3 ms·

So, which is it HackerNews? Are we OK with companies deciding what gets on the internet, or are we not? On one hand, we laud Facebook et al. for suppressing "fa

So, which is it HackerNews? Are we OK with companies deciding what gets on the internet, or are we not? On one hand, we laud Facebook et al. for suppressing "fake news", and then we get upset when ISPs do the same. Furthermore, the FCC has historically engaged in content regulation. Anyone wonder why there's no more cartoons on broadcast television? Or perhaps why the FCC is investigating Colbert's Trump Jokes? If we're so concerned about content freedom, the FCC is not the organization to trust.

chasing 9y ago
Facebook isn't an ISP. Facebook -- though big! -- is one site on the internet and if you feel like you're not receiving news about things that are important to you there, you hop onto another site. If enough people stop using Facebook, Facebook will be compelled to make changes. Breaking net neutrality laws makes it harder for you to find alternatives. Imagine you're stuck with whatever news sources your ISP picks for you. "Huffington Post, Reddit, and Twitter have decided not to pay us, so we no longer offer our users access to those sites."
- bjt2n3904 9y ago
  > Comcast -- though big! -- is one ISP on the internet and if you feel like you're not receiving news about things that are important to you there, you hop onto another ISP. If enough people stop using Comcast, Comcast will be compelled to make changes. [...] Imagine you're stuck with whatever news sources your social network picks for you. "Huffington Post, Reddit, and Twitter have decided not to pay us, so we no longer accept links to those sites." And yet, when you change the name of the company, the argument somehow doesn't apply. I'd make the argument that Facebook has just a powerful monopoly on social networking as ISPs have on service. Especially with things like "shadow profiles". We should have the FCC break up Facebook and Twitter for open source things like Mastodon, right? You also dodged my point about the FCC's history of content regulation.
  - FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
    > Comcast -- though big! -- is one ISP on the internet and if you feel like you're not receiving news about things that are important to you there, you hop onto another ISP. If enough people stop using Comcast, Comcast will be compelled to Unfortunately, for the majority of people in the US, there would only be one other choice. For me, that's AT&T. The big companies will payoff both or one isp for fast lanes, the ISP's will definitely put there service in the fast lane, if your service competes with either of them, get to pay not only the normal infrastructure costs, you now have to bribe the isp's not to throttle your service. Facebook in the same class of monopoly as there are many other niche social networking apps built around oarticular interests. I only have two ways to connect to the Internet. I lament that my ISP choices are limited, but not enough people even understand tech issues to care about them and certainly no one in Congress, save for a few.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - chasing 9y ago
    To put a finer point on it: Facebook isn't a common carrier, Comcast is. I don't think Facebook yet has a monopoly on social networking. There are too many powerful competitors and "social networking" is kind of a broad term, anyway. Does LinkedIn qualify? Twitter? Reddit? Tinder? Anyway: If they do wind up with a monopoly, that's a whole other issue and has little to do with common carrier laws. My understanding is that the FCC investigates complaints. Someone complained about Colbert. They're investigating. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they haven't taken any actions. And the FCC does have rules which they're allowed to apply to network broadcast television because it fits into a special case. (Cable doesn't have the same sorts of restrictions.)
    - bjt2n3904 9y ago
      Hey, see my reply to croon above.
  - wvenable 9y ago
croon 9y ago
> So, which is it HackerNews? Are we OK with companies deciding what gets on the internet, or are we not? On one hand, we laud Facebook et al. for suppressing "fake news", and then we get upset when ISPs do the same. If you could only access the internet through Facebook, you would have a point. You don't. > Furthermore, the FCC has historically engaged in content regulation. Anyone wonder why there's no more cartoons on broadcast television? Or perhaps why the FCC is investigating Colbert's Trump Jokes? If we're so concerned about content freedom, the FCC is not the organization to trust. You mean the FCC under George Bush Sr, and the current Republican majority FCC that wants to repeal net neutrality issued by the formerly Democratic majority FCC? The people distrusting the government running up the the election currently seems to trust the government a great deal. You can't issue timeless blanket statements regarding any organization consisting of rotating individuals. Hell, even the two parties have switched places a few times throughout history.
- bjt2n3904 9y ago
  > If you could only access the internet through Facebook, you would have a point. Effectively, many people do. They open their web browsers, and search for "facebook", and click the first link. Don't even get me started about Google! My point is that regulating the network and regulating the endpoints are one and the same. It's bad enough when the endpoints do it under the guise of "fake news", it's worse when the government gets involved under the guise of "free speech". The current political party will not significantly affect the organizations behavior, either. Get back to me when the FCC ceases investigating Obscenity, Indecency & Profanity, or regulating the RF space.
  - chasing 9y ago
    You're conflating a bunch of different things into a kind of opinion mush. A common carrier is a very specific thing legally. Being a common carrier puts you in a very powerful position, so the government applies regulations to common carriers so they aren't put in the position of being "kingmakers" in a wide range of industries by either blocking certain people from using their utilities or extorting them. Facebook is a publisher, essentially. Having the government step in to decide what a company can publish on their own website seems... problematic.

