3 ms·

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

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
  > And yet, when you change the name of the company, the argument somehow doesn't apply. This is a ridiculous argument -- you're not "changing the name of the company" you're changing the entire business that they're in. You're just arguing that Apples and Oranges are the same except they have different names. > I'd make the argument that Facebook has just a powerful monopoly on social networking as ISPs have on service. That might well be a problem, but that's a different problem involving different companies, different services, and different issues. Conflating them doesn't add anything to this discussion.

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
> And yet, when you change the name of the company, the argument somehow doesn't apply. This is a ridiculous argument -- you're not "changing the name of the company" you're changing the entire business that they're in. You're just arguing that Apples and Oranges are the same except they have different names. > I'd make the argument that Facebook has just a powerful monopoly on social networking as ISPs have on service. That might well be a problem, but that's a different problem involving different companies, different services, and different issues. Conflating them doesn't add anything to this discussion.