7 ms·

> Because the fear is that the internet will become like TV But I would rather take that than Internet becoming like TV, where govt can pass 'fairness doctrin

> Because the fear is that the internet will become like TV But I would rather take that than Internet becoming like TV, where govt can pass 'fairness doctrine' and other stuff, or restrict it significantly during war time. I'd rather trust economic incentives to keep Internet free than political incentives. If people are willing to pay for full coverage of the War, then even though govt is pressuring ISPs, it results in a losing prisoner's dilemma for ISPs (take for instance the popularity of Al Jazeera during Iraq War).

fredley 9y ago
That's an interesting perspective. Do you not think in times of war greater access to information is a great advantage of the internet? I'm curious as to why you would think that in wartime restricting information might be a good thing (other than persisting the propagation of propaganda!)
- emodendroket 9y ago
  He doesn't think that; he thinks that Net neutrality is the first step on the road to government censorship of the Internet. I'm not sure by what mechanism.
  - splintercell 9y ago
    Exactly, but also remember, an exploit is an exploit, whether someone uses it or not. If by passing Net Neutrality laws, govt can take over the Internet, then govt can take over the internet at war time even without net neutrality laws. Net Neutrality laws simply make it easier for govt to use this exploit. A lot of HN audience is sympathetic to Canada or UK style restrictions on News channels, where govt is the final arbiter of whether a news channel is spreading lies or not. In America, the people are allowed to do that, and sure people paid a lot of money to listen to lies by NYT that Hillary was on her way to White House (I have even defended NYT's 2016 coverage to my pissed off liberal friends who wanted to cancel their subscription after the elections), but it's their choice. We can't allow govt to control media in the name of 'fairness'.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      How does enforcing net neutrality enable censorship? What does one thing have to do with the other? And what about the (in my opinion, more realistic in the United States) risk of private corporations such as Internet service providers restricting what their users see? Especially when you consider in how many cases your choices are one ISP or else no Internet access at all?
- splintercell 9y ago
  I don't think that at all, I think you misread my argument. I'm saying that I'd trust the economic incentives to keep information flowing than to trust the political incentives. A company which delivers information to people who want it will make more profit over a company which does not do this.
  - jancsika 9y ago
    > I'm saying that I'd trust the economic incentives to keep information flowing than to trust the political incentives. The economic incentives are for the last-mile ISP monopolies to keep being last-mile ISP monopolies, throttling traffic in cases where it suits there interests.
burkaman 9y ago
What are the economic incentives to keep Internet free?
- splintercell 9y ago
  There are economic incentives to deliver what people want. Fox news is hugely profitable because it delivers to people what no other media organization delivers, and that is a right wing perspective on events. Throughout the Obama years, Fox News made insane amount of money precisely for this reason.
  - uncletammy 9y ago
    You're being downvoted for making people read the words "Fox news" but you're absolutely right about this. I would state it another way though. Fox news is hugely profitable because it provides information to people that validates, reinforces, and legitimizes their particular social and political beliefs. It thickens the walls of their bubble. Fox news led the way with this and every other network quickly followed suit.
    - s73ver 9y ago
      No, they really are not. "Economic incentives" only come into play when there are choices. Most people do not have any kind of choice in their ISP, thus the "Economic incentives" argument carries no water.
      - splintercell 9y ago
        Currently there isn't a strong enough economic incentive. You may think that your service sucks, but that does not create an enough economic incentive. This does not counter the argument that if tomorrow an ISP not delivering the content you desire, then there wouldn't be a rise of a newer service/solutions (they don't really have to be a new ISP btw) which allow consumers to access the suppressed viewpoint.
        9y ago
mcntsh 9y ago
> I'd rather trust economic incentives to keep Internet free than political incentives I don't trust economic incentives at all... The internet and cable industry is notorious for their frivolous price grabs and there's a lot of money to be made playing gatekeeper to something hundreds of millions of people use every day. In your example the customer wants something new, and the ISP has the economic incentive of providing it because they can charge a premium. What happens when this same incentive is placed on all other services... especially services you enjoy currently. Oh your Netflix/HBO Now is slow? Well that's because you don't have the Xfinity Online Streaming Package which is an extra $18.99/month. Hey, the people wanted faster streaming speeds right? This is just economic incentive.
s73ver 9y ago
Please do not spread unfounded conspiracy theories here. There is absolutely nothing to back up that position.
- splintercell 9y ago
  I did not post any conspiracy theories. Saying "If I leave my keys with Peter's wife, I could be robbed by Peter" is not a conspiracy theory, saying "Peter is planning to rob me" is. I posted a legitimate possibility.
  - s73ver 9y ago
    No. It is not. It is an unfounded paranoia spread to justify letting ISPs run rampant with our rights.

