Should non-Democrats really support Net-Neutrality?

[Revi]

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.

I won't advocate that people should support stifling public discourse because it makes it easier for companies to make a profit. Like I said, not advocating a law here, I just don't think people should be supportive of it.

I'm dubious of the claim that those who lose monetization or are shut down are all because of advertisers pulling out, but that's a different discussion. Let's say it is. I think it's horrendous that people would boycott a company for hosting ads on the same site as someone they disagree with - yet support companies in using their position to silence people with totally legitimate political opinions because they disagree.

To me it shows a scary and harmful attitude to free speech, debate and the value of exchanging ideas. Why debate when you can silence, right?

[hakujinbakasama]

There is a bit of irony in this topic if you're on the "left" anyway.

So while I get the overall sentiment that "everyone should be for Net-Neutrality" it does seem that the loudest proponents are also on the same side of the fence who are in support of doxxing people and getting them fired from their jobs due to something they say online and or having them banned off of social media.

The justification for the latter is that a private company cannot censor and thus having someone banned from twitter due to bullshit is completely fair and somehow "non political." Yet, Internet Service Providers ARE private companies. So how they dictate their business should be equal correct? And if the fear is that they will some how squash or limit traffic to a non-political ally, well, isn't that their right as a private company? I mean, ignoring some elements of reality....

[Cthulhu 2020]

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.

I was more pointing out the obvious, that the pot was calling the kettle black.

I will give you props though, you openly admitted that the right gets easily triggered by leftist buzzwords. They love to use buzzwords and then go "awww did I hurt your little leftie feelsies?" but when it comes down to it, they're even bigger crybabies when the left brings out the dog whistles. Kudos to you for acknowledging that.

[Slybak]

I won't advocate that people should support stifling public discourse because it makes it easier for companies to make a profit. Like I said, not advocating a law here, I just don't think people should be supportive of it.

It's not a question of capitalism or even free speech. It's a question of association. Most people don't want to be associated with the extreme right, much less with avowed Nazis.

To me it shows a scary and harmful attitude to free speech, debate and the value of exchanging ideas. Why debate when you can silence, right?

Except the groups being ostracized aren't interested in debate. They're interested in propagandizing the ignorant and killing everyone else. I'm not obligated to let an arsonist into my house just because I keep a welcome mat outside my front door.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Hows your nazi defender of a president working out these days?

At least he's not a coastal eli-- wait, shit.

Well at least he's not a rich, corrupt assho-- dammit...

I mean, at least he's not some special snowflake with easily hurt feel-- GOD FUCKING DAMMIT

[Kaleredar]

Why are conservatives always bitching about needing safe spaces these days?

[Machismo]

I won't advocate that people should support stifling public discourse because it makes it easier for companies to make a profit. Like I said, not advocating a law here, I just don't think people should be supportive of it.

I'm dubious of the claim that those who lose monetization or are shut down are all because of advertisers pulling out, but that's a different discussion. Let's say it is. I think it's horrendous that people would boycott a company for hosting ads on the same site as someone they disagree with - yet support companies in using their position to silence people with totally legitimate political opinions because they disagree.

To me it shows a scary and harmful attitude to free speech, debate and the value of exchanging ideas. Why debate when you can silence, right?

It's not really public discourse, it's discourse in a private setting. It's fundamentally no different than a conversation in a restaurant. Personally, I think it is the best example of free speech, because the host also gets a say. Otherwise, we are stifling the host's speech, and his property rights.

[hakujinbakasama]

It's not a question of capitalism or even free speech. It's a question of association. Most people don't want to be associated with the extreme right, much less with avowed Nazis.

Except the groups being ostracized aren't interested in debate. They're interested in propagandizing the ignorant and killing everyone else. I'm not obligated to let an arsonist into my house just because I keep a welcome mat outside my front door.

The first part is true. The issue is that by and large the leftist have made so many issues into identity politics. So now if you disagree with some particular policy or choice, you are obviously a Nazi, racist, homophobe, transphobic bigot...ect ect.

The funny part to me is that seemingly the Left in the US this last year got a big taste of internet culture as well as teenage agnst and have zero clue what to do with it.

It's like this. If you keep yelling and screaming at people who aren't X that they are X because they don't agree with you, eventually enough of those people are just going to either join X or pretend to be X just to piss you off. Most people have experienced this in their life when they going through adolescence. We all hate it when someone tells us what we are thinking or why we are/were doing something adamantly yet being so completely wrong.

