15 ms·

I soured up on Net Neutrality after seeking what YouTube/Facebook/Twitter/Reddit did to silence voices that they don't like on their platforms. How does net ne

I soured up on Net Neutrality after seeking what YouTube/Facebook/Twitter/Reddit did to silence voices that they don't like on their platforms. How does net neutrality matter if what travels on a perfectly neutral net is controlled anyway, actually controlled much more effectively, by a very few with agenda that goes far beyond just greed for money? "Don't open and judge my TCP/IP packets. But, I will open and judge your video uploads all day, every day." - YouTube How is that fair? No, thank you. I refuse to be fodder for something, only to be surrendered at a later point in the fight for fairness. "Bernie" taught me that lesson. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

devopsproject 9y ago
net neutrality ensures you can get to youtube\twitter\reddit\facebook without the ISP charging you more or throttling sites. It has nothing to to with free speech or altering the policies of individual sites. Think of it like water. Your water company doesn't care if you are flushing the toilet or taking a shower. They just give you water and charge a rate. The internet works this way now and we want to keep it that way. Opposing net nutrality means you will end up with this: http://www.wordstream.com/images/what-is-net-neutrality-isp-package-diagram.jpg http://www.wordstream.com/images/what-is-net-neutrality-isp-... They are going to create a "slow lane" and charge you more to use it.
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  The slow or fast lane doesn't matter, if I am going to be denied at the destination anyway.
  - devopsproject 9y ago
    Free speech only protects you from government persecution. It doesn't control how owners of private property react. You are still going to get banned and moderated, it will just be a lot slower and a lot more expensive for you. And if you keep getting denied you should probably try and find out why people find you so toxic and repulsive.
    - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
      People? They are many who would be OK with what I have to say. The problem is the platform owners want full fairness when they talk (TCP/IP, the platform they use) but want full God powers when their platform is concerned (Social Media Sites, the platform I use). Do you see the hypocrisy of Google/Youtube/Facebook/Reddit/Twitter? If Comcast shouldn't decide what travels on their wires, then why should Google get to decide what the Youtube video says?
      - devopsproject 9y ago
        > If Comcast shouldn't decide what travels on their wires, then why should Google get to decide what the Youtube video says? Comcast doesn't get to decide for the same reason the water company doesn't decide what I use my water for. And you are free to say what you want in my house but you'd be thrown out pretty quickly if I didn't like what you had to say. Your house is no different. And Google's house is no different too. This isn't a difficult concept
        AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
        Google is not a private entity, it is a public corporation with share holders. We hold government with highest demands for equality, we hold private individuals and fully owned businesses with most freedom to discriminate. We hold public corporations somewhere in between. >Google's house Sure. Nobody cared when things were being said about Egypt's Mubarak. But say something that some Google executives don't like, you are out of there. Is there a difference between a private entity and a public corporation? If I run my own plumbing company, I can hire my son without putting up an ad in the paper. Should a Google executive be allowed to hire her husband without putting up an ad? We hold public companies at a higher standard that private individuals, correctly so. What if Mead stopped you from using their notebook to write down a thought that they don't agree with?
        devopsproject 9y ago
        Using youtube is a privileged, not a right. Google can censor because its user's agree to it as part of their terms of service.
prophesi 9y ago
Youtube won't be able to open and judge your video uploads if you can't afford to upload a video with your ISP.
- ShabbosGoy 9y ago
  You'll be able to afford it, just be prepared to have a throttled, asymmetric upload speed to YouTube.
  - 0xfeba 9y ago
    And when ISPs eventually resort to requiring you insert a root certificate to use the internet at all, your ISP will judge you.
    - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
      Sure, but it's hypocritical for Google/Facebook/Twitter/Reddit to complain about someone else judging it in future, while they are judging it today with impunity. We, as people, have same influence on current Google/Facebook/Twitter/Reddit censorship as we do on future Comcast/Verizon/AT&T/Charter censorship... none what so ever.
      - prophesi 9y ago
        So the solution is to give up entirely?
        AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
        No, but there is bigger fish to fry. Censorship of speech is much much bigger issue for me than Net Neutrality. I can't stand with multi-billion corporations claiming victimhood on subject of Net Neutrality, while at the same time playing God with people being able to speak their mind.
        9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
and0 9y ago
None of what you're describing really has anything to do with net neutrality. And getting rid of net neutrality would only weaken alternative outlets. I'm thinking the problem you had with these services might have been your own fault, judging by your approach here.
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  Why not let Comcast decide if the video being uploaded to YouTube has a reference to an terrorist organization and then stop the upload? Why is Google a better judge of what is terrorist content than Comcast? >I'm thinking the problem you had with these services might have been your own fault, judging by your approach here. Right. Those pesky packet senders themselves must be the problem because of which Comcast wants to send them to the slow lane.
  - outsidetheparty 9y ago
    > Why is Google a better judge of what is terrorist content than Comcast? Google only gets to decide what you can do on google websites. Without net neutrality, Comcast, in its de facto monopoly position, gets to decide what you do on -all- websites.
    - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
      Google has monopoly in terms of YouTube. Instead of Comcast, I can use Verizon 4G. Comcast, Verizon, may slow me down but YouTube just simply bans people for saying things that they don't like.
      - outsidetheparty 9y ago
        >Google has monopoly in terms of YouTube. And I have a monopoly in terms of my living room, and have as much right to control what happens in my space as google does in theirs. Other living rooms, and other websites, can similarly set their own policies. Yes, there's a point beyond which a single company can become so large and pervasive that it shades into monopoly, and antitrust measures become necessary. Whether Google is at that point or not is debatable, but ISPs certainly are. Congratulations on being in the minority of Americans that has more than one viable choice for broadband, I guess. In any case, whatever your feelings about YouTube, this hardly constitutes an argument that therefore net neutrality is unnecessary -- in comments elsewhere you've made clear that you do in fact support net neutrality, so I'm really not clear what this contrarian posturing is aimed at.
shkkmo 9y ago
> How does net neutrality matter if what travels on a perfectly neutral net is controlled anyway, actually controlled much more effectively, by a very few with agenda that goes far beyond just greed for money? Without Net Neutrality it becomes harder to choose platforms that don't censor or censor less. Especially since non-censoring platforms will tend to have less revenue to spend on access to customers due to presenting potential PR risks to traditional advertisers and business partners.
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  I don't want speech beholden to advertisers and business partners. Net Neutrality has been a non-issue at best, or hypocritical at worse, for the content providers, in light of blatant censorship and political agenda carried out.

