Should non-Democrats really support Net-Neutrality?

[SL1200]

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

Great post.

[Priestiality]

A bakery doesn't want to make cakes for gay weddings. Republican response: "Well they're a private business they have the right to conduct or deny business with anyone they see fit."

A hosting company removes hate speech websites from their servers. Republican response: "MUH FREE SPEECH MUH CENSORSHIP."

Pick one.

[Noomz]

I don't oppose it really, I just no longer care for its existence or not.

With it I have no practical freedom, without it I have no practical freedom. A freedom is not a freedom if It costs a billion dollars or more to exercise, well unless you have a billion dollars.

An internet curated to Googles political beliefs is an internet that will require billions to actually have a hope of having a voice on. An internet choked out by the ISP's is an internet you would need billions to have a hope of having a voice on.

From the practical perspective of a user whose opinions aren't enthusiastically endorsed by Google for example, there isn't much of a difference between the two.

Google may curate their platform, and I am under no obligation to back their desire for Net Neutrality as a response.

- - - Updated - - -



I didn't say it does, nor the NN is censorship.

Then if you don't care, why does this thread exist?

Yes you do. Stop this hyperbolic victim crying for fuck sake. You take everything and interpret it in the most negative, petulant, pessimistic way possible and it's infuriating. It's like a child that keeps throwing away the food you give it and then complains about how its hungry.

Freedom isn't free. The US army would say that freedom costs 598 billion a year.
The internet isn't bloody curated by Google. Burn that damned strawman right now.
You have a voice right damned now and you're not being censored.

Google owns their own damned websites and you are completely free and capable to not use them at all. But when I say you should do that, you just complain about how it's too much effort and act as if you need money to use Bing, DailyMotion and other websites.

- - - Updated - - -

A bakery doesn't want to make cakes for gay weddings. Republican response: "Well they're a private business they have the right to conduct or deny business with anyone they see fit."

A hosting company removes hate speech websites from their servers. Republican response: "MUH FREE SPEECH MUH CENSORSHIP."

Pick one.

EXACTLY! Thank you! I'm so sick of this hypocricy. As soon as something doesn't fit their agenda, they no longer support their own political ideals.

[callipygoustp]

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

Thank you for the accurate TL;DR.

[Heladys]

What does Net Neutrality have to do with either left or right? If anything it's a libertarian/authoritarian axis issue. Net neutrality advocates are fighting for your right not to be fucked over like cattle by big corporations, while opponents what to bend over and hand them the lube in hopes of a preferential spot in line.

[ButterBeast]

stick to your anime kid.

[mootygrimes]

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?

Love it. Humans continue to attack and belittle the innovators in the world. Some things never change. Feelsbadman.

Also, it's important for anybody engaging on this thread to understand that OPs logic and proposition is flawed.

Net Neutrality is the practice of preventing any single ISP from charging a premium for data traversing infrastructure they put in place (to make money). It's the idea that if you want to be part of the Internet, you have no claim to monetizing data as it transfers across the L2/3/4 plane.

The comparison OP is making, like most these trollbait garbage posts, is based in fallacy. What they are trying to say is that because Terms of Service are being upheld Net Neutrality is basically going out the window.

Nice little analogy coming in hot: If you are a shop owner you have a right to refuse service based on a number of factors -- in fact, you probably see those signs posted from time to time! -- for a number of things. Depending on where you live there are a few things that you cannot refuse service based off of. These are things like race and sexual orientation. This is by design to protect society from devolving into pockets of hateful, racist, bigoted buttholes. As you can see today, these pockets still exist but for a long time they existed far outside the view of most people.

So lets say you, as a shop owner, run a convenience store and your weekly inventories have been off coinciding with the start of the school year. You suspect this is because a group of kids comes rushing in every day after school all in a tizzy with backbags, and baggy-ass jeans, and you have a sneeeeaking suspicious one or more of these kids is stealing.

You can say, "Hey, no backbacks on your back in the store, and no more than 3 kids at a time." If the kids don't like it, that's fine, they can shop somewhere else!