There are some people who you can call lazy day in and day out and they'll do everything they can to prove you wrong and then there are others who just give in and figure out that it's easier to be lazy and meet your expectations than to try to combat a mentality they'll never win.

[Utinil]

The biggest issue with not having net neutrality is that options for your ISP are locked behind government issued monopolies. No other company is legally allowed to come where I live and offer cable internet besides Comcast. Even for DSL there are limitations preventing new companies from setting up competition. If residents in every city could choose from a nearly unlimited number of ISPs then i would say how the companies provide that access is their business, but since the government grants these monopolies to private companies then the companies should be regulated in a "fair" manner. This is also why I feel the government should force cable companies to offer ala carte channel selection and not be allowed to force you to upgrade three tiers and purchase the Oprah network before you can get the NFL network.

[Mormolyce]

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?

Companies don't have to allow me to use their website, ergo we should allow ISPs to engage in anti-competitive practices.

Even in the year of logic fails, that one is impressive.

[Revi]

It's not a question of capitalism or even free speech. It's a question of association. Most people don't want to be associated with the extreme right, much less with avowed Nazis.


Except the groups being ostracized aren't interested in debate. They're interested in propagandizing the ignorant and killing everyone else. I'm not obligated to let an arsonist into my house just because I keep a welcome mat outside my front door.

That's not the people I'm talking about at all. Let me repeat this again: unless it breaks the law. If they're promoting murder and genocide, they're breaking the law. Someone that's trying to burn your house down is also breaking the law.

Saying "we should kill all black people" is vastly different to saying "I don't think abortion should be legal" or "I don't think police killed that guy because they're racist, I think they killed him because he attacked them" or "I don't think I should be mandated by law to call people by their chosen pronoun".

Extreme right-wing genocidal arsonists aren't the only people being affect, and like I said they're not the kind of thing I'm talking about. The example of Jordan Peterson that I mentioned earlier, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

If they only adhered to the law when blocking people, this wouldn't be such a hotly discussed topic. It shouldn't be misrepresented like that's the case.

[Rusque]

So OP is worried that because some tech companies said, "no ty Nazis" that the best course of action is to not support net-neutrality.

That way ISP's can also say "no ty Nazis" and prevent them from getting internet access at all! Brilliant plan!

[GennGreymane]

Such a shame Theo gave up so easily. I expected a lil more.

[Revi]

It's not really public discourse, it's discourse in a private setting. It's fundamentally no different than a conversation in a restaurant. Personally, I think it is the best example of free speech, because the host also gets a say. Otherwise, we are stifling the host's speech, and his property rights.

I think engaging on a platform with hundreds of millions of people where politicians campaign and discuss policies and real-life politics and actions are formed, where political careers are made and fall based on the reactions of the people engaged, and the network they represent, qualify more as public discourse than a private setting.

[Machismo]

I think engaging on a platform with hundreds of millions of people where politicians campaign and discuss policies and real-life politics and actions are formed, where political careers are made and fall based on the reactions of the people engaged, and the network they represent, qualify more as public discourse than a private setting.

So, should the same be done for all news sites, as well? That is a very dangerous step towards a state-run internet.

[Revi]

So, should the same be done for all news sites, as well? That is a very dangerous step towards a state-run internet.

I've said like 3 times I'm not advocating a law.

[Machismo]

I've said like 3 times I'm not advocating a law.

Then how would you enforce such things?

[Fencers]

Everyone should care about net netruality. There should be no corporate control of information and expression of people in total.

[Jimmy Woods]

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?

Why do conservatives hate capitalism so much? These corporations are responsible to their consumers not the electoral college. If you don't like capitalism maybe move to Syria where a STRONG religious dictator may suit your liking.

Conservatives:
"Regulations are strangling businesses" "Yay Trump's 2 deregulations for every new regulation rhetoric/policy"
"These mega corporations who are created by the economic policies we claim to subscribe to don't stand for the same social values as us, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!! Do something government!!!!"
----Government limits speech or regulates the corporations?---
"Haha! Take that libtards!"

Maybe take a breath and stop falling for conservative rhetoric of trying to POLITICIZE EVERYTHING and make every issue a divisive one. You'll enjoy l

[Revi]

Then how would you enforce such things?

Companies swing by popular opinion, they want profit. That's why this is happening in the first place. I'm just saying people shouldn't be okey with it. If people didn't support it, it wouldn't happen.