fredley 9y ago

That's an interesting perspective. Do you not think in times of war greater access to information is a great advantage of the internet? I'm curious as to why you would think that in wartime restricting information might be a good thing (other than persisting the propagation of propaganda!)

emodendroket 9y ago
He doesn't think that; he thinks that Net neutrality is the first step on the road to government censorship of the Internet. I'm not sure by what mechanism.
- splintercell 9y ago
  Exactly, but also remember, an exploit is an exploit, whether someone uses it or not. If by passing Net Neutrality laws, govt can take over the Internet, then govt can take over the internet at war time even without net neutrality laws. Net Neutrality laws simply make it easier for govt to use this exploit. A lot of HN audience is sympathetic to Canada or UK style restrictions on News channels, where govt is the final arbiter of whether a news channel is spreading lies or not. In America, the people are allowed to do that, and sure people paid a lot of money to listen to lies by NYT that Hillary was on her way to White House (I have even defended NYT's 2016 coverage to my pissed off liberal friends who wanted to cancel their subscription after the elections), but it's their choice. We can't allow govt to control media in the name of 'fairness'.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    How does enforcing net neutrality enable censorship? What does one thing have to do with the other? And what about the (in my opinion, more realistic in the United States) risk of private corporations such as Internet service providers restricting what their users see? Especially when you consider in how many cases your choices are one ISP or else no Internet access at all?
splintercell 9y ago
I don't think that at all, I think you misread my argument. I'm saying that I'd trust the economic incentives to keep information flowing than to trust the political incentives. A company which delivers information to people who want it will make more profit over a company which does not do this.
- jancsika 9y ago
  > I'm saying that I'd trust the economic incentives to keep information flowing than to trust the political incentives. The economic incentives are for the last-mile ISP monopolies to keep being last-mile ISP monopolies, throttling traffic in cases where it suits there interests.

burkaman 9y ago

What are the economic incentives to keep Internet free?

splintercell 9y ago
There are economic incentives to deliver what people want. Fox news is hugely profitable because it delivers to people what no other media organization delivers, and that is a right wing perspective on events. Throughout the Obama years, Fox News made insane amount of money precisely for this reason.
- uncletammy 9y ago
  You're being downvoted for making people read the words "Fox news" but you're absolutely right about this. I would state it another way though. Fox news is hugely profitable because it provides information to people that validates, reinforces, and legitimizes their particular social and political beliefs. It thickens the walls of their bubble. Fox news led the way with this and every other network quickly followed suit.
  - s73ver 9y ago
    No, they really are not. "Economic incentives" only come into play when there are choices. Most people do not have any kind of choice in their ISP, thus the "Economic incentives" argument carries no water.
    - splintercell 9y ago
      Currently there isn't a strong enough economic incentive. You may think that your service sucks, but that does not create an enough economic incentive. This does not counter the argument that if tomorrow an ISP not delivering the content you desire, then there wouldn't be a rise of a newer service/solutions (they don't really have to be a new ISP btw) which allow consumers to access the suppressed viewpoint.
      - 9y ago

mcntsh 9y ago

> I'd rather trust economic incentives to keep Internet free than political incentives I don't trust economic incentives at all... The internet and cable industry is notorious for their frivolous price grabs and there's a lot of money to be made playing gatekeeper to something hundreds of millions of people use every day. In your example the customer wants something new, and the ISP has the economic incentive of providing it because they can charge a premium. What happens when this same incentive is placed on all other services... especially services you enjoy currently. Oh your Netflix/HBO Now is slow? Well that's because you don't have the Xfinity Online Streaming Package which is an extra $18.99/month. Hey, the people wanted faster streaming speeds right? This is just economic incentive.

s73ver 9y ago

Please do not spread unfounded conspiracy theories here. There is absolutely nothing to back up that position.

splintercell 9y ago
I did not post any conspiracy theories. Saying "If I leave my keys with Peter's wife, I could be robbed by Peter" is not a conspiracy theory, saying "Peter is planning to rob me" is. I posted a legitimate possibility.
- s73ver 9y ago
  No. It is not. It is an unfounded paranoia spread to justify letting ISPs run rampant with our rights.