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

391–400 of 415 posts

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#391

Post by mehaveaccount »

cortesoft wrote: post #389
hueving wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it loaded? It's the choice to have an abortion. It's like claiming 'pro-gun' is a loaded word when the supporters want people to have the choice to own a gun.

I think 'pro-gun' is a bit different.... in fact, I think a better analogy would be people who want citizens to have the right to use a gun in self-defense against an intruder. You wouldn't say the person who is in favor of legal self-defense is 'pro-shooting-people', they just want people to have the right to do it if they need to. Someone who is 'pro-choice' doesn't want everyone to go out and have abortions every…

>I think 'pro-gun' is a bit different....

One rule for me, another for thee

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#392

Post by frabcus »

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #385
trcollinson wrote: post #383

I love the political and ethical debate surrounding this, both in this thread and elsewhere. As a technologist and a software developer I think we should use every means available to stop these sorts of laws from taking effect and harming what should be a completely neutral internet. With that being said, I would like to ask from a technical perspective, what can we do if this does go into effect? I remember a quote,…

>So, if ISPs finally succeed in causing our internet to no longer be neutral, how will we be moving around that bug? It wouldnt be easy, but mesh networks are the best option I'm aware of.

The protocol cjdns and its distributed deployment at Hyperboria is the largest scale starting point I'm aware of.

I think doing this might have advantages increasing freedom at the other end of the stack too - if you can drop out to cheap Internet on a mesh network with local traffic free, you might find the advantage of having a Nextcloud Box in your house (instead of Dropbox) clearer.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#393

Post by dang »

mehaveaccount wrote: post #391
cortesoft wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think 'pro-gun' is a bit different.... in fact, I think a better analogy would be people who want citizens to have the right to use a gun in self-defense against an intruder. You wouldn't say the person who is in favor of legal self-defense is 'pro-shooting-people', they just want people to have the right to do it if they need to. Someone who is 'pro-choice' doesn't want everyone to go out and have abortions every…

>I think 'pro-gun' is a bit different.... One rule for me, another for thee

Would you please stop using HN for political or ideological battle? We ban accounts that mostly do that. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#394

Post by dang »

xname2 wrote: post #187
mehaveaccount wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The leaders of Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc are NOT Republicans. Most of…

"pro-abortion" lol.

Please don't post unsubstantive comments. If you have a point to make, make it thoughtfully; otherwise please don't post. Comments need to be more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic grows more divisive.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#395

Post by orthecreedence »

ChefDenominator wrote: post #369
intended wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was a financial analyst, and I had the chance to cover the telecom sector. I know how the market works, NN is not new, it is how the world worked. Anti NN is new. It's hugely anti competitive and anti consumer. If it gets close to getting passed, I'll be really happy for the segment. Wouldn't be happy being a consumer. Edit: IMO, the American telecom industry is shafting its consumers regularly and has been underin…

Which Internet rule is it which states that we can all claim we have been any occupation that suits the discussion, and without any additional evidence to support such claims?

> Which Internet rule is it which states that we can all claim we have been any occupation that suits the discussion, and without any additional evidence to support such claims?

Translation: I don't really have good arguments against NN except for a couple one-liners I'm reading off some Free Market (tm) blog, so I'll attack who you are instead of what you're saying.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#396

Post by odbol_ »

nocman wrote: post #136
cmurf wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or default service that blocks VPN, tracks everything you're doing and uses it for their benefit; and if you don't like that you can pay extra to opt out. It's really clear. Democrats: This is the customer's information. Republicans: This is the ISP's equipment, and therefore anything on it is fair game for the equipment owner to use however they want, deny service to whoever they want, for any reason they want. So d…

That's a pretty broad brush you are painting with. Do you have some hard data that says things break down so clearly along party lines? I'd particularly like to see data about non-politicians, if it is available, since the way Congress votes on such things is not necessarily driven by the way their constituents view the issue (if they are even aware of it).

