Should non-Democrats really support Net-Neutrality?

[Theodarzna]

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?

I'll let Mister Metokur explain it as well:

[Swizzington]

Anyone that uses the internet should support net neutrality.

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

[Ryme]

What does the memo have to do with net neutrality? As with Swizzington, everyone on the internet should be supporting it. A more interesting conversation is whether things like Google should be considered utility since it's so integral to daily life, which is what I think you're trying to get at?

[WhiteEagle888]

Anyone that uses the internet should support net neutrality.

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

This all the way.

[Tijuana]

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?

You raise some interesting points, particularly that maybe Google, Facebook, and Twitter are FAR too powerful and are effectively giant monopolies. When monopoly businesses start throwing their weight around, things that are not good can only be the result.

[Deleted]

What does the memo have to do with net neutrality? As with Swizzington, everyone on the internet should be supporting it. A more interesting conversation is whether things like Google should be considered utility since it's so integral to daily life, which is what I think you're trying to get at?

Because Net Neutrality should stop things like Google using their influence to abuse their own platforms and snuff out dissent to their dogma.

[GennGreymane]

"Private corporations should do what ever they want, unless I don't like it, then it is a problem."

[the game]

everyone should support net neutrality.

[Machismo]

"Private corporations should do what ever they want, unless I don't like it, then it is a problem."

Honestly, that about sums it up.

[Ryme]

Because Net Neutrality should stop things like Google using their influence to abuse their own platforms and snuff out dissent to their dogma.

Net neutrality is about ISPs allowing access to all content at the same rate. Whether or not a gigantic entity like Google should alter it's services based upon politics or opinion is something else.

[Theodarzna]

You raise some interesting points, particularly that maybe Google, Facebook, and Twitter are FAR too powerful and are effectively giant monopolies. When monopoly businesses start throwing their weight around, things that are not good can only be the result.

I think since they are committed to a sanitized internet that is politically curated to the socio-political agenda of its owners, if you aren't part of that agenda, you are going to be censored anyway.

Materially their is thus no difference between an internet censored by Mark Zuckerburg and the CEO of Google, and an Internet censored by the bottomless hell-mouth of greed that is Charter-Spectrum, Comcast, AT&T ect.

[zebreck]

Ok, are you intentionally mis-defining net neutrality or are you just trolling? Because, obviously, Net Neutrality has fuck all to do with anyone's political agenda. It has to do with whether or not corporations are allowed to play traffic cop with the internet. The fact that a private corporation fired a dude for writing something stupid doesn't have any bearing on that. At all. All you're doing by opposing net neutrality is lining up to pay 10x as much for less than you're getting now.

[Machismo]

That's a lot of words from the OP, to basically just whine that conservatives are victims.

[Theodarzna]

What does the memo have to do with net neutrality? As with Swizzington, everyone on the internet should be supporting it. A more interesting conversation is whether things like Google should be considered utility since it's so integral to daily life, which is what I think you're trying to get at?

You and I both know they will never become a utility. Trump won't likely do it because it would be to anti-Private Enterprise and the Democrats won't do it because they are bought out by those techies.

If Obama didn't enforce the Anti-Trust laws, nobody will.

[Tijuana]

I think since they are committed to a sanitized internet that is politically curated to the socio-political agenda of its owners, if you aren't part of that agenda, you are going to be censored anyway.

Materially their is thus no difference between an internet censored by Mark Zuckerburg and the CEO of Google, and an Internet censored by the bottomless hell-mouth of greed that is Charter-Spectrum, Comcast, AT&T ect.

Well hopefully recent events lead to the breaking up of the social media monopolies. These companies have tremendous power, and they have already shown they have no intention of using it in a benign way.

[Sky High]

it's a good thing being in favor of net neutrality which would curb the influence of sites like google isn't a partisan issue. or it shouldn't be anyway, unless someone wants to ham-fistedly make it that way.

[GennGreymane]

Yup, Theo is pulling a Tenn, except less interesting. What else is new?

[Theodarzna]

Anyone that uses the internet should support net neutrality.

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

It absolutely is. I mean if a handful of gigantic tech platforms and their circle of friends can have any website they don't like taken down, any voice or opinion they don't like deplatformed or demonitized (Usually both), throttle their social media interactions, why then is there a difference from THAT internet and an ISP ruled internet?

If there is a Silicon Valley consensus that only certain forms of thought and opinion are allowed, then why should anyone outside of that band of "Acceptable thought" be for Net Neutrality, the internet shall be censored either way.

[pathora44]

So basically if you are a Republican Corporate Overlord shill then you should be against Net Neutrality. "Yes, my Comcast overlords please I want to pay 20 bucks a month for the social media bundle and I would love to pay an additional 15 bucks a month for the sports website bundle. What I can get the streaming bundle for only an additional 39.95 plus their fees a month, well sign me up." Anyone with a fifth of a brain and with even an toddler's understanding of how the internet works would ever be against Net Neutrality.

[Machismo]

According to most conservatives, health care should not fall into a category of a public utility, but Google and Facebook should... got it.