Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Keep the Internet Open

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 415 posts

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#71

Post by xatan_dank »

simplehuman wrote: post #36

I don't think activism is the answer to these problems. Instead, we need to show consumer benefits of an open internet. Right now, people are totally loving the mono-culture and the internet silos that the mega corps are building (facebook, whatsapp, gmail, google, chrome, apple app store, github to name a few). It's going to hard to convince them unless you can show them tangible benefits. I think the big companies…

I don't know how many people are totally loving the mono-culture and many of the "free" social networks are not profitable at all. Very few of them are actually succeeding.

Also, you say activism is not the answer, and then say that the companies have succeeded in part because they have prevented activism from happening by 'distracting' people. I don't think any of this is true and that the argument you make here is self-contradictory.

I really just don't think your comment holds any water at all.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#72

Post by seibelj »

RodericDay wrote: post #70
seibelj wrote: post #37

Net Neutrality absolutists need to tone down their rhetoric. When NN activists say zero rating is unfair, they are speaking from an ivory tower. It is better for a poor Iraqi to get free Wikipedia even though that hurts other upstart wikis, than for poor Iraqis to have no Wikipedia at all. Once you accept this premise, you must then accept that exceptions to NN exist. Once you accept that, you must then take every si…

I resent the accusation. It's like saying the poor Iraqi is better off getting free coca-cola, and getting locked into coca-cola for the rest of his life, than actually getting water (and, if they desire, the possibility of coca-cola). A country growing its infrastructure, which is apparently not yet essential, under the perverse influence of a non-neutral playing field, is a country that will have immense trouble sh…

And this is exactly where I philosophically disagree with you. I would rather the Iraqi have access to Wikipedia than have no internet at all. It's saying that you, as a rich American, know what's best for poor foreigners. You would demand someone get everything, or they get nothing.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#73

Post by throwaway399 »

seibelj wrote: post #66
bo1024 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is better for a poor Iraqi to get free Wikipedia even though that hurts other upstart wikis, than for poor Iraqis to have no Wikipedia at all. I don't accept this premise. This is a false dichotomy because these are not the only two options. There is a third, better option: to get access to the entire internet. A company offering you that choice is using a classic game-theoretic bargaining approach: commit to on…

If you are a poor American on a Lifeline phone (free phone provided by the government) with a very limited data plan, no one is (at this time) willing to subsidize unlimited services for this user. But maybe some companies, for their services, are willing to subsidize them. And in my opinion, it's better for the poor person to have access to some services than no services.

I think it's worse. It might provide some low quality entertainment as a TV replacement, which just takes up people's time. It might be in that person's interest at the time but not in the interest of society in general.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#74

Post by grthrowaway »

seibelj wrote: post #66
bo1024 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is better for a poor Iraqi to get free Wikipedia even though that hurts other upstart wikis, than for poor Iraqis to have no Wikipedia at all. I don't accept this premise. This is a false dichotomy because these are not the only two options. There is a third, better option: to get access to the entire internet. A company offering you that choice is using a classic game-theoretic bargaining approach: commit to on…

If you are a poor American on a Lifeline phone (free phone provided by the government) with a very limited data plan, no one is (at this time) willing to subsidize unlimited services for this user. But maybe some companies, for their services, are willing to subsidize them. And in my opinion, it's better for the poor person to have access to some services than no services.

There is no limit on my truconnect phone for calls texts or data. There are multiple companies set up outside the general relief office and I am eligible for a phone from each one; so, even if there wasn't a generous data plan, a combination of phones would solve that. As does using free wifi which is available at all libraries and police stations where I live.

Posting garbage about poor people's situations that is untrue only serves to hurt everybody. Please stop.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#75

Post by vvanders »

I love the electricity company/appliance analogy. That seems fairly accurate and something that's easily relatable to the layman who doesn't understand the details of the internet.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#76

Post by pdonis »

andy_ppp wrote: post #69

Why would anyone buy internet access from people charging like this/breaking their services? Are ISPs monopolies in the US and if so wouldn't stopping these monopolies be the surest way, allowing the market to decide a free Internet is what gets you customers? All that this will do is move people towards obfuscation of their Internet access through technology. I say let them try to break the web; there will be techno…

> Are ISPs monopolies in the US

In many parts of it, yes, they are, because of deals that ISPs have struck with local governments.

