will do is cost you more money to use those same services. Unless your end goal is to leave those services but also to force them to fail so they don't have any users at all. That just sounds pathetic and spiteful though. Why not just leave the services and flock somewhere else?

Also I'm assuming at 3:42-3:47 was an error, inverting the argument entirely... or maybe they are trying to intentionally be confusing? I dunno. In any case what exactly is stopping ISPs themselves from throttling the content providers you subscribe to? It's not like ISPs don't also have terms of service or use agreements you willingly sign onto. What are you going to do to them? Threaten them with net neutrality??

It's a dumb, reactionary plan you've got there.

[Muzjhath]

You seem to not know what is involved with operating search engines. You seem to also be unaware that Google is giant corporation that makes billions a year in advertising. They wield tremendous power and like I said, the are an effective monopoly. Yes, there are other search engines, but they are factually supremely inferior in their scale and scope.

And, due to that size of Alphabet you're talking about here. If Net Neutrality wasn't a thing it's they and Microsoft who'd cut deals with all ISP's to make sure that it was only their services that could be used without paying a premium. Would demand a hefty investment, but they'd end up with more traffic if all the smaller rivals they have went away from the search engine market and in Google's case Alphabet could up the advertising cost as more people would be using it.

So you (as usual for you but that's a different topic) have it ass backwards. The ideas positioned in OP and that you've seemed to have been agreeing with would have the opposite effect if the road to achieve them is "remove Net Neutrality". To to that you need regulation about what service companies the size of Alphabet (Google and YouTube mostly in this case) and Facebook are allowed to police and about company policy etc etc.

[Glorious Leader]

Calling random people nazis, no.

But decent and civilized people do call Nazis "Nazis".

- - - Updated - - -



They love free market giants.

Until that free market giant is liberal.

Then it must be taken out.

Thats the odd thing. I dont think "libruls" are necesarilly in favor of alphabet and microsoft being these massive bloated entities that throw their weight around even if theyre "librul" companies themselves. If you think google and ms are issues theirs anti trust, which is a big part of the democrat platform and should be encouraged left and right. You dont need to grant isps an even stronger position, cementing them as monopolies in order to fuck over google cause sjw. Its really stupid and short sighted thinking.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

Yes there is, that you don't like it doesn't make it not true.

Also I NEVER usually agree with anything Tijuana says.

No, you saying something is real that is what doesn't make something true.

And no one cares who you agree with when you're making shit up.

[Theodarzna]

Should that be their right though?

Some companies get so big (or so big a part of the information flow) that their capacity to manipulate opinions become greater than what was feared from states when freedom of speech / expression were made things

Perhaps these companies should be brought under the same principle, if you wish to peddle your product here (here in the abstract, here is a place where democracy is felt to matter) then you cannot censor information.

[edit:] obviously i was not bothering to read the full thread. Someone else has said it already

Well it is their right; nobody seriously contests that. But as some of the advocates for their rights have said, actions do have consequences.

Their behavior can hamper their ability to gather support for Net Neutrality.

[Glorious Leader]

Their behavior can hamper their ability to gather support for Net Neutrality.

Only if youre stupid and ignorant. Their is no reasonable or credible argument to side against net neutrality. The argument being presented in the op is neither. Fuck google cause its on the side of social justice and it fired that one asshole and i dont like their politics is not a reasonable argument.

[Theodarzna]

Only if youre stupid and ignorant. Their is no reasonable or credible argument to side against net neutrality. The argument being presented in the op is neither. Fuck google cause its on the side of social justice and it fired that one asshole and i dont like their politics is not a reasonable argument.

Someone who spits on people one minute shouldn't expect their unwavering solidarity the next.