3 ms·

>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 h

>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.
        AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
        > But you can just host your videos yourself instead of with Google, which may be difficult to do without Net Neutrality. The problem is not hosting, the problem is not slow speed, the problem is your audience being pulled from you without any legal due process. From listener's perspective, you are denied audience of the person you want to hear, because YouTube decided they didn't like what is being said and heard. I find that more suffocating than an ISP slowing down my packets. Google services were taken away, including youtube, gmail, google docs from paying accounts that Google didn't like. That's like Mead coming into your house and taking away the paper notebook they sold to you a week ago, because they don't like what you write in it.
        prophesi 9y ago
        Without net neutrality, you might not have an audience in the first place. I'm telling you, it's as big of an issue as Google/Facebook's algorithms and their account/video takedowns. It would become even more impossibly difficult to compete with their services. The problem is their monopolization, and a lack of net neutrality would kill their competition. This is a bit of a tangent, but it sounds like you're wanting a social media platform that has: 1) Popularity (essential for any social platform) 2) Unbiased search functionality (Probably needs to be open source, and will frustrate users with how it underperforms at finding relevant results in comparison to search engines that are closed source and rely on user tracking) 3) Incapability to take down user files and accounts (Tons of legal issues here. Probably needs to be decentralized somehow, or hosted somewhere with lax information laws, otherwise the platform itself would be taken down by the server's location's government) Edit: And as for your analogy, no. It's like renting a paper notebook, which the seller then takes back because you violated their terms of use by drawing lolicon in it.
CaptSpify 9y ago
It would have taken you less time and effort to file a complaint than it took to post these responses. I really think that you are missing the forest through the trees on this one.
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  File a complaint? With whom do you suggest? For me, Free Speech is the forest, NN is a group of trees in a corner.

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.
      - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
        > But you can just host your videos yourself instead of with Google, which may be difficult to do without Net Neutrality. The problem is not hosting, the problem is not slow speed, the problem is your audience being pulled from you without any legal due process. From listener's perspective, you are denied audience of the person you want to hear, because YouTube decided they didn't like what is being said and heard. I find that more suffocating than an ISP slowing down my packets. Google services were taken away, including youtube, gmail, google docs from paying accounts that Google didn't like. That's like Mead coming into your house and taking away the paper notebook they sold to you a week ago, because they don't like what you write in it.
        prophesi 9y ago
        Without net neutrality, you might not have an audience in the first place. I'm telling you, it's as big of an issue as Google/Facebook's algorithms and their account/video takedowns. It would become even more impossibly difficult to compete with their services. The problem is their monopolization, and a lack of net neutrality would kill their competition. This is a bit of a tangent, but it sounds like you're wanting a social media platform that has: 1) Popularity (essential for any social platform) 2) Unbiased search functionality (Probably needs to be open source, and will frustrate users with how it underperforms at finding relevant results in comparison to search engines that are closed source and rely on user tracking) 3) Incapability to take down user files and accounts (Tons of legal issues here. Probably needs to be decentralized somehow, or hosted somewhere with lax information laws, otherwise the platform itself would be taken down by the server's location's government) Edit: And as for your analogy, no. It's like renting a paper notebook, which the seller then takes back because you violated their terms of use by drawing lolicon in it.

CaptSpify 9y ago

It would have taken you less time and effort to file a complaint than it took to post these responses. I really think that you are missing the forest through the trees on this one.

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
File a complaint? With whom do you suggest? For me, Free Speech is the forest, NN is a group of trees in a corner.