> wouldn't stopping these monopolies be the surest way

Yes, and every time it's been tried, the ISPs go to court and, since they have much deeper pockets, end up getting the attempts shot down.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#77

Post by guelo »

confounded wrote: post #49

Because of the massive amount of consolidation over the last few years, the death of Net Neutrality would be the best competitive moat imaginable for Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. While all their CEOs will make faint noises in favor of Net Neutrality, SV outspends Wall Street 2:1 on lobbying[1], the goal of which is to cement monopoly status, not to make the world a better place. Most of it goes to Republicans. Thin…

I don't think that's right. It will be a major shift of power from Google/Facebook/Amazon to the ISPs. Comcast could charge Google or Facebook extortionate prices to keep their websites fast. Theoretically there would be nothing stopping Comcast from completely blocking a website. Cable vs TV channel negotiations periodically end up with blackouts for the channels.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#78

Post by Alex3917 »

> Doing this allows the government to ensure a level playing field

In theory this is a good argument. In practice, my experience is that this argument causes people to write off net neutrality as just being something that's about letting tech bros make lots of money. I've even heard this from folks in the tech industry, who really should know better.

An argument that may be more convincing is that the Internet is the only media channel where we don't get all of our information from the same three or four mega conglomerates. But if net neutrality is eliminated then ISPs are going to pull a Martin Shkreli, and overnight your cost of hosting a Wordpress blog is going to go from $5 a month to $25,000 per month or whatever.

When this happens the only way to have a blog will be to host your content on Facebook, who will be able to decide which points of view are allowed and which are banned. If we lose the Internet, the last free media channel, then there is no going back. Not just on this issue, but on every issue.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#79

Post by bo1024 »

seibelj wrote: post #66
bo1024 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is better for a poor Iraqi to get free Wikipedia even though that hurts other upstart wikis, than for poor Iraqis to have no Wikipedia at all. I don't accept this premise. This is a false dichotomy because these are not the only two options. There is a third, better option: to get access to the entire internet. A company offering you that choice is using a classic game-theoretic bargaining approach: commit to on…

If you are a poor American on a Lifeline phone (free phone provided by the government) with a very limited data plan, no one is (at this time) willing to subsidize unlimited services for this user. But maybe some companies, for their services, are willing to subsidize them. And in my opinion, it's better for the poor person to have access to some services than no services.

I see your point and it does make some sense. But imagine this analogous situation, a poor American cannot afford the electricity bill for her home, and a lightbulb company offers to provide reduced-cost electricity with the conditions that (1) she can only use lightbulbs purchased from that company in her home, and (2) the electricity only powers the lightbulbs - no other appliances in the house can be turned on.

Now you could make the same argument that you made in your post, but I don't think the lightbulb company comes off looking so good.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#80

Post by RodericDay »

seibelj wrote: post #72
RodericDay wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I resent the accusation. It's like saying the poor Iraqi is better off getting free coca-cola, and getting locked into coca-cola for the rest of his life, than actually getting water (and, if they desire, the possibility of coca-cola). A country growing its infrastructure, which is apparently not yet essential, under the perverse influence of a non-neutral playing field, is a country that will have immense trouble sh…

And this is exactly where I philosophically disagree with you. I would rather the Iraqi have access to Wikipedia than have no internet at all. It's saying that you, as a rich American, know what's best for poor foreigners. You would demand someone get everything, or they get nothing.

I'm not a rich american, you're a bit presumptive there.

I'm from Peru. I came from a well-off peruvian background, and I've seen the families of my rich peruvian peers as well as foreigners exploit the hell out of poor people in that country, all while claiming that anyone who wants to enforce some minimum standards or think long-term, is "condescending", or "paternalistic".

I've put forward the case of America being hooked on an endless and destructive addiction to cars. I can bring up many others, such as the existing ones with opioids, or unhealthy food. What do you put forward? How many drug pushers have a healthy relationship to their clientele, and help them knock the habit as soon as possible?

Post reply on HN