devopsproject 9y ago

net neutrality ensures you can get to youtube\twitter\reddit\facebook without the ISP charging you more or throttling sites. It has nothing to to with free speech or altering the policies of individual sites. Think of it like water. Your water company doesn't care if you are flushing the toilet or taking a shower. They just give you water and charge a rate. The internet works this way now and we want to keep it that way. Opposing net nutrality means you will end up with this: http://www.wordstream.com/images/what-is-net-neutrality-isp-package-diagram.jpg http://www.wordstream.com/images/what-is-net-neutrality-isp-... They are going to create a "slow lane" and charge you more to use it.

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
The slow or fast lane doesn't matter, if I am going to be denied at the destination anyway.
- devopsproject 9y ago
  Free speech only protects you from government persecution. It doesn't control how owners of private property react. You are still going to get banned and moderated, it will just be a lot slower and a lot more expensive for you. And if you keep getting denied you should probably try and find out why people find you so toxic and repulsive.
  - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
    People? They are many who would be OK with what I have to say. The problem is the platform owners want full fairness when they talk (TCP/IP, the platform they use) but want full God powers when their platform is concerned (Social Media Sites, the platform I use). Do you see the hypocrisy of Google/Youtube/Facebook/Reddit/Twitter? If Comcast shouldn't decide what travels on their wires, then why should Google get to decide what the Youtube video says?
    - devopsproject 9y ago
      > If Comcast shouldn't decide what travels on their wires, then why should Google get to decide what the Youtube video says? Comcast doesn't get to decide for the same reason the water company doesn't decide what I use my water for. And you are free to say what you want in my house but you'd be thrown out pretty quickly if I didn't like what you had to say. Your house is no different. And Google's house is no different too. This isn't a difficult concept
      - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
        Google is not a private entity, it is a public corporation with share holders. We hold government with highest demands for equality, we hold private individuals and fully owned businesses with most freedom to discriminate. We hold public corporations somewhere in between. >Google's house Sure. Nobody cared when things were being said about Egypt's Mubarak. But say something that some Google executives don't like, you are out of there. Is there a difference between a private entity and a public corporation? If I run my own plumbing company, I can hire my son without putting up an ad in the paper. Should a Google executive be allowed to hire her husband without putting up an ad? We hold public companies at a higher standard that private individuals, correctly so. What if Mead stopped you from using their notebook to write down a thought that they don't agree with?
        devopsproject 9y ago
        Using youtube is a privileged, not a right. Google can censor because its user's agree to it as part of their terms of service.

