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

Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 250 posts

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#41

Post by wang_li »

davnicwil wrote: post #16
corerius wrote: post #11

I'm still trying to grok why ISPs are supposed to treat all customers equally while PayPal, eBay, youtube, GoDaddy, Twitter, etc. are allowed to pick and choose. I'd be more comfortable with the arguments if people were consistent in them.

The former provide infrastructure that the latter services run on. They are therefore in fundamentally different categories and so different regulations apply. That's why there isn't consistency between them, because they are different things.

The latter largely do not produce their own content and thus are not fundamentally different than what a carrier provides. Why would you say that it's ok for Google to ban Alex Jones from youtube, but not ok for level-3 to do the same?

It's a convenient kind of bullshit to draw a line below layer 4 of the ISO stack and say "everything below this line has to be fully neutral, everything above this line can be fully biased and curated". A company that provides their own content, such as Netflix, is very different than providing a platform for other people's content, i.e. Youtube/Twitter/Facebook.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#42

Post by JumpCrisscross »

justinzollars wrote: post #40

I would like to see Twitter, Google, CloudFlare and Facebook classified as public utilities. While Alex Jones is a nut case (And shouldn't be defended), other less publicized incidents of censorship by Social Media companies has occurred (related to picking winners between Israel and Palestine) [1]. While I am a Democrat who has been elected in the past, I agree with the conservative argument that: Corporate censorsh…

> I would like to see Twitter, Google, CloudFlare and Facebook classified as public utilities

This would be destructive to our venture ecosystem with dubious benefits to consumers. Few Americans love their public utilities–they're often mismanaged and at least somewhat corrupt.

Better to set up a system of rules and corresponding liabilities and--if necessary--regulators. (Given how profitable these companies are, though, litigation would probably cover all bases except those hurting the poor.)

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#43

Post by xena »

randyrand wrote: post #21

this is one of the main reasons why states rights is important. Here are the big ones: 1. each state can be tailored to its population 2. each state acts an an incubator for new ideas and other states can follow 3. usa citizens have more choice in who governs then and can easily move between them

The problem is that people poor enough they can't choose to move states get kinda screwed over.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#44

Post by asdkhadsj »

randyrand wrote: post #21

this is one of the main reasons why states rights is important. Here are the big ones: 1. each state can be tailored to its population 2. each state acts an an incubator for new ideas and other states can follow 3. usa citizens have more choice in who governs then and can easily move between them

I mean, the same could be said for countries relative to the world, towns relative to counties, cities relative to states, etc.

I mean, I agree with you - I'm just pointing out that while I do agree with the idea, I've never understood if there needs to be a line or where that line of "new ideas" is actually implemented.

Some states are so big these days that they're basically the federal government by themselves. Ie, California. California hardly feels like an incubator for new ideas, as being wrong on such a massive scale could lead to very big problems.

Furthermore, rural and city life in California differs greatly, and I imagine there are often times where one group or another feels dismayed over a ruling that primarily focuses on the other group. Ie, the broad stroke of the state is so broad it may as well have been the fed.

Anyway, none of these are counter points. It's just discussion points that I've often thought about before. Ones that I have little answers to.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#45

Post by narrator »

justinzollars wrote: post #40

I would like to see Twitter, Google, CloudFlare and Facebook classified as public utilities. While Alex Jones is a nut case (And shouldn't be defended), other less publicized incidents of censorship by Social Media companies has occurred (related to picking winners between Israel and Palestine) [1]. While I am a Democrat who has been elected in the past, I agree with the conservative argument that: Corporate censorsh…

The argument against net neutrality that I like the best is that net neutrality takes power away from the regulated telecom monopolies, which are more firmly under government control and scrutiny, and gives it to the tech multinationals who are much more loosely regulated. The tech multinationals are more and more acting a lot like governments with their coordinated content policies, so it's more about giving power back to the government regulatory agencies vs embracing the brave new world of banning unpopular speech on all the major platforms.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#46

