7 ms·

What's amazing is the same people who blog or tweet saying that it is right that these companies ban these organizations based on content are the same people wh

What's amazing is the same people who blog or tweet saying that it is right that these companies ban these organizations based on content are the same people who seem to believe they believe in net neutrality. These people also spend tons of time online tweeting about how some group is acting to get rid of net neutrality. So are you for or against net neutrality? Make up your own mind if you're going to be criticizing others. It's such a hypocrisy but nobody can speak out about this hypocritical behavior because then automatically they will be branded a nazi. It's also stupid that every time I make comments like this that I have to clarify, double clarify, triple clarify that I am against these hate speech groups (which should be obvious), because if I don't include this line, I'm also suddenly a nazi. All I'm saying is it's a hypocrisy if you passionately advocate for things that are completely contradictory to each other.

j2kun 9y ago
How are they contradictory? The goal of net neutrality is to have physical internet lines be regulated in the same way that phone lines are: as a part of the communication infrastructure of the country. Is Google Play a fundamental part of the infrastructure of the country? I wouldn't even call Google search fundamental (or infrastructure at all, for that matter)!
- cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
  "Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet must treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality And yes, google play IS a fundamental part of the infrastructure of not just america but the entire world, most Android users (excluding those who use samsung modified os) download apps through google play store. Google.com is different because people have the freedom to choose another search engine. If you're an android user you don't have an alternative.
  - j2kun 9y ago
    > Internet service providers and governments Which of these is Google? You seem to have reiterated my argument back to me. > If you're an android user you don't have an alternative. Cell phone operating systems are not a fundamental part of the communication infrastructure of the country. If you really did think that, you'd be asserting that people have a right to an Android phone, and that governments should compel Google to sell them to everyone at a fair price. According to you, the gov't doesn't get to do that for iPhones or Blackberries or whatever Amazon is doing in this space. I hope you see how ridiculous that idea is. If you replaced your smartphone with a dumb phone today you'd get along fine and barely notice. None of your rights would be infringed. There are reasonable alternatives to having an Android phone for anything you'd want to do on an Android phone. You can't say the same thing of access to the infrastructure of the internet. Nobody is saying Google doesn't have a lot of influence, and nobody's saying that isn't problematic. Nobody's calling you a Nazi for warning about censure that comes from centralization (the EFF is on your side). But you're spitting hypocrisy at other people and erecting straw men when you haven't thought your own ideas through. I get you're angry, but try to reflect more.
acdha 9y ago
This seems backwards: network neutrality ensures that anyone is free to setup a host with whatever rules they want. If you treat the network as a neutral layer, there's less risk if a particular service chooses not to support something — whereas in a world of paid prioritization you'd have to worry about, say, paid prioritization or outright blocking as well as the other costs. (This is one of the reasons I'm not a fan of Facebook's subsidized internet — the intentions can be pure but it's still unsettling to see the barriers to entry for a competitor)
- cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
  My point was not about whether net neutrality is right or wrong, but that the same person sometimes protests AGAINST net neutrality when it fits their agenda, and sometimes pretend as if they're the guardian of the justice who's supposed to guard net neutrality. That's hypocritical. People should instead have rational conversation about pros and cons and make an informed decision, but that's impossible nowadays because people can easily label one another nazi.
  - acdha 9y ago
    You seem to be conflating network neutrality with requiring companies to host content which violates their terms of service. I think it's reasonable to distinguish between those layers — someone who wants to find content Twitter won't host can easily go to gab or 4chan but it's much harder to switch ISPs.
    - cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
      Someone who wants to publish an app to Android cannot easily go somewhere else to publish their app. I do get your point and I understand what you're saying, but at the same time this is not the same as "if you don't like Twitter just go somewhere else to post your microblog", because Android users don't have any other alternative.
      - acdha 9y ago

j2kun 9y ago

How are they contradictory? The goal of net neutrality is to have physical internet lines be regulated in the same way that phone lines are: as a part of the communication infrastructure of the country. Is Google Play a fundamental part of the infrastructure of the country? I wouldn't even call Google search fundamental (or infrastructure at all, for that matter)!

cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
"Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet must treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality And yes, google play IS a fundamental part of the infrastructure of not just america but the entire world, most Android users (excluding those who use samsung modified os) download apps through google play store. Google.com is different because people have the freedom to choose another search engine. If you're an android user you don't have an alternative.
- j2kun 9y ago
  > Internet service providers and governments Which of these is Google? You seem to have reiterated my argument back to me. > If you're an android user you don't have an alternative. Cell phone operating systems are not a fundamental part of the communication infrastructure of the country. If you really did think that, you'd be asserting that people have a right to an Android phone, and that governments should compel Google to sell them to everyone at a fair price. According to you, the gov't doesn't get to do that for iPhones or Blackberries or whatever Amazon is doing in this space. I hope you see how ridiculous that idea is. If you replaced your smartphone with a dumb phone today you'd get along fine and barely notice. None of your rights would be infringed. There are reasonable alternatives to having an Android phone for anything you'd want to do on an Android phone. You can't say the same thing of access to the infrastructure of the internet. Nobody is saying Google doesn't have a lot of influence, and nobody's saying that isn't problematic. Nobody's calling you a Nazi for warning about censure that comes from centralization (the EFF is on your side). But you're spitting hypocrisy at other people and erecting straw men when you haven't thought your own ideas through. I get you're angry, but try to reflect more.

acdha 9y ago

This seems backwards: network neutrality ensures that anyone is free to setup a host with whatever rules they want. If you treat the network as a neutral layer, there's less risk if a particular service chooses not to support something — whereas in a world of paid prioritization you'd have to worry about, say, paid prioritization or outright blocking as well as the other costs. (This is one of the reasons I'm not a fan of Facebook's subsidized internet — the intentions can be pure but it's still unsettling to see the barriers to entry for a competitor)

cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
My point was not about whether net neutrality is right or wrong, but that the same person sometimes protests AGAINST net neutrality when it fits their agenda, and sometimes pretend as if they're the guardian of the justice who's supposed to guard net neutrality. That's hypocritical. People should instead have rational conversation about pros and cons and make an informed decision, but that's impossible nowadays because people can easily label one another nazi.
- acdha 9y ago
  You seem to be conflating network neutrality with requiring companies to host content which violates their terms of service. I think it's reasonable to distinguish between those layers — someone who wants to find content Twitter won't host can easily go to gab or 4chan but it's much harder to switch ISPs.
  - cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
    Someone who wants to publish an app to Android cannot easily go somewhere else to publish their app. I do get your point and I understand what you're saying, but at the same time this is not the same as "if you don't like Twitter just go somewhere else to post your microblog", because Android users don't have any other alternative.
    - acdha 9y ago