49 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 "

by croon 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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.
- croon 10y ago
  > 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! I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that the government should draw up regulation to change Googles or Facebooks behavior? What are you even arguing for? 1) No one is forcing people to use Google or Facebook, so people aren't limited by what they decide to promote or not. 2) People are forced to use one ISP (or live with DSL speeds or unreliable wireless) in most areas, both because of local monopolies, and otherwise for upstart costs. These things are not comparable. > The current political party will not significantly affect the organizations behavior, either. They are repealing something they (by your account) themselves instated before. How is that not the work of the political party?

by croon 10y ago

bjt2n3904 10y 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 10y 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.
croon 10y ago
> 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! I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that the government should draw up regulation to change Googles or Facebooks behavior? What are you even arguing for? 1) No one is forcing people to use Google or Facebook, so people aren't limited by what they decide to promote or not. 2) People are forced to use one ISP (or live with DSL speeds or unreliable wireless) in most areas, both because of local monopolies, and otherwise for upstart costs. These things are not comparable. > The current political party will not significantly affect the organizations behavior, either. They are repealing something they (by your account) themselves instated before. How is that not the work of the political party?