4 ms·

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 impunit

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.
        prophesi 9y ago
        And with this response, it sounds like you agree with everyone in this comment thread.
        AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
        I don't want Comcast looking inside my packets. I don't want Google looking inside my videos. Deal?
        prophesi 9y ago
        Ideally, yes. But you can just host your videos yourself instead of with Google, which may be difficult to do without Net Neutrality. Most people don't have the luxury of choosing their ISP. It sounds like you have a beef with how the US is currently handling corporate personhood, not necessarily free speech.

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.
        prophesi 9y ago
        And with this response, it sounds like you agree with everyone in this comment thread.
        AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
        I don't want Comcast looking inside my packets. I don't want Google looking inside my videos. Deal?
        prophesi 9y ago
        Ideally, yes. But you can just host your videos yourself instead of with Google, which may be difficult to do without Net Neutrality. Most people don't have the luxury of choosing their ISP. It sounds like you have a beef with how the US is currently handling corporate personhood, not necessarily free speech.