71–80 of 125 posts
What exactly is meant by this? Is there a source behind it? > The fate of reddit may have been very different if Comcast had discriminated against our little two-person-startup in favor of the NBC.com news portal and the sites of other news giants.
What exactly is meant by this? Is there a source behind it? > The fate of reddit may have been very different if Comcast had discriminated against our little two-person-startup in favor of the NBC.com news portal and the sites of other news giants.
Comcast could say, "Well, you're directly competing with our website, and you're putting hostile articles about us on the front page. We'll just throttle your access until your users get frustrated and leave." They're not the government; they can refuse service to whomever they please.
If the FCC doesn't create rules that enforce net neutrality, this is a reality. And what's more is that no one can stop them otherwise because many people have no alternative to Comcast. As the South Park episode goes, "Oh, you must be really bummed. I guess you could switch services... oh... wait, you can't. We're the only one."
(nipple rubbing intensifies)
Basically, if you have the resources, you can enforce dominance in the market with money. One of the cool things about Internet startups right now is that the barrier to entry is pretty low - anyone with a laptop, an Internet connection, and some pretty cheap web hosting service can create the next Facebook. The lack of net neutrality changes that.
I know I am in the minority here, but while I prefer net neutrality, I don't support it. I'd like to have it, but I'd rather not see it enforced, because I believe private property rights are more important than anything else. Should we really be able to force someone to use their property an a way that serves the public interest? If so, where do we draw the line? If ISPs start taking money to throttle bandwidth, alt…
And what private property is at stake here? We gave ISPs hundreds of billions of dollars to build our infrastructure and on top of that they failed to hit the access and speed goals. This comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the problem. This needs to be admitted before anything else.
>Should we really be able to force someone to use their property an a way that serves the public interest?
Of course. This is the slippery slope fallacy at it's finest. I can't stand when arguments are discussed in talking points. The world is complicated, we need to find the right balance of personal liberty and society's needs. Retreating to talking points is easy, but it doesn't solve any actual problems.
I know I am in the minority here, but while I prefer net neutrality, I don't support it. I'd like to have it, but I'd rather not see it enforced, because I believe private property rights are more important than anything else. Should we really be able to force someone to use their property an a way that serves the public interest? If so, where do we draw the line? If ISPs start taking money to throttle bandwidth, alt…
> Should we really be able to force someone to use their property an a way that serves the public interest? Yes, that's the price of a government-granted monopoly. > If so, where do we draw the line? If you don't have a government-granted monopoly, you don't have to be neutral. For example, that's how the Internet backbone works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, that's an absolutely terrible idea. I don't think Google would ever do that, if simply because the risk of it getting out is too great, it would absolutely destroy the trust of the brand.
But, interestingly, there is nothing stopping us doing it ... I think it is still possible to game google results such that the top results for any politicians name includes "sex scandal of senator X" simply by a lot of people linking to it. It's democratic (if you are happy for Russian links to count in your senators feeds)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Should we really be able to force someone to use their property an a way that serves the public interest? Yes, that's the price of a government-granted monopoly. > If so, where do we draw the line? If you don't have a government-granted monopoly, you don't have to be neutral. For example, that's how the Internet backbone works.
Instead of trying to get politicians and bureaucrats to thoroughly understand the technology and hoping that they'll steer these monopolies in a favorable direction, why don't we demand that said monopolies be dissolved? I.e., if the terms of the deal are going to be altered, why not declare that there may be two or even several players? Also, why can't this be resolved at the regional level? Why does Netflix have to…
I know I am in the minority here, but while I prefer net neutrality, I don't support it. I'd like to have it, but I'd rather not see it enforced, because I believe private property rights are more important than anything else. Should we really be able to force someone to use their property an a way that serves the public interest? If so, where do we draw the line? If ISPs start taking money to throttle bandwidth, alt…
Yes. And this happens all the time in a million different contexts. Taxes. Easements. Speed limits on cars and trucks. You are constantly being told what you can and can't do with things you own.
"Freedom" isn't letting you do whatever the fuck you want to do with whatever happens to have your name attached to it. It's balancing individual rights with our collective rights so we all (ideally) maintain the freedom to live our lives as we wish.
I said this in a comment a couple of months back on the subject, companies for net neutrality need to start lobbying. I understand Reddit, Y! Combinator and pretty much every company with a conscious who cares about the Internet all have good intentions and have more reasons than most to see fair laws/legislation based around the Internet. But the sad reality is the FCC is a mere Government agency and words are not e…
> Y! Combinator This is the first time I've seen this misconception, and I have to admit it make me chuckle a bit. "Y!" is a trademark of Yahoo, which has no connection to Y Combinator (which is spelled without any exclamation mark).
I appreciate what Alexis is trying to do here but I hope he isn't assuming that the FCC just doesn't understand the problem. That's how this reads to me. Maybe the idea is to be diplomatic. I don't think the FCC cares. The FCC understands what is going on and it wants to do whatever is best for the FCC. The best thing for tech companies to do is to start destroying some political careers. That's the only thing the ma…
How would one go about destroying someone’s political career?
If you aren't familiar with this, you might be surprised to see who signed it.