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

More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

hackernoon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 343 posts

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#131

Post by nkristoffersen »

Danihan wrote: post #115
golf1052 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please take a refresher on what net neutrality is. Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality The government is not controlling the price, they are mandating t…

But all network traffic is not the same. So why should it be treated as if it is?

Data is the same. Bandwidth is the same. Use more bandwidth get charged more. Use more data, get charged more.

Should I be charged differently for using that bandwidth to view facebook instead of your personal blog?

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#132

Post by simonh »

Danihan wrote: post #126
simonh wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’ve already sold it to the consumer. If I pay an ISP for X bandwidth and Y latency, then decide I want to use that to watch Netflix, the ISP has no business interfering with my use of the Netflix service. It isn’t Netflix traffic, it’s my traffic which I’ve already paid the ISP for. This isn’t about protecting Netflix, it’s about protecting the consumers right to use the product they bought - internet bandwidth -…

Supermarkets don't have government price controls, and they also have very little government intervention. Yet I assume you don't worry about "back room extortion rackets" occurring with the pricing there. This is because there is a healthy amount of competition with supermarkets, something the ISP market lacks. Again, it comes down to lowering barriers of entry for new ISPs, rather than falsely labeling all network…

They don’t have price controls, but they do have sanitation standards, quality of goods laws, food standards legislation and mandatory returns requirements and restrictions on misleading pricing.

If you don’t like the price at a Supermarket you can usually drive 5 minutes to the next store, but changing ISPs can take weeks and you’re locked into long contracts.

Maybe if we can lower the barriers to entry and give people a genuine choice of ISPs first. That would be the equivalent of talking to the customer about special deals for certain content and giving the customer the power to choose. Do that, then we can talk. Wiping out net neutrality without a genuine choice for consumers is a blatant stitch up.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#133

Post by collyw »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #86

Every social media website is dominated by people supporting net neutrality. I don't even remember seeing an opposing opinion, except from Trump's government. Maybe I'm living in some weird bubble, but it seems to me the argument is really not an argument, but an artificially created nonsense.

4chan isn't, it seems quite mixed over there.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#134

Post by merb »

Danihan wrote: post #127
merb wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's the entire point of a free market. what you describe can't exist in the free market. else you would either need to allow that anybody can dig holes to build a network or you need to oust the network from the ISPs and sell them to anybody who wants to resell it for common rates. no country that I'm aware of supports any of the above.

What is wrong with the government owning the lines, and a standardized process for any ISP to lease and maintain said lines?

I didn't said it's wrong it's just not happening.

btw. I live in germany and a long time ago the government in germany owned the lines, however they outsourced it in favor of "innovation".

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#135

Post by eecc »

Danihan wrote: post #117
eecc wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does “government price control” relate to simply forbidding double sale? All NN does is to disallow ISP from tiering the internet and double dipping on both sides of the network. Imagine if you had to pay a different subscription to call only family, another also for friends, anyone on the Bell directory, anyone on other directories, businesses. You’d imagine telephones would have remained a novelty to this day

Why should ISPs be disallowed from charging what they like for the product they sell? That's the entire point of a free market. I understand the issues inherent in leasing the lines, but fundamentally companies should be able to price their offerings as they wish. There simply needs to be fewer barriers to entry for new ISPs to come into the market.

Simple minded “free market” doesn’t work where there are natural monopolies in place. When absolutely arbitrary purchasing choices are not allowed the whole model falls to pieces, ignoring that is like ignoring friction and claiming reality is only bound by the First Law of Dynamics. Pretty stupid imho

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#137

Post by chrischen »

keypress wrote: post #100
bufferoverflow wrote: post #86

Every social media website is dominated by people supporting net neutrality. I don't even remember seeing an opposing opinion, except from Trump's government. Maybe I'm living in some weird bubble, but it seems to me the argument is really not an argument, but an artificially created nonsense.

I'm up for net neutrality, but what do you about one or two pigs hogging the network? This quotes netflix as having 37% of traffic in N.A. http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/01/20/netflix-boasts-37-... It's like you build an autobahn for everyone, and then one monster haulage company moves in and dominates the road, and the road isn't really as useful as envisaged.

Netflix doesn’t hog the network. You do, by downloading Netflix data, but then again you are also paying for that data.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#138

Post by mtgx »

keypress wrote: post #100
bufferoverflow wrote: post #86

Every social media website is dominated by people supporting net neutrality. I don't even remember seeing an opposing opinion, except from Trump's government. Maybe I'm living in some weird bubble, but it seems to me the argument is really not an argument, but an artificially created nonsense.

I'm up for net neutrality, but what do you about one or two pigs hogging the network? This quotes netflix as having 37% of traffic in N.A. http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/01/20/netflix-boasts-37-... It's like you build an autobahn for everyone, and then one monster haulage company moves in and dominates the road, and the road isn't really as useful as envisaged.

Why does it matter if it's "one" video company that takes-up 40% of the network traffic vs 100 video companies sites taking the same 40% traffic? It would be the same traffic amount.

The only reason they are making a big stink about it is because when there's just one it's so much easier to put the blame on that company or ask it for money, than it would be to ask 100 or 1,000 video sites the same.

It's the same reason why those who want censorship start rearing their heads when you have only a couple of app stores, instead of apps/programs being offered from all over the web, or why law enforcement prefers to go to large companies to ask them for user data, and so on.

When things are centralized, they are much easier to target.

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#139

Post by saladeen »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #86

Every social media website is dominated by people supporting net neutrality. I don't even remember seeing an opposing opinion, except from Trump's government. Maybe I'm living in some weird bubble, but it seems to me the argument is really not an argument, but an artificially created nonsense.

Every social media website is dominated by 'people supporting net neutrality' because George Soros poured a lot of money into that. The site that was being peddled everywhere the other day, battleforthenet.com (and I hope noone will try and pretend that, for example, simultaneous pushing of that site to #1 spot on hundreds of subreddits was not orchestrated), is ran by org called 'Fight for the Future'; they are funded by Open Society Initiative, which is George Soros's organization. He also funds that 'resist' sms-bot, where you get to DDoS government officials with faxes by texting 'resist' to a number that does the spamming.

All I saw was an attempt to manipulate the appearance of popularity of pro-NN stance. I'd like to point out that I am not against net neutrality, I am against being brainwashed and manipulated, especially through scaremongering.

If (lacking a better word) 'pro-Trump' arguments were financed and relentlessly pushed like this, we'd have 10x the screeching about 'Russian hackers'. Why are we not hearing anything about people who actually are trying to subvert and hack democratic processes by pouring a lot of money into it?

Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

#140

Post by will4274 »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #75
Tuna-Fish wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was evidence that some of the leaked emails were subtly altered to make them look worse This is a lie. The emails were cryptographically signed, they have not been altered.

Let's not pretend cryptographic signing of emails makes them immune to tampering. This makes it essentially a guarantee that they were not modified between Point A and Point B but that's about it. I'm not saying they were or weren't modified nor am I saying it's even a good theory they were modified but we shouldn't make cryptographic signing sound more capable than it is.

? Can you explain? My understanding is that the signatures are still on the dumped emails and that one purpose of digital signatures is non repudiation - essentially immunity to tampering.
Post reply on HN