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

Today is the last chance to comment on the proposal to kill net neutrality

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 121 posts

Re: Today is the last chance to comment on the proposal to kill net neutrality

#71

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

devopsproject wrote: post #60
AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The slow or fast lane doesn't matter, if I am going to be denied at the destination anyway.

Free speech only protects you from government persecution. It doesn't control how owners of private property react. You are still going to get banned and moderated, it will just be a lot slower and a lot more expensive for you. And if you keep getting denied you should probably try and find out why people find you so toxic and repulsive.

People? They are many who would be OK with what I have to say.

The problem is the platform owners want full fairness when they talk (TCP/IP, the platform they use) but want full God powers when their platform is concerned (Social Media Sites, the platform I use). Do you see the hypocrisy of Google/Youtube/Facebook/Reddit/Twitter?

If Comcast shouldn't decide what travels on their wires, then why should Google get to decide what the Youtube video says?

Re: Today is the last chance to comment on the proposal to kill net neutrality

#72

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

jethro_tell wrote: post #66
AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube will still judge me, even if I use Comcast cable or Verizon 4G to upload the data.

Well the good news, is that with NN you can post a video on your own server and other people will still be able to get there because it isn't excluded from their 'video plan' NN means your packets get there. The TOS of a specific site has nothing to do with it.

Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are multi-billion people platforms. Platforms that grew because of participation of the people.

Platforms that were open to speech. Nobody stopped Twitter because there were things being said against Egypt's Mubarak.

Now, the platforms are playing God and censoring speech.

Ever been unhappy about an Open Source project switching license on you, going from Apache to Propitiatory Enterprise after enjoying three/four years of community engagement? The social media platforms are pulling the same bait and switch on the people, allowed content for years giving people sense that these were truly open platforms, and then stepping in to push their agenda.

Re: Today is the last chance to comment on the proposal to kill net neutrality

#73

Post by devopsproject »

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #71
devopsproject wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech only protects you from government persecution. It doesn't control how owners of private property react. You are still going to get banned and moderated, it will just be a lot slower and a lot more expensive for you. And if you keep getting denied you should probably try and find out why people find you so toxic and repulsive.

People? They are many who would be OK with what I have to say. The problem is the platform owners want full fairness when they talk (TCP/IP, the platform they use) but want full God powers when their platform is concerned (Social Media Sites, the platform I use). Do you see the hypocrisy of Google/Youtube/Facebook/Reddit/Twitter? If Comcast shouldn't decide what travels on their wires, then why should Google get to d…

> If Comcast shouldn't decide what travels on their wires, then why should Google get to decide what the Youtube video says?

Comcast doesn't get to decide for the same reason the water company doesn't decide what I use my water for.

And you are free to say what you want in my house but you'd be thrown out pretty quickly if I didn't like what you had to say. Your house is no different. And Google's house is no different too. This isn't a difficult concept

Re: Today is the last chance to comment on the proposal to kill net neutrality

#74

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

prophesi wrote: post #65
AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but it's hypocritical for Google/Facebook/Twitter/Reddit to complain about someone else judging it in future, while they are judging it today with impunity. We, as people, have same influence on current Google/Facebook/Twitter/Reddit censorship as we do on future Comcast/Verizon/AT&T/Charter censorship... none what so ever.

So the solution is to give up entirely?

No, but there is bigger fish to fry.

Censorship of speech is much much bigger issue for me than Net Neutrality.

I can't stand with multi-billion corporations claiming victimhood on subject of Net Neutrality, while at the same time playing God with people being able to speak their mind.

Re: Today is the last chance to comment on the proposal to kill net neutrality

#75

Post by jethro_tell »

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #72
jethro_tell wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the good news, is that with NN you can post a video on your own server and other people will still be able to get there because it isn't excluded from their 'video plan' NN means your packets get there. The TOS of a specific site has nothing to do with it.

Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are multi-billion people platforms. Platforms that grew because of participation of the people. Platforms that were open to speech. Nobody stopped Twitter because there were things being said against Egypt's Mubarak. Now, the platforms are playing God and censoring speech. Ever been unhappy about an Open Source project switching license on you, going from Apache to Propitiatory Enterpris…

So it would be good if we protect the option to go access any site or thought on the net. If you want to get your opinion out there, you can literally write it down with no markup and share it on an http server. This won't be the case without net neutrality. It's not even that you're confusing the issues at play here which are private companies TOS and net neutrality, it seems that you're intentionally making them out to be the same thing in order to prove a point or something.

If you want the freedom to not be censored. Make it a point to allow ALL communication and ideas to flow over the network.

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube have the right to allow or disallow content that they see fit, as do TV networks, News Papers and any privately owned company. If you'd like to change that, there are two ways, one is regulation and legislation which is outside of the scope of NN, and competition, which is only possible if NN exists in a robust form.

