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

ISPs Aim to Use Facebook Fracas to Saddle Silicon Valley with Crappy New Laws

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 116 posts

Re: ISPs Aim to Use Facebook Fracas to Saddle Silicon Valley with Crappy New Laws

#71

Post by joshuamorton »

ethbro wrote: post #53
saagarjha wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For Facebook, Google, et al. the council is that they shouldn't be regulated (e.g. EU GDPR). GDPR is regulation, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

And HN comments haven't trended neutral to critical on GDPR?

To expand on the other user, most of the negative gdpr commentary I've seen here has been that it either doesn't do enough, is confusing or vague, or will further entrench the big guys. None of those are particularly "we shouldn't regulate the big guys", but more of a "I have specific issues with this regulation".

I expect that there would be some similar sentiment if we were discussing a specific piece of isp regulating legislation.

Re: ISPs Aim to Use Facebook Fracas to Saddle Silicon Valley with Crappy New Laws

#72

Post by Benjamin_Dobell »

maxsilver wrote: post #65
Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the conversation is regarding the US, the difference is obvious. Users choose to use Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft or whichever "Big Web" services they want. However, many people in US have absolutely zero choice regarding their ISP, because ISPs have monopolies in the regions they serve, there's no competition. It's inherently not a free market.

> Users chose to use Facebook I'd argue the opposite. Users can't not choose to use Facebook. Even if you have never had a Facebook account, even if you have never touched a smartphone in your entire life, even if you intentionally try to eradicate Facebook from your life -- Facebook still has a profile on you, full of data about you, from other people in your life who do use Facebook. Facebook isn't Facebook.com. Fa…

In general it's near impossible to stop third-parties collecting information about you. I'm by no means advocating such business practices! However, someone can always ask your friends for your phone number or home address; if your friends are stupid enough to give it up. You do however have some degree of control here, choose your friends, and choose what you reveal to them.

However, your ISPs have the capability to control what you see and do, and potentially snoop on your activity, including private information that you'd never reveal to a friend. You can't say "Hey, that's not cool, I'll use a provider that doesn't do that", because in your area such a provider may simply not exist.

I recognize not associating with anyone who uses Facebook is impractical; however ISPs have the potential to do so much more damage than Facebook (even if they're not doing so right now).

Re: ISPs Aim to Use Facebook Fracas to Saddle Silicon Valley with Crappy New Laws

#73

Post by joe_the_user »

ethbro wrote: post #49
drawkbox wrote: post #20

The ISPs are in an all out attack on competitors like Facebook/Google/Netflix/others. ISPs bought their way into the market with the ISP privacy protections being removed [1][2] and net neutrality being killed rather than innovating. The privacy protections being removed helped lessen the FCC grip on privacy and helped their case, with legislators not the people, to remove FCC net neutrality protections. It is obviou…

I find it ironic that two classes of monopolies (ISPs and Big Web) are being discussed here with diametrically opposed recommendations. For ISPs, the council is that they should be regulated (e.g. net neutrality, data privacy). For Facebook, Google, et al. the council is that they shouldn't be regulated (e.g. EU GDPR). I have yet to see a cogent argument justifying that difference. My suspicion is that it ultimately…

I find it ironic that two classes of monopolies (ISPs and Big Web) are being discussed here with diametrically opposed recommendations.

Technically, "Big web" would be perhaps a structural oligopoly [1] or you could say the market has monopolistic competition[2]. they're protected by the network effect, they provide unique products that are hard to duplicate. They are not actual monopolies as economists define them (and not really monopolies in the popular understanding either).

But ISPs are straight, government-granted monopolies [3]. Such companies have essentially one incentive, be good at influencing regulators and legislators.

Glibly equating these market structures distorts the situation.

As to why ISPs should be regulated in the name of neutrality and privacy? Well, they already are highly regulated. They are creations of regulation. The public damn well should get something out of that regulation, especially, the regulation is all about ameliorating the abusive situation their (actual, not pseudo) monopoly position invites.

[1] http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Business_economics/Oligopol... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-granted_monopoly

Re: ISPs Aim to Use Facebook Fracas to Saddle Silicon Valley with Crappy New Laws

#74

Post by ethbro »

drawkbox wrote: post #64
ethbro wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it ironic that two classes of monopolies (ISPs and Big Web) are being discussed here with diametrically opposed recommendations. For ISPs, the council is that they should be regulated (e.g. net neutrality, data privacy). For Facebook, Google, et al. the council is that they shouldn't be regulated (e.g. EU GDPR). I have yet to see a cogent argument justifying that difference. My suspicion is that it ultimately…

> I have yet to see a cogent argument justifying that difference. My suspicion is that it ultimately falls down to "ISPs are unpopular, web companies are popular." A cogent argument: ISPs are your gateway to the internet you can't route around and web/mobile/content companies are built on top and can be routed around. ISPs could build products people want instead of regulatory capturing their way into the game. ISPs…

> ISPs are your gateway to the internet you can't route around and web/mobile/content companies are built on top and can be routed around.

We disagree on a core premise then. I contend that at scale, web companies can't be routed around.

At minimum, when I have to run blacklist filters to avoid my third party web traffic ending up logged on Google or Facebook servers, something is wrong.

When the majority of new tech is being acquhired and integrated into existing platforms (e.g. WhatsApp & Google Docs), something is wrong.

Your conclusion sums up my thoughts as well.

> What is more respectable, innovative products that you want to use or products you are forced to use through authority and mini monopolies?

