4 ms·

Is it? Say Google did not take the initiative. Would it be better that people have no internet whatsoever than to have Facebook for free? Moreover, it is each i

Is it? Say Google did not take the initiative. Would it be better that people have no internet whatsoever than to have Facebook for free? Moreover, it is each individual who should decide what is better for him, Facebook or nothing, not you nor their government.

shmerl 10y ago
> Say Google did not take the initiative. Would it be better that people have no internet whatsoever than to have Facebook for free? If you allow it, monopolists will abuse it. That's what Net neutrality prevents. Network must be equal, no preferential treatment for Facebook or the like. Of course they'll use an excuse of "providing free Internet". But if they care about free access, they should give access to Internet, not to Facebook. They aren't doing that. So what they are doing is simply monopolizing the market. That is not good. > Moreover, it is each individual who should decide what is better for him Facebook doesn't let them decide. Because they only provide Facebook. It's an illusion of choice.
- necessity 10y ago
  How are they monopolizing the market? It seems that the prevention allowed Google to monopolize the market, instead of competing with Facebook if it was allowed. >Facebook doesn't let them decide. Because they only provide Facebook. It's an illusion of choice. They can decide between having Facebook or not, no one is forcing them to use it. Government is forcing them to not use Facebook. That's an illusion of protection.
  - shmerl 10y ago
    > How are they monopolizing the market? By turning Internet access into Facebook access. Try explaining how it's not a monopoly. > Government is forcing them to not use Facebook. No, government is forcing Facebook to play by the same rules as everyone else. That's fair and necessary. If Facebook wants to be exempt from data caps, then all traffic and services should be.
    - necessity 10y ago
      >By turning Internet access into Facebook access. Try explaining how it's not a monopoly. Any other company can provide internet access, e.g. Google. >No, government is forcing Facebook to play by the same rules as everyone else. That's fair and necessary. Of course, given that there is nn everyone should respect it. My point is that nn is harmful.
      - shmerl 10y ago
        Lack of Net neutrality is harmful to competition.
bad_user 10y ago
> Would it be better that people have no internet whatsoever than to have Facebook for free? Yes, it's better, because it creates the incentive for telecom operators to lower costs. And the problem with FB's initiative is that nobody can compete against free, establishing the status quo, not to mention a precedent for other monopolies. Besides, nothing in life is free of cost, not even air, as Delhi's citizens are finding out. > it is each individual who should decide what is better for him, Facebook or nothing, not you nor their government That's strange logic. The purpose of government is to ensure the proper use of force in order to protect the rights of the citizens and ensure their well-being. Governments exist because the people themselves prefer to defer such matters to people that presumably know what they are doing. And in a democracy you decide by voting for people representing your interests, and/or by making your voice heard in some way, like protesting in the streets or in writing maybe. But other than that, there are plenty of cases where the individual cannot decide what's best for him, because the law exists (ideally for everybody, can't speak for India).
- necessity 10y ago
  No one can compete against free? But that free is limited to Facebook. I bet a lot of people would like more than that and would be willing to pay for it. >Governments exist because the people themselves prefer to defer such matters to people that presumably know what they are doing. That's strange logic. Considering that people often do not prefer such deferment and are often pissed at government decisions. I'm merely stating that it is not the government's roll to determine if the individual should or should not have access to a certain product.
  - shmerl 10y ago
    > it is not the government's roll to determine if the individual should or should not have access to a certain product. It is government's role however to make sure that products don't get preferential treatment, i.e. there is fair competition on the market. Because otherwise things turn into monopolies. That's what Net neutrality prevents. Facebook can't be treated preferentially (i.e. be exempt from data caps). Either axe all caps, or have everyone be subjected to them. Facebook exempt and everyone else no? That shouldn't happen.
piyush_soni 10y ago
Why don't we go ahead and give everyone's security in people's hands too, instead of creating laws then? This simplistic thinking is the reason it took so long for the Net neutrality debate to start in India and Facebook's campaign to be banned (thankfully it eventually was). No, not everyone is educated enough about the issue in hand and to decide what's good for the country, that's why we form governments.
- necessity 10y ago
  So you are educated enough to decide what is better for people, Facebook or no Facebook? This simplistic and self important thinking is the reason we got so tangled in regulations and limited our own freedom.
  - piyush_soni 10y ago
    Yes, in this particular matter I am educated enough to know what's right and wrong for the people of the country. In a whole lot of other matters, I'm not. The freedom you're talking about is how animals live where anyone is killing and eating anyone - there's no 'regulation'. The only problem with that is, everyone is thinking about themselves, not about society as a whole.