prophesi 9y ago

Youtube won't be able to open and judge your video uploads if you can't afford to upload a video with your ISP.

ShabbosGoy 9y ago
You'll be able to afford it, just be prepared to have a throttled, asymmetric upload speed to YouTube.
- 0xfeba 9y ago
  And when ISPs eventually resort to requiring you insert a root certificate to use the internet at all, your ISP will judge you.
  - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
    Sure, but it's hypocritical for Google/Facebook/Twitter/Reddit to complain about someone else judging it in future, while they are judging it today with impunity. We, as people, have same influence on current Google/Facebook/Twitter/Reddit censorship as we do on future Comcast/Verizon/AT&T/Charter censorship... none what so ever.
    - prophesi 9y ago
      So the solution is to give up entirely?
      - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
        No, but there is bigger fish to fry. Censorship of speech is much much bigger issue for me than Net Neutrality. I can't stand with multi-billion corporations claiming victimhood on subject of Net Neutrality, while at the same time playing God with people being able to speak their mind.
        9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

and0 9y ago

None of what you're describing really has anything to do with net neutrality. And getting rid of net neutrality would only weaken alternative outlets. I'm thinking the problem you had with these services might have been your own fault, judging by your approach here.

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
Why not let Comcast decide if the video being uploaded to YouTube has a reference to an terrorist organization and then stop the upload? Why is Google a better judge of what is terrorist content than Comcast? >I'm thinking the problem you had with these services might have been your own fault, judging by your approach here. Right. Those pesky packet senders themselves must be the problem because of which Comcast wants to send them to the slow lane.
- outsidetheparty 9y ago
  > Why is Google a better judge of what is terrorist content than Comcast? Google only gets to decide what you can do on google websites. Without net neutrality, Comcast, in its de facto monopoly position, gets to decide what you do on -all- websites.
  - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
    Google has monopoly in terms of YouTube. Instead of Comcast, I can use Verizon 4G. Comcast, Verizon, may slow me down but YouTube just simply bans people for saying things that they don't like.
    - outsidetheparty 9y ago
      >Google has monopoly in terms of YouTube. And I have a monopoly in terms of my living room, and have as much right to control what happens in my space as google does in theirs. Other living rooms, and other websites, can similarly set their own policies. Yes, there's a point beyond which a single company can become so large and pervasive that it shades into monopoly, and antitrust measures become necessary. Whether Google is at that point or not is debatable, but ISPs certainly are. Congratulations on being in the minority of Americans that has more than one viable choice for broadband, I guess. In any case, whatever your feelings about YouTube, this hardly constitutes an argument that therefore net neutrality is unnecessary -- in comments elsewhere you've made clear that you do in fact support net neutrality, so I'm really not clear what this contrarian posturing is aimed at.

shkkmo 9y ago

> How does net neutrality matter if what travels on a perfectly neutral net is controlled anyway, actually controlled much more effectively, by a very few with agenda that goes far beyond just greed for money? Without Net Neutrality it becomes harder to choose platforms that don't censor or censor less. Especially since non-censoring platforms will tend to have less revenue to spend on access to customers due to presenting potential PR risks to traditional advertisers and business partners.

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
I don't want speech beholden to advertisers and business partners. Net Neutrality has been a non-issue at best, or hypocritical at worse, for the content providers, in light of blatant censorship and political agenda carried out.