Re: ISPs Aim to Use Facebook Fracas to Saddle Silicon Valley with Crappy New Laws

#75

Post by drawkbox »

smsm42 wrote: post #62
ethbro wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it ironic that two classes of monopolies (ISPs and Big Web) are being discussed here with diametrically opposed recommendations. For ISPs, the council is that they should be regulated (e.g. net neutrality, data privacy). For Facebook, Google, et al. the council is that they shouldn't be regulated (e.g. EU GDPR). I have yet to see a cogent argument justifying that difference. My suspicion is that it ultimately…

ISPs sell a commodity. I have yet to see a popular commodity supplier - steel companies, oil companies, coal companies, insurance companies, big retail stores... All have been vilified.

> ISPs sell a commodity.

Agreed, you might even say ISPs/networks are a utility now, though ISPs seem to not think that.

The difference here is that the ISP utility/commodity is not only a local monopoly with false competition but they are trying to leverage that trusted position to sell you other things and wants to be an ad network with your private data.

Your oil/steel/water company isn't trying to get you to sign up to HBO or some discounted bundle, build an ad network from your data or limiting how much or which way you can use your oil/steel/water.

ISPs could rapidly expand their network and build products people want on top of it leveraging that new capability separate from the ISP on web/mobile/media and compete in the street rather than leveraging their trusted position, but they won't because they are in the bribing/milking it/monopoly laziness phase not the competitive innovative phase.

ISPs resemble those companies that innovated, got top market position then just turned to metrics not continuing to innovate, more like Microsoft around 2006 than Amazon today.

Re: ISPs Aim to Use Facebook Fracas to Saddle Silicon Valley with Crappy New Laws

#76

Post by drawkbox »

ethbro wrote: post #74
drawkbox wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have yet to see a cogent argument justifying that difference. My suspicion is that it ultimately falls down to "ISPs are unpopular, web companies are popular." A cogent argument: ISPs are your gateway to the internet you can't route around and web/mobile/content companies are built on top and can be routed around. ISPs could build products people want instead of regulatory capturing their way into the game. ISPs…

> ISPs are your gateway to the internet you can't route around and web/mobile/content companies are built on top and can be routed around. We disagree on a core premise then. I contend that at scale, web companies can't be routed around. At minimum, when I have to run blacklist filters to avoid my third party web traffic ending up logged on Google or Facebook servers, something is wrong. When the majority of new tech…

> At minimum, when I have to run blacklist filters to avoid my third party web traffic ending up logged on Google or Facebook servers

But you just admitted you can route around them. Let me know when you route around your ISP.

Your line of thinking is basically the ISP narrative of "Hey web companies are doing lots of bad stuff, why can't we? And why can't we do so without building any product or anything anyone wants?"

ISPs could build or help fund products that protect your data from Facebook/Google etc more easily, and those will pop up independently. But ISPs don't actually want to protect your data, they lobbied to get access to it without innovating or building products, they just want your data not them, it is a dangerous game that could really backfire on them.

Re: ISPs Aim to Use Facebook Fracas to Saddle Silicon Valley with Crappy New Laws

#77

Post by ethbro »

Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #72
maxsilver wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Users chose to use Facebook I'd argue the opposite. Users can't not choose to use Facebook. Even if you have never had a Facebook account, even if you have never touched a smartphone in your entire life, even if you intentionally try to eradicate Facebook from your life -- Facebook still has a profile on you, full of data about you, from other people in your life who do use Facebook. Facebook isn't Facebook.com. Fa…

In general it's near impossible to stop third-parties collecting information about you. I'm by no means advocating such business practices! However, someone can always ask your friends for your phone number or home address; if your friends are stupid enough to give it up. You do however have some degree of control here, choose your friends, and choose what you reveal to them. However, your ISPs have the capability to…

I'd argue that the really sneaky play here, and this applies to both network-effect web companies and ISPs, is data.

Which is why ISPs fought privacy provisions so vehemently.

ISPs control the last mile, so they're technically free to use DPI, packet injection, etc.

But web companies control the application layer and have much more finely grained ability to instrument and track users (in their experiences or others').

And I'll lay a bet down right now that the killer app of the future is going to be predictive or ml-enabled experiences. Experiences that simply can't be created without the right data, at scale.

And handing all that to scaled web companies without encouraging disruption via market regulation? That terrifies the hell out of me.

Not mostly because I care about being tracked or my data, but because of what kind of market and world "data winner take all" produces in 10-20 years.

Re: ISPs Aim to Use Facebook Fracas to Saddle Silicon Valley with Crappy New Laws

#78

Post by tomc1985 »

drawkbox wrote: post #20

The ISPs are in an all out attack on competitors like Facebook/Google/Netflix/others. ISPs bought their way into the market with the ISP privacy protections being removed [1][2] and net neutrality being killed rather than innovating. The privacy protections being removed helped lessen the FCC grip on privacy and helped their case, with legislators not the people, to remove FCC net neutrality protections. It is obviou…

ISPs should be happy with their status as utilities providers.

Re: ISPs Aim to Use Facebook Fracas to Saddle Silicon Valley with Crappy New Laws

#79

Post by ethbro »

joshuamorton wrote: post #71
ethbro wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And HN comments haven't trended neutral to critical on GDPR?

To expand on the other user, most of the negative gdpr commentary I've seen here has been that it either doesn't do enough, is confusing or vague, or will further entrench the big guys. None of those are particularly "we shouldn't regulate the big guys", but more of a "I have specific issues with this regulation". I expect that there would be some similar sentiment if we were discussing a specific piece of isp regula…

I was kind of surprised. My impression was that there was usually at least one highly voted comment stating (essentially), "Any regulation will harm startups, so there should be no regulation."

Admittedly, there are other, pro viewpoints expressed, but my takeaway is that there's a sizable libertarian contingent which would rather absolutely have freedom in action than freedom in opportunity.

Which seems... short-sighted.

Post reply on HN