shmerl 10y ago

> Say Google did not take the initiative. Would it be better that people have no internet whatsoever than to have Facebook for free? If you allow it, monopolists will abuse it. That's what Net neutrality prevents. Network must be equal, no preferential treatment for Facebook or the like. Of course they'll use an excuse of "providing free Internet". But if they care about free access, they should give access to Internet, not to Facebook. They aren't doing that. So what they are doing is simply monopolizing the market. That is not good. > Moreover, it is each individual who should decide what is better for him Facebook doesn't let them decide. Because they only provide Facebook. It's an illusion of choice.

necessity 10y ago
How are they monopolizing the market? It seems that the prevention allowed Google to monopolize the market, instead of competing with Facebook if it was allowed. >Facebook doesn't let them decide. Because they only provide Facebook. It's an illusion of choice. They can decide between having Facebook or not, no one is forcing them to use it. Government is forcing them to not use Facebook. That's an illusion of protection.
- shmerl 10y ago
  > How are they monopolizing the market? By turning Internet access into Facebook access. Try explaining how it's not a monopoly. > Government is forcing them to not use Facebook. No, government is forcing Facebook to play by the same rules as everyone else. That's fair and necessary. If Facebook wants to be exempt from data caps, then all traffic and services should be.
  - necessity 10y ago
    >By turning Internet access into Facebook access. Try explaining how it's not a monopoly. Any other company can provide internet access, e.g. Google. >No, government is forcing Facebook to play by the same rules as everyone else. That's fair and necessary. Of course, given that there is nn everyone should respect it. My point is that nn is harmful.
    - shmerl 10y ago
      Lack of Net neutrality is harmful to competition.

bad_user 10y ago

> Would it be better that people have no internet whatsoever than to have Facebook for free? Yes, it's better, because it creates the incentive for telecom operators to lower costs. And the problem with FB's initiative is that nobody can compete against free, establishing the status quo, not to mention a precedent for other monopolies. Besides, nothing in life is free of cost, not even air, as Delhi's citizens are finding out. > it is each individual who should decide what is better for him, Facebook or nothing, not you nor their government That's strange logic. The purpose of government is to ensure the proper use of force in order to protect the rights of the citizens and ensure their well-being. Governments exist because the people themselves prefer to defer such matters to people that presumably know what they are doing. And in a democracy you decide by voting for people representing your interests, and/or by making your voice heard in some way, like protesting in the streets or in writing maybe. But other than that, there are plenty of cases where the individual cannot decide what's best for him, because the law exists (ideally for everybody, can't speak for India).

necessity 10y ago
No one can compete against free? But that free is limited to Facebook. I bet a lot of people would like more than that and would be willing to pay for it. >Governments exist because the people themselves prefer to defer such matters to people that presumably know what they are doing. That's strange logic. Considering that people often do not prefer such deferment and are often pissed at government decisions. I'm merely stating that it is not the government's roll to determine if the individual should or should not have access to a certain product.
- shmerl 10y ago
  > it is not the government's roll to determine if the individual should or should not have access to a certain product. It is government's role however to make sure that products don't get preferential treatment, i.e. there is fair competition on the market. Because otherwise things turn into monopolies. That's what Net neutrality prevents. Facebook can't be treated preferentially (i.e. be exempt from data caps). Either axe all caps, or have everyone be subjected to them. Facebook exempt and everyone else no? That shouldn't happen.

piyush_soni 10y ago

Why don't we go ahead and give everyone's security in people's hands too, instead of creating laws then? This simplistic thinking is the reason it took so long for the Net neutrality debate to start in India and Facebook's campaign to be banned (thankfully it eventually was). No, not everyone is educated enough about the issue in hand and to decide what's good for the country, that's why we form governments.

necessity 10y ago
So you are educated enough to decide what is better for people, Facebook or no Facebook? This simplistic and self important thinking is the reason we got so tangled in regulations and limited our own freedom.
- piyush_soni 10y ago
  Yes, in this particular matter I am educated enough to know what's right and wrong for the people of the country. In a whole lot of other matters, I'm not. The freedom you're talking about is how animals live where anyone is killing and eating anyone - there's no 'regulation'. The only problem with that is, everyone is thinking about themselves, not about society as a whole.