Now lets say you, somehow, owned the road and sidewalks your store was on, and in order to get to the nearest convenience store the shortest path was over the infrastructure you own.

The idea of Net Neutrality says that if you were unhappy that people were using your roads and sidewalks to go to another store -- FOR WHATEVER REASON -- you would either charge them a premium to traverse OR they can just go the long way.

On the topic of Terms of Service:

On the Internet and within tech in general, things work a little bit different. Essentially anything you do these days requires authentication (you proving you are who you say you are, trollbaitxxx420). Part of you, so generously, being offered that account on whatever website you're using is agreeing to abide by the Terms of Service/Terms of Use/etc.

These say things like "By using this service you agree to: Not be racist, not spew hate, not ddos another user, etc"

If PayPal puts into their ToS that they will not facilitate the transfer of funds for hateful or bigoted purposes, and you're a hateful and or bigoted individual you're SoL. You have zero legal ground to stand on as you agreed that you would not engage in these activities as part of holding an account with that website. Free speech is not being suppressed (that's the idea of Government coming for you if you say something "it" doesn't agree with) and you have every right to go find another platform.

Unfortunately for these bigoted racists, innovation in the world is largely controlled by Social Justice Techies who, for the most part, belong to diverse work environments and live fairly enriched lives where they learn that diversity can be beautiful and that closing your mind from potential growth is ugly.

Hopefully this helps bring light to people who may be in the dark still on these topics. I'd hate to see somebody influenced by the garbage posts seen on this board daily.

[Aeula]

I don't give a fuck what the Social Justice Cunts think or want. The internet is massive, they can't drive people off of it, just to different sections of it.

ISP's would destroy those different sections for the sake of money.

[paralleluniverse]

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

Yep.

Republican thought is not logical.

[Theodarzna]

Hmm tough question, pay x10 more to get your shitty views blocked by the same tech giants or pay the same to get your shitty views blocked by tech giants. Real tough one yeah I honestly can't tell the difference.

Y'know what fuck libruls I'll pay x10 more just to kek @ them

Well if your in the boat of someone with what you call "Shitty views" what is the difference?

[GennGreymane]

Yep.

Republican thought is not logical.

Stop, according to theo you are now an autist

[Polarthief]

Anyone that uses the internet should support net neutrality.

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

^

If you don't support Net Neutrality, you fall into one of three categories of people:

1. You are a big CEO/owner/any kind of higher-up at an ISP company.
2. You're being paid off/bribed by #1s (^).
3. You're a fucking idiot who is easily manipulated by #1s.

I guarantee you anyone who is against it is one of those three. Yes, that includes literally every single person reading this that is against NN.

[Dug]

Well if your in the boat of someone with what you call "Shitty views" what is the difference?

Who's in the boat? You? Seems to me you're here complaining just fine and Google hasn't come and jailed you. But yeah man no different if you want to pay x10 more so you can post some pepe images on /pol/ and follow skeptics on twitter have at it.

[Theodarzna]

Love it. Humans continue to attack and belittle the innovators in the world. Some things never change. Feelsbadman.

Also, it's important for anybody engaging on this thread to understand that OPs logic and proposition is flawed.

Net Neutrality is the practice of preventing any single ISP from charging a premium for data traversing infrastructure they put in place (to make money). It's the idea that if you want to be part of the Internet, you have no claim to monetizing data as it transfers across the L2/3/4 plane.

The comparison OP is making, like most these trollbait garbage posts, is based in fallacy. What they are trying to say is that because Terms of Service are being upheld Net Neutrality is basically going out the window.

Nice little analogy coming in hot: If you are a shop owner you have a right to refuse service based on a number of factors -- in fact, you probably see those signs posted from time to time! -- for a number of things. Depending on where you live there are a few things that you cannot refuse service based off of. These are things like race and sexual orientation. This is by design to protect society from devolving into pockets of hateful, racist, bigoted buttholes. As you can see today, these pockets still exist but for a long time they existed far outside the view of most people.

