3 ms·

I was just in Lima, Peru. This is what you see if you're on Facebook on someone's phone (I was tethering), and click a link that takes you outside of Facebook:

I was just in Lima, Peru. This is what you see if you're on Facebook on someone's phone (I was tethering), and click a link that takes you outside of Facebook: https://s22.postimg.org/lilkrmo4x/Screen_Shot_2017-06-21_at_19.55.10.png https://s22.postimg.org/lilkrmo4x/Screen_Shot_2017-06-21_at_... What do you think your chances of competing against Facebook, or Facebook-based businesses, are, when clients see this before accessing your site?

weberc2 9y ago
Any viable competitor will necessarily have the resources to strike a similar deal. I think your argument boils down to "is unfair that Facebook has more resources than a competing startup", which is no truer without NN (in my mind, anyway).
- RodericDay 9y ago
  Facebook competitor may be unlikely, but newspapers striking local deals with Facebook vs. newspapers which don't, is likely. It's a huge, huge fallacy to claim "this thing would happen regardless, so who cares how difficult we make it for it to happen". Your mind is wrong. I'm proud of India for rejecting Zuckerberg's ploy, and I wish Peru was wise enough to do the same.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    I don't think I made any such fallacy. I'm simply not convinced by your claim that NN favors competition. In particular, you seem to think Facebook can strike a deal for free with ISPs in a way that a competitor could not. Obviously such a deal is available to both the incumbent and the Challenger, but it's more likely that the incumbent will have the resources to afford it. In this sense, it's merely a matter of resources, and your pro-NN argument could be applied to any industry with a strong incumbent (it's not really about three internet, you just think wealth and success are bad, or something like that anyway). In other words, your argument could be applied to Apple paying for adverts that it's competition couldn't afford.
    - RodericDay 9y ago
      The fallacy is "it's just a matter of resources, so those resources will advantage them in some other way if not this one". It's a bad argument.

weberc2 9y ago

Any viable competitor will necessarily have the resources to strike a similar deal. I think your argument boils down to "is unfair that Facebook has more resources than a competing startup", which is no truer without NN (in my mind, anyway).

RodericDay 9y ago
Facebook competitor may be unlikely, but newspapers striking local deals with Facebook vs. newspapers which don't, is likely. It's a huge, huge fallacy to claim "this thing would happen regardless, so who cares how difficult we make it for it to happen". Your mind is wrong. I'm proud of India for rejecting Zuckerberg's ploy, and I wish Peru was wise enough to do the same.
- weberc2 9y ago
  I don't think I made any such fallacy. I'm simply not convinced by your claim that NN favors competition. In particular, you seem to think Facebook can strike a deal for free with ISPs in a way that a competitor could not. Obviously such a deal is available to both the incumbent and the Challenger, but it's more likely that the incumbent will have the resources to afford it. In this sense, it's merely a matter of resources, and your pro-NN argument could be applied to any industry with a strong incumbent (it's not really about three internet, you just think wealth and success are bad, or something like that anyway). In other words, your argument could be applied to Apple paying for adverts that it's competition couldn't afford.
  - RodericDay 9y ago
    The fallacy is "it's just a matter of resources, so those resources will advantage them in some other way if not this one". It's a bad argument.