chasing 9y ago

Facebook isn't an ISP. Facebook -- though big! -- is one site on the internet and if you feel like you're not receiving news about things that are important to you there, you hop onto another site. If enough people stop using Facebook, Facebook will be compelled to make changes. Breaking net neutrality laws makes it harder for you to find alternatives. Imagine you're stuck with whatever news sources your ISP picks for you. "Huffington Post, Reddit, and Twitter have decided not to pay us, so we no longer offer our users access to those sites."

bjt2n3904 9y ago
> Comcast -- though big! -- is one ISP on the internet and if you feel like you're not receiving news about things that are important to you there, you hop onto another ISP. If enough people stop using Comcast, Comcast will be compelled to make changes. [...] Imagine you're stuck with whatever news sources your social network picks for you. "Huffington Post, Reddit, and Twitter have decided not to pay us, so we no longer accept links to those sites." And yet, when you change the name of the company, the argument somehow doesn't apply. I'd make the argument that Facebook has just a powerful monopoly on social networking as ISPs have on service. Especially with things like "shadow profiles". We should have the FCC break up Facebook and Twitter for open source things like Mastodon, right? You also dodged my point about the FCC's history of content regulation.
- FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
  > Comcast -- though big! -- is one ISP on the internet and if you feel like you're not receiving news about things that are important to you there, you hop onto another ISP. If enough people stop using Comcast, Comcast will be compelled to Unfortunately, for the majority of people in the US, there would only be one other choice. For me, that's AT&T. The big companies will payoff both or one isp for fast lanes, the ISP's will definitely put there service in the fast lane, if your service competes with either of them, get to pay not only the normal infrastructure costs, you now have to bribe the isp's not to throttle your service. Facebook in the same class of monopoly as there are many other niche social networking apps built around oarticular interests. I only have two ways to connect to the Internet. I lament that my ISP choices are limited, but not enough people even understand tech issues to care about them and certainly no one in Congress, save for a few.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- chasing 9y ago
  To put a finer point on it: Facebook isn't a common carrier, Comcast is. I don't think Facebook yet has a monopoly on social networking. There are too many powerful competitors and "social networking" is kind of a broad term, anyway. Does LinkedIn qualify? Twitter? Reddit? Tinder? Anyway: If they do wind up with a monopoly, that's a whole other issue and has little to do with common carrier laws. My understanding is that the FCC investigates complaints. Someone complained about Colbert. They're investigating. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they haven't taken any actions. And the FCC does have rules which they're allowed to apply to network broadcast television because it fits into a special case. (Cable doesn't have the same sorts of restrictions.)
  - bjt2n3904 9y ago
    Hey, see my reply to croon above.
- wvenable 9y ago

croon 9y ago

> So, which is it HackerNews? Are we OK with companies deciding what gets on the internet, or are we not? On one hand, we laud Facebook et al. for suppressing "fake news", and then we get upset when ISPs do the same. If you could only access the internet through Facebook, you would have a point. You don't. > Furthermore, the FCC has historically engaged in content regulation. Anyone wonder why there's no more cartoons on broadcast television? Or perhaps why the FCC is investigating Colbert's Trump Jokes? If we're so concerned about content freedom, the FCC is not the organization to trust. You mean the FCC under George Bush Sr, and the current Republican majority FCC that wants to repeal net neutrality issued by the formerly Democratic majority FCC? The people distrusting the government running up the the election currently seems to trust the government a great deal. You can't issue timeless blanket statements regarding any organization consisting of rotating individuals. Hell, even the two parties have switched places a few times throughout history.

bjt2n3904 9y ago
> If you could only access the internet through Facebook, you would have a point. Effectively, many people do. They open their web browsers, and search for "facebook", and click the first link. Don't even get me started about Google! My point is that regulating the network and regulating the endpoints are one and the same. It's bad enough when the endpoints do it under the guise of "fake news", it's worse when the government gets involved under the guise of "free speech". The current political party will not significantly affect the organizations behavior, either. Get back to me when the FCC ceases investigating Obscenity, Indecency & Profanity, or regulating the RF space.
- chasing 9y ago
  You're conflating a bunch of different things into a kind of opinion mush. A common carrier is a very specific thing legally. Being a common carrier puts you in a very powerful position, so the government applies regulations to common carriers so they aren't put in the position of being "kingmakers" in a wide range of industries by either blocking certain people from using their utilities or extorting them. Facebook is a publisher, essentially. Having the government step in to decide what a company can publish on their own website seems... problematic.