5 ms·

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

by prophesi 9y ago

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.
        CaptSpify 9y ago
        You can be an activist for more than one cause at a time. Additionally, those corporations (who I detest probably more than most people here) can still be legitimate victims, even if they are terrible. I don't like siding with them either, but if they are right, then their evil-ness is irrelevant.
        AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
        >You can be an activist for more than one cause at a time. I agree. But scale does matter. You are not going to be worried about if the person giving you CPR has cooties or not, if you are suffering through an heart attack. >their evil-ness is irrelevant It is relevant, because I think free speech is more important than speed of packets. I have to use this opportunity to point out the hypocrisy of these corporations.
        prophesi 9y ago
        You're just being stubborn now. Speed of packets is part of free speech, as it affects how it's sent and received. It's obviously in Google/FB/etc's interest to advocate Net Neutrality, but they'll still be using their algorithms to filter what their users see whether or not net neutrality is a thing. If Net Neutrality wasn't a thing, FB/Google might have a blow to their wallet. But they can afford it. The hobbyist can't. And if you can choose between a person with cooties versus a person without cooties to save your life, you'd go with the one without cooties. You have nothing to lose to make the more sensible choice.
        AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
        >You're just being stubborn now. I hear you. :) Do I want Net Neutrality? Yes Is Free Speech more important to me? Yes Is pointing out hypocrisy of YouTube at this point important for me? Yes Will I vouch for a guy who gave me finger at the last intersection, if he gets into an accident no fault of his own at the next intersection? Yes, without hesitation. Would I have some choice words for him for giving me finger? You bet.
  - jethro_tell 9y ago
    Don't worry about that, I'll use a vpn to get to someone else's internet and that ISP can judge me.
AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
YouTube will still judge me, even if I use Comcast cable or Verizon 4G to upload the data.
- jethro_tell 9y ago
  Well the good news, is that with NN you can post a video on your own server and other people will still be able to get there because it isn't excluded from their 'video plan' NN means your packets get there. The TOS of a specific site has nothing to do with it.
  - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
    Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are multi-billion people platforms. Platforms that grew because of participation of the people. Platforms that were open to speech. Nobody stopped Twitter because there were things being said against Egypt's Mubarak. Now, the platforms are playing God and censoring speech. Ever been unhappy about an Open Source project switching license on you, going from Apache to Propitiatory Enterprise after enjoying three/four years of community engagement? The social media platforms are pulling the same bait and switch on the people, allowed content for years giving people sense that these were truly open platforms, and then stepping in to push their agenda.
    - jethro_tell 9y ago
      So it would be good if we protect the option to go access any site or thought on the net. If you want to get your opinion out there, you can literally write it down with no markup and share it on an http server. This won't be the case without net neutrality. It's not even that you're confusing the issues at play here which are private companies TOS and net neutrality, it seems that you're intentionally making them out to be the same thing in order to prove a point or something. If you want the freedom to not be censored. Make it a point to allow ALL communication and ideas to flow over the network. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube have the right to allow or disallow content that they see fit, as do TV networks, News Papers and any privately owned company. If you'd like to change that, there are two ways, one is regulation and legislation which is outside of the scope of NN, and competition, which is only possible if NN exists in a robust form.

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.
      - CaptSpify 9y ago
        You can be an activist for more than one cause at a time. Additionally, those corporations (who I detest probably more than most people here) can still be legitimate victims, even if they are terrible. I don't like siding with them either, but if they are right, then their evil-ness is irrelevant.
        AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
        >You can be an activist for more than one cause at a time. I agree. But scale does matter. You are not going to be worried about if the person giving you CPR has cooties or not, if you are suffering through an heart attack. >their evil-ness is irrelevant It is relevant, because I think free speech is more important than speed of packets. I have to use this opportunity to point out the hypocrisy of these corporations.
        prophesi 9y ago
        You're just being stubborn now. Speed of packets is part of free speech, as it affects how it's sent and received. It's obviously in Google/FB/etc's interest to advocate Net Neutrality, but they'll still be using their algorithms to filter what their users see whether or not net neutrality is a thing. If Net Neutrality wasn't a thing, FB/Google might have a blow to their wallet. But they can afford it. The hobbyist can't. And if you can choose between a person with cooties versus a person without cooties to save your life, you'd go with the one without cooties. You have nothing to lose to make the more sensible choice.
        AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
        >You're just being stubborn now. I hear you. :) Do I want Net Neutrality? Yes Is Free Speech more important to me? Yes Is pointing out hypocrisy of YouTube at this point important for me? Yes Will I vouch for a guy who gave me finger at the last intersection, if he gets into an accident no fault of his own at the next intersection? Yes, without hesitation. Would I have some choice words for him for giving me finger? You bet.
- jethro_tell 9y ago
  Don't worry about that, I'll use a vpn to get to someone else's internet and that ISP can judge me.

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago

YouTube will still judge me, even if I use Comcast cable or Verizon 4G to upload the data.

jethro_tell 9y ago
Well the good news, is that with NN you can post a video on your own server and other people will still be able to get there because it isn't excluded from their 'video plan' NN means your packets get there. The TOS of a specific site has nothing to do with it.
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are multi-billion people platforms. Platforms that grew because of participation of the people. Platforms that were open to speech. Nobody stopped Twitter because there were things being said against Egypt's Mubarak. Now, the platforms are playing God and censoring speech. Ever been unhappy about an Open Source project switching license on you, going from Apache to Propitiatory Enterprise after enjoying three/four years of community engagement? The social media platforms are pulling the same bait and switch on the people, allowed content for years giving people sense that these were truly open platforms, and then stepping in to push their agenda.
  - jethro_tell 9y ago
    So it would be good if we protect the option to go access any site or thought on the net. If you want to get your opinion out there, you can literally write it down with no markup and share it on an http server. This won't be the case without net neutrality. It's not even that you're confusing the issues at play here which are private companies TOS and net neutrality, it seems that you're intentionally making them out to be the same thing in order to prove a point or something. If you want the freedom to not be censored. Make it a point to allow ALL communication and ideas to flow over the network. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube have the right to allow or disallow content that they see fit, as do TV networks, News Papers and any privately owned company. If you'd like to change that, there are two ways, one is regulation and legislation which is outside of the scope of NN, and competition, which is only possible if NN exists in a robust form.