Post by delinka »

justinzollars wrote: post #40

I would like to see Twitter, Google, CloudFlare and Facebook classified as public utilities. While Alex Jones is a nut case (And shouldn't be defended), other less publicized incidents of censorship by Social Media companies has occurred (related to picking winners between Israel and Palestine) [1]. While I am a Democrat who has been elected in the past, I agree with the conservative argument that: Corporate censorsh…

What makes these companies "public utilities" as opposed to others? I don't need Twitter in my life. Nor Google. Definitely not Facebook. And maybe lots of web sites use CloudFlare, but consumers don't interact directly with them.

Maybe applying common carrier status is something that's more palatable, but classifying them as "public utilities" doesn't have to be the mechanism by which CC is applied.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#47

Post by jamescostian »

fein wrote: post #18
jamescostian wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you get blocked on Twitter, you go to $OTHER_PLATFORM on the internet. If you don't have NN and you get blocked from Twitter, your ISP can also make it so that you can't go to $OTHER_PLATFORM.

What would this other platform be that provides a similar reach? Freedom of speech isn't just saying what you want while alone on your back patio. Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc is the "digital public space". Hell just take a look at what private companies are doing to the attempts at making alternatives: gab is threatened daily, and BitChute keeps getting bumped by payment processors.

> Freedom of speech isn't just saying what you want while alone on your back patio.

Freedom of speech isn't "You can say what you want on any platform and reach as many people as you want" either. Saying Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube are "digital public space" is akin to saying some sports stadium is a "public space" - yes, big crowds come to them, but they can still escort you off of the field. You can even just try protesting peacefully (in USA) and get a not-so-nice visit from the police.

NN can prevent things like an ISP blocking $SOME_PRESIDENTIAL_CANDIDATE_WEBSITE or $ABORTION_CLINIC_WEBSITE or $GUN_STORE_WEBSITE. Not having NN is more like electricity company blocking you from charging Android phones and requiring that you only charge iPhones, or vice-versa.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#48

Post by asdkhadsj »

corerius wrote: post #11

I'm still trying to grok why ISPs are supposed to treat all customers equally while PayPal, eBay, youtube, GoDaddy, Twitter, etc. are allowed to pick and choose. I'd be more comfortable with the arguments if people were consistent in them.

Do you think your water company should pick and choose? How about your electric company? Maybe they can charge you a higher electric rate during Game of Thrones because they know you want your power more than normal then? etc

I don't want a company picking and choosing which bytes of mine are fast or slow. I'm buying byte containers, their job is to ship them. I dictate how fast, and who it gets shipped to. End of deal. Full stop. Any deviation of that is wrong in my book.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#49

Post by corerius »

_bxg1 wrote: post #27
corerius wrote: post #11

I'm still trying to grok why ISPs are supposed to treat all customers equally while PayPal, eBay, youtube, GoDaddy, Twitter, etc. are allowed to pick and choose. I'd be more comfortable with the arguments if people were consistent in them.

The ISP's are more important because of their physical locality. It's infinitely easier to create a competitor for Facebook than a competitor for Time Warner (Google, one of the world's most powerful companies, tried and failed). That said, with the amount of ubiquity and sway on society that self-proclaimed platforms like Facebook and Google have started to have, I would not be opposed to regulating some of those as…

It seems to me that I have more choice between ISPs than in auction sites, as an example.

The tendency towards monopoly in networks makes all these cases similar I think.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#50

Post by strictnein »

EpiphanyMachine wrote: post #2

The system seems broken when states representing more than 50% of the population have to sue in court to try to change something like this. Instead with that much backing it should be done through the legislative branch. I'm concerned about the growing use of courts to try to decide policies because our legislative bodies can't work together and instead just try to force one sided issues through or block each other.…

> Together, the AGs represent states totaling 165 million people — more than half of the U.S. population.

By this logic, the executive branch represents 100% of the population.

Post reply on HN