3 ms·

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.
    - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
      >If you'd like to change that, there are two ways, one is regulation and legislation which is outside of the scope of NN, Is NN not a regulation? Is it voluntary? My point is that NN is not as high a priority, given what corporate advocates of NN have done when it was their turn to play fair. I am more concerned about power exercised over speech, than power over making packets go fast or slow. >and competition, which is only possible if NN exists in a robust form. Competition would allow NN to exist, not other way around. Monopoly of ISPs is the root of NN being challenged.

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.
  - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
    >If you'd like to change that, there are two ways, one is regulation and legislation which is outside of the scope of NN, Is NN not a regulation? Is it voluntary? My point is that NN is not as high a priority, given what corporate advocates of NN have done when it was their turn to play fair. I am more concerned about power exercised over speech, than power over making packets go fast or slow. >and competition, which is only possible if NN exists in a robust form. Competition would allow NN to exist, not other way around. Monopoly of ISPs is the root of NN being challenged.