So lets say you, as a shop owner, run a convenience store and your weekly inventories have been off coinciding with the start of the school year. You suspect this is because a group of kids comes rushing in every day after school all in a tizzy with backbags, and baggy-ass jeans, and you have a sneeeeaking suspicious one or more of these kids is stealing.

You can say, "Hey, no backbacks on your back in the store, and no more than 3 kids at a time." If the kids don't like it, that's fine, they can shop somewhere else!

Now lets say you, somehow, owned the road and sidewalks your store was on, and in order to get to the nearest convenience store the shortest path was over the infrastructure you own.

The idea of Net Neutrality says that if you were unhappy that people were using your roads and sidewalks to go to another store -- FOR WHATEVER REASON -- you would either charge them a premium to traverse OR they can just go the long way.

On the topic of Terms of Service:

On the Internet and within tech in general, things work a little bit different. Essentially anything you do these days requires authentication (you proving you are who you say you are, trollbaitxxx420). Part of you, so generously, being offered that account on whatever website you're using is agreeing to abide by the Terms of Service/Terms of Use/etc.

These say things like "By using this service you agree to: Not be racist, not spew hate, not ddos another user, etc"

If PayPal puts into their ToS that they will not facilitate the transfer of funds for hateful or bigoted purposes, and you're a hateful and or bigoted individual you're SoL. You have zero legal ground to stand on as you agreed that you would not engage in these activities as part of holding an account with that website. Free speech is not being suppressed (that's the idea of Government coming for you if you say something "it" doesn't agree with) and you have every right to go find another platform.

Unfortunately for these bigoted racists, innovation in the world is largely controlled by Social Justice Techies who, for the most part, belong to diverse work environments and live fairly enriched lives where they learn that diversity can be beautiful and that closing your mind from potential growth is ugly.

Hopefully this helps bring light to people who may be in the dark still on these topics. I'd hate to see somebody influenced by the garbage posts seen on this board daily.

If it takes you a billion dollars to build counter infrastructure versus it taking you a billion dollars to found a new ISP, practically there is no difference between the two situations.

[Vash The Stampede]

Net-neutrality is a human right issue not a political or ideology issue. The Internet is the greatest invention rivaling that of electricity, so we don't want things like capitalism holding it back. We don't want bought politicians to allow ISPs to charge for certain online services to get faster speeds.

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.

The idea is we want the internet to stay wild and free. That means you get to deal with Nazi's, and SJW's, and Alt-Right's, and people who are far too much into Anime porn. You shouldn't be able to control any of it, despite how much someone may hate Anime porn.

Something is going to offend someone, and will want action taken. That's when you tell that person to STFU and grow thicker skin. Companies will of course abuse their ability to censor and limit bandwidth for their economic benefit.

[pionock]

@Theodarzna, I see what you're saying, but I'll disagree with you on this topic. Net neutrality is important above all else.

I won't conflate what you're saying to defending Nazis, because you're not, I know you're not, and I suspect most users are aware you're not. You're speaking of them quietly shuffling any dissenting opinions that don't toe their progressive line to the corner to die off. I don't know why they conflate any dissenting opinions with you defending Nazis, but whatever.

While I agree with you that progressive politics is getting a tad out of hand, this stuff is a pendulum. If you allow Google to be Google as it now, you may find it distasteful, but all it takes is a shift in power, and suddenly Google could be run more right leaning leaders that want to do the same thing left leaning Google is doing now. I hope if that occurs, you fight just as hard to keep Google open to diverse opinions as you do now.

But voting against net neutrality does nothing but hurt all but those run the ISPs.

[Cheesedizzle]

This is why Ne-Neutrality as currently presented is bull. It is just a propaganda war between service providers (ISPs) and content providers (ex. Netflix, Google).

[Gatsbybutters]

Elastic man and Mr. Fantastic will study this post to help them stretch things eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn ffffffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrttttttttttthhhhhhhhhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...

Is OP naive? Confused? Just trollin'? Or all of the above!? Tune in next time!

[Machismo]

Does anyone get the impression that the thread did not go as the OP planned?

[Dug]

Does anyone get the impression that the thread did not go as the OP planned?

They never do