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

151–160 of 343 posts

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

#151

Post by saladeen »

croon wrote: post #143
saladeen wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fund…

A Soros conspiracy theory, with a bonus 'Russian hackers' in quotes as if that part was the ridiculous one.

Thank you for attempting to ridicule me with the ole 'conspiracy theory'.

Go to the site ( battleforthenet.com ), scroll all the way down, it says 'built by Fight for the Future', and even links to it: https://www.fightforthefuture.org/

On that site, go to 'Supporters' page: https://www.fightforthefuture.org/supporters/

Open Society Foundations is listed there. They are not even hiding the connection.

George Soros directly providing funds for the #1 pro-NN site being peddled around social media sites, and simultaneously pushed into #1 spot on hundreds of subreddits 2 days ago = 'Soros conspiracy theory'. I somehow doubt you apply the same standards to the 'Russian hackers' 'conspiracy theory'. :)

To the rest of the readers, I am not arguing whether 'Russian hackers' is conspiracy theory or not, I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of how when public's perception and opinion is manipulated by Soros pouring in millions of $, it's completely ignored and we're all expected to pretend it's 100% grassroots, but if Trump&co were doing the same level of manipulation, we would never stop hearing about how it's completely manufactured. I am just tired of being manipulated, regardless of who it's coming from.

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

#152

Post by samuraijack »

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.

A better analogy: You build an autobahn for every type of car and then it is dominated by fords, since people prefer driving fords.

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

#153

Post by craigsmansion »

Danihan wrote: post #124
vermilingua wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All network traffic is the same. As far as an ISP should be concerned, it's all just bits flowing through a wire. When they start characterizing those bits, net neutrality is violated.

You may want it to be the same... or you may want for it to be treated as if it's the same, but all network traffic is not the same. There are all sorts of classifications.

> You may want [data traffic] to be the same

For all intents and purposes, data traffic is exactly the same: with the majority being TCP and a smither of UDP.

That's about it as far as your ISP should be concerned.

You personally might want to divide it up further between bt, streaming, messengers, http, etc.

But the result of such a division for an ISP means that they get to decide which networking applications you get to run on your computer. That is likely what they want: their own walled garden.

Whether all these applications use the same port and protocol is an irrelevant distinction here. Arguing against net neutrality is arguing in favour of an external agent determining which networking applications you can run on your own hardware to connect to the world.

There is no "both sides of the argument" or "Devil's advocate's arguments " here to be explored for the more critical minds, and there is no "Internet Freedom" to be gained by any definition of those words.

Net Neutrality is a fundamental tenet of the Internet. A network without it is simply not the Internet, technically, morally, and historically.

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

#154

Post by philjohn »

Fnoord wrote: post #118
keypress wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> This quotes netflix as having 37% of traffic in N.A. Its irrelevant who creates this traffic. Wether it is The Pirate Bay or Netflix or Spotify or Google or DDoSers. The traffic is there. Only in the latter case do you want measures from the ISP(s). ISPs could install CDNs. Apparently the ISPs can handle the bandwidth, else they'd take measures. If ISPs can't handle the bandwidth they need to charge their customers…

Netflix will give a sufficiently large ISP multiple Netflix CDN boxes ... for FREE.

This takes pressure off their outgoing interconnects (where the actual contention should arise, if they've designed their network correctly).

This was never about Netflix hurting their internet business, it was always about Netflix hurting their cable business, which is where more money lies for them.

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

#155

Post by philjohn »

lettergram wrote: post #6

It's times like these where an actual - in person protest - might be more effective.

Some people have said they're going to protest outside Verizon stores ... would a large protest outside the CEO's residence not have more of an effect? At the moment they are divorced from the anger that their lobbying efforts are causing.

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

#156

Post by croon »

saladeen wrote: post #151
croon wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Soros conspiracy theory, with a bonus 'Russian hackers' in quotes as if that part was the ridiculous one.

Thank you for attempting to ridicule me with the ole 'conspiracy theory'. Go to the site ( battleforthenet.com ), scroll all the way down, it says 'built by Fight for the Future', and even links to it: https://www.fightforthefuture.org/ On that site, go to 'Supporters' page: https://www.fightforthefuture.org/supporters/ Open Society Foundations is listed there. They are not even hiding the connection. George Soros di…

Soros is a person with money who funds things.

This is completely transparent, and I fail to see what part is sinister. What does George Soros have to gain from net neutrality?

That's the part that's missing. He's doing it openly, with no clear gain.

What irks me about the Soros boogie man in red cap circles, is that since someone "uncovered" his evil scheme of openly funding a project, he likely also paid busloads of people to protest... because... reasons.

I'm not arguing that Soros funded something he funded, I'm asking: What's your point, and what's the end game?

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

#157

Post by nmalaguti »

makomk wrote: post #130
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

One of the examples net neutrality proponents have been pointing to in order to justify it is Vodafone Australia's packages allowing customers to add unlimited usage of various groups of services on top of the bandwidth they get in their mobile internet plans. There are hugely popular viral tweets claiming this is the terrifying future of American internet access if net neutrality is repealed. That's not simply preve…

As far as I know, net neutrality only applies to wired ISPs, not mobile ISPs. So those sorts of deals are still possible in the US, just not from your cable company. And why would you need that when you have access to virtually unlimited data through them?

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

#158

Post by flavor8 »

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.

If an ISP wishes to charge for different bandwidth tiers and monthly data allowances, they are free to do so. By doing so, they set themselves up to be competed against by other ISPs who can offer higher bandwidth and higher or "no" caps, which is also fine. (No power company would charge a flat monthly fee for all the power you can consume -- and ISPs don't generally truly mean "unlimited" either: try downloading a couple of petabytes in a month and see what yours thinks.)

What an ISP is not free to do is whitelist or bias one content source over another. The ISP absolutely is a utility and should be in the business of operating at layer 3 in the OSI model.

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

#159

Post by discordianfish »

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.

I think the biggest misconception among net neutrality sceptics is the assumption that bandwidth in general is a limited resource: It's not. The problem with 'others slowing down the internet' is usually on the last mile and it's cable providers oversubscribing this shared medium.

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

#160

Post by dingaling »

vermilingua wrote: post #119
Danihan wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

All network traffic is the same. As far as an ISP should be concerned, it's all just bits flowing through a wire. When they start characterizing those bits, net neutrality is violated.

> All network traffic is the same.

No competent network technician would mark VOIP the same as Torrent traffic.

Now, all Internet traffic may not be handled in such a manner but that's another matter.

Post reply on HN