Re: Today is the last chance to comment on the proposal to kill net neutrality

#76

Post by CaptSpify »

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #74
prophesi wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the solution is to give up entirely?

No, but there is bigger fish to fry. Censorship of speech is much much bigger issue for me than Net Neutrality. I can't stand with multi-billion corporations claiming victimhood on subject of Net Neutrality, while at the same time playing God with people being able to speak their mind.

You can be an activist for more than one cause at a time. Additionally, those corporations (who I detest probably more than most people here) can still be legitimate victims, even if they are terrible. I don't like siding with them either, but if they are right, then their evil-ness is irrelevant.

Re: Today is the last chance to comment on the proposal to kill net neutrality

#77

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

devopsproject wrote: post #73
AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People? They are many who would be OK with what I have to say. The problem is the platform owners want full fairness when they talk (TCP/IP, the platform they use) but want full God powers when their platform is concerned (Social Media Sites, the platform I use). Do you see the hypocrisy of Google/Youtube/Facebook/Reddit/Twitter? If Comcast shouldn't decide what travels on their wires, then why should Google get to d…

> If Comcast shouldn't decide what travels on their wires, then why should Google get to decide what the Youtube video says? Comcast doesn't get to decide for the same reason the water company doesn't decide what I use my water for. And you are free to say what you want in my house but you'd be thrown out pretty quickly if I didn't like what you had to say. Your house is no different. And Google's house is no differe…

Google is not a private entity, it is a public corporation with share holders.

We hold government with highest demands for equality, we hold private individuals and fully owned businesses with most freedom to discriminate. We hold public corporations somewhere in between.

>Google's house

Sure. Nobody cared when things were being said about Egypt's Mubarak. But say something that some Google executives don't like, you are out of there.

Is there a difference between a private entity and a public corporation?

If I run my own plumbing company, I can hire my son without putting up an ad in the paper. Should a Google executive be allowed to hire her husband without putting up an ad?

We hold public companies at a higher standard that private individuals, correctly so.

What if Mead stopped you from using their notebook to write down a thought that they don't agree with?

Re: Today is the last chance to comment on the proposal to kill net neutrality

#78

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

jethro_tell wrote: post #75
AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are multi-billion people platforms. Platforms that grew because of participation of the people. Platforms that were open to speech. Nobody stopped Twitter because there were things being said against Egypt's Mubarak. Now, the platforms are playing God and censoring speech. Ever been unhappy about an Open Source project switching license on you, going from Apache to Propitiatory Enterpris…

So it would be good if we protect the option to go access any site or thought on the net. If you want to get your opinion out there, you can literally write it down with no markup and share it on an http server. This won't be the case without net neutrality. It's not even that you're confusing the issues at play here which are private companies TOS and net neutrality, it seems that you're intentionally making them ou…

>If you'd like to change that, there are two ways, one is regulation and legislation which is outside of the scope of NN,

Is NN not a regulation? Is it voluntary?

My point is that NN is not as high a priority, given what corporate advocates of NN have done when it was their turn to play fair.

I am more concerned about power exercised over speech, than power over making packets go fast or slow.

>and competition, which is only possible if NN exists in a robust form.

Competition would allow NN to exist, not other way around. Monopoly of ISPs is the root of NN being challenged.

Re: Today is the last chance to comment on the proposal to kill net neutrality

#79

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

CaptSpify wrote: post #76
AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but there is bigger fish to fry. Censorship of speech is much much bigger issue for me than Net Neutrality. I can't stand with multi-billion corporations claiming victimhood on subject of Net Neutrality, while at the same time playing God with people being able to speak their mind.

You can be an activist for more than one cause at a time. Additionally, those corporations (who I detest probably more than most people here) can still be legitimate victims, even if they are terrible. I don't like siding with them either, but if they are right, then their evil-ness is irrelevant.

>You can be an activist for more than one cause at a time.

I agree. But scale does matter. You are not going to be worried about if the person giving you CPR has cooties or not, if you are suffering through an heart attack.

>their evil-ness is irrelevant

It is relevant, because I think free speech is more important than speed of packets. I have to use this opportunity to point out the hypocrisy of these corporations.

Re: Today is the last chance to comment on the proposal to kill net neutrality

#80

Post by _5ysi »

orthecreedence wrote: post #62
_5ysi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is a law or federal rule, that usually implies there are not sufficient market forces behind whatever we still think should/shouldn't be done.

Or it implies that the public wants things a certain way and they are tired of battling it out with their idiotic providers (especially in a market where most people only have one option). Market forces do not affect large telecoms.

You're version is more specific. Perhaps I was too general and clunky.
Post reply on HN