Found the Republican who's still in denial that his party is just a bunch of rich white dudes trying to get richer.

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#397

Post by orthecreedence »

wonder_er wrote: post #168
acalderaro wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, a member of the mythical "coastal liberal ideological vacuum," where anyone who brings up the slightest anti-government sentiment gets bombarded with ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies, instead of facts and reason. Is that because the coastal liberal is uneducated, or simply immature? If we generously assume the latter, it's important for you to know that the sort of thinking that let Trump win the white ho…

I'm with you. I still feel a bit surprised at the cognitive dissonance required to support internet privacy (on one hand) and on the other, recommend having a government body regulate _the entire internet_. I wonder if this breakdown is at least in part between populations in the USA and everyone else. I've sat down with some pro-nn folks, honestly trying to understand how they reconcile the two, and have not made mu…

The government can say "all ships using a federally funded port must follow these docking procedures" without knowing what's in the ships, no?

Does the solve the cognitive dissonance issue for you?

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#398

Post by dragonwriter »

wonder_er wrote: post #168
acalderaro wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, a member of the mythical "coastal liberal ideological vacuum," where anyone who brings up the slightest anti-government sentiment gets bombarded with ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies, instead of facts and reason. Is that because the coastal liberal is uneducated, or simply immature? If we generously assume the latter, it's important for you to know that the sort of thinking that let Trump win the white ho…

I'm with you. I still feel a bit surprised at the cognitive dissonance required to support internet privacy (on one hand) and on the other, recommend having a government body regulate _the entire internet_. I wonder if this breakdown is at least in part between populations in the USA and everyone else. I've sat down with some pro-nn folks, honestly trying to understand how they reconcile the two, and have not made mu…

> I still feel a bit surprised at the cognitive dissonance required to support internet privacy (on one hand) and on the other, recommend having a government body regulate _the entire internet_.

Supporters of Open Internet regulation do not want the government "regulating the entire internet".

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#399

Post by MarkSummer »

thatcat wrote: post #370
MarkSummer wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity (by someone who doesn't know exactly how it works), is there no way for society to go completely off-grid with respect to ISPs, like power customers do with solar panels? Couldn't we then people build an inexpensive wireless black box server/partial cache nodes that everybody owns (stronger ones or bridges for rural users), and that communicate as a smart distributive network - physically detached fr…

Wireless doesn't scale. Municipal delivered internet is the feasible option, which Comcast has sought to prevent via regulations. The state should file antitrust charges and use the fines to erect new infrastructure that any ISP can lease, restoring competition.

Here's a 'mostly wireless' open/neutral network that seems to be scaling: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guifi.net

Re: Keep the Internet Open

#400

Post by cyphar »

rsync wrote: post #269
JediWing wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, "some kind of public network", but then it can't be advertised as "Internet access" because at that point you're providing access to your public network, not access to the Internet as a whole. The issue is ISPs, who by definition are supposed to provide Internet access. Throttling and filtering for profit are not compatible with the Internet as we know it.

"Sure, "some kind of public network", but then it can't be advertised as "Internet access"" No, I should have been more clear - I mean an Internet connected network that is open to the (paying, presumably) public. Again, we know lots of ways you can't do that because of common carrier laws and public rights of way ... and even human decency ... but if I conjure the thing up out of thin air and there's nobody twisting…

> "Sure, "some kind of public network", but then it can't be advertised as "Internet access""

> No, I should have been more clear - I mean an Internet connected network that is open to the (paying, presumably) public.

Again, you couldn't advertise it as "internet access" because you're not giving people equal access to the internet.

> but if I conjure the thing up out of thin air and there's nobody twisting your arm, I should be able to run that thing.

The problem is if you're the only carrier in an area, or if the majority of carriers make this sort of decision. "You can just pick someone else" doesn't work if someone doesn't have another option.

Post reply on HN