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

131–140 of 250 posts

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

#131

Post by scottydelta »

IronWolve wrote: post #26

>US Internet Speed Has Gone From 12th To 6th Fastest Since End Of Net Neutrality I see this being tossed around as a counter to the main point of NN being slow down of speed. Also, why do the state dem AG's always suing to enforce new laws instead of the legislation process, it seems like the new way to pass laws is to get a judge to give it to you. We have legal weed from legislation now.

To show the improvements in speeds, all that ISPs has to do is provide full/unthrottled speed for speed test websites such as fast.com and speedtest.net.

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

#132

Post by fein »

jamescostian wrote: post #47
fein wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> some sports stadium

You can actually go right outside that sports stadium and still have your message heard. If you're banned from Twitter, FB, and YT; you have effectively no voice on the internet.

The social media companies that have monopolized public discourse on the internet would be more akin to the whole city being owned by the stadium owners, and that specific scenario has been ruled in favor of the first amendment in the past.

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

#133

Post by ivl »

danjoc wrote: post #89
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.…

>The system seems broken when When it does stuff you disagree with personally. That's a pretty universal feeling. While you may get plenty of internet points from your friends that agree with you, you have to realize, you are the one with the unpopular opinion this time. >50% of the population Counting illegals. 22 states isn't 50% either. This is the "not my president" argument all over again. The people won. ISPs w…

A minority of the people won. Let's be clear there. Due to the House being capped, the GOP can hold 55.2% of the seats with 49.9% of the votes. Talking purely votes, not population.

And that's even ignoring the snarky comment about the people that voted the current majority in being from the less economically useful areas.

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

#134

Post by fbonetti »

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…

Electricity, water, cable, and phone are all "natural" monopolies because of the significant amount of infrastructure they require. Having private companies lay their own competing water mains would be an absolute clusterfuck.

Facebook is, at the end of the day, a website that happens to be popular right now. It's not even close to being a public utility. Anybody can enter the space and create a competing service. Given how fickle consumers are, I'll be surprised if it's still around in 10 years.

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

#135

Post by twblalock »

smsm42 wrote: post #124
twblalock wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The system working for the people would be the states to make their own legislation. Using courts to force federal government to take action that elected executive and elected legislature do not support is not system working. The tension between federal and state power is an intentionally designed feature of the system, and the fact that the states can push back is one of the several ways the system is supposed to…

> The tension between federal and state power is an intentionally designed feature of the system True, but "AGs of states finding friendly judge to force federal legislature to do their bidding" is not part of that design. If they just passed state-wide regulations and federal AG would sue them for it, then it'd be a different case, where one could justifiably invoke state rights. But in this case it's just plain law…

It seems to me that it would be "lawfare" either way -- either the states would sue the Federal government or the Federal government would sue the states.

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

#136

Post by pirocks »

komali2 wrote: post #111
PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What counts as a need? Does one need land lines? Electricity? People live off the grid by generating these themselves and people live elsewhere without them at all. Of course, one could bring a distinction between things that naturally grant a physical monopoly and things that don't, but I think one could make an argument that certain sites have effectively become the new public square and in doing so have a natural…

>what counts as need When access to it is required to be on an even playing field. Hence internet, yes. Electricity, yes. Phone? Yup. Facebook? Ehhhh

What about LinkedIn. You could argue they are needed for career purposes.

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

#137

Post by Vinnl »

komali2 wrote: post #111
PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What counts as a need? Does one need land lines? Electricity? People live off the grid by generating these themselves and people live elsewhere without them at all. Of course, one could bring a distinction between things that naturally grant a physical monopoly and things that don't, but I think one could make an argument that certain sites have effectively become the new public square and in doing so have a natural…

>what counts as need When access to it is required to be on an even playing field. Hence internet, yes. Electricity, yes. Phone? Yup. Facebook? Ehhhh

If you want to reach an audience, the vast majority of companies would reach for Facebook and/or Google in a heartbeat. Either they're all wrong, or you're not on an even playing field if you do not use them as an advertiser.

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

#138

Post by komali2 »

pirocks wrote: post #136
komali2 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>what counts as need When access to it is required to be on an even playing field. Hence internet, yes. Electricity, yes. Phone? Yup. Facebook? Ehhhh

What about LinkedIn. You could argue they are needed for career purposes.

You could, but I think I would win the argument that the internet is a couple of magnitudes more important to finding a job than LinkedIn... Plus all the other reasons the internet is necessary for a level playing field in modern life.

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

#139

Post by peterwwillis »

smsm42 wrote: post #121
peterwwillis wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The system working for the people would be the states to make their own legislation. Using courts to force federal government to take action that elected executive and elected legislature do not support is not system working. It's called checks and balances, and it was how the system was designed to work. > Legislature is complex and hard. Not the reason to try and make courts into its replacement. That's not how t…

> It's called checks and balances, and it was how the system was designed to work. No, it's not. Just repeating "checks and balances" doesn't mean courts can be abused for doing something that is not court's purpose. The court's purpose is preserving the consistency of legislation (including the Constitution as supreme, very hard to change part of the law) and adherence of executive to the law. In this case, the exec…

> They are being used to force through a policy that is not supported by either legislature or executive. That's not a function of a proper court.

They're asking the court to reverse the repealing of legislation, with the argument that the FCC should not have been allowed to repeal it because their legal reasoning was flawed.

Who is pushing policy? Was Obama pushing policy by instituting regulation? Was the FCC pushing policy by repealing it? Are the states pushing policy by trying to get the repeal revoked? Yes, Yes, Yes. Welcome to government.

It's all about pushing policy, any way you can. The system regulates the ability to push policy by allowing you to push policy, within the confines of the system, and gives you the tools to continually push or pull policy.

> Your side may temporarily win, but when the other side does the same, you end up with the broken system where nobody respects any decisions and the only thing that matters is which side you're on.

I re-watched the film Lincoln recently. It's basically about pushing for the 13th Amendment, well before it was politically tenable to adopt it. Bribery, back room deals, switching allegiances, concealing moves, political pressure, manipulation. Politics is the art of doing anything you possibly can to advance your agenda, to the exclusion of others' agendas. Your side doesn't even matter, it's what you can gain or lose that matters.

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

#140

Post by anderspitman »

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…

It's easier for me to entertain the idea of treating ISPs like utilities, because it doesn't make sense for multiple companies to lay fiber to the same homes.

I'm not convinced for things like Twitter, Google, and Facebook. I think decentralization is the solution to this problem, not regulation.

It's weird to think about, but I almost wonder if something like Alex Jones starting a PeerTube instance might be the event that pushes enough people to start using ActivityPub to where the network is of a viable size.

Post reply on HN