5 ms·

>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

>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.
        AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
        >Without net neutrality, you might not have an audience in the first place. DNS can be, and was, taken away without any due legal process. That was my wake up call. Google cloud is registering domains and has that control over it. When it comes to dire situations, if my ISP does funny business, I can choose another ISP e.g. a mobile connection. No different than taking another road to go to the bank. My account and money in there is still safe. If the bank take away my account without due legal process, does it matter if the roads to get to the bank were traffic/pothole/toll free? For a YouTube content creator, who spent years building brand and audience, one fine day to wake up and have videos demonetized and/or account suspended is like bank terminating your account without giving you a dime from your account. With bank, you can get government/FDIC engaged, with YouTube, they are the Gods of that universe. >And as for your analogy, no. It's like renting a paper notebook, Paying account holders of g-suite apps from google, faced account termination with no cause, no access to videos/files/emails. This is digital violence and much bigger threat that has materialized, and is far greater than NN. If terms of service are enough to allow Google doing what it does, why can't Comcast do the same with their terms of service? I didn't know it was that easy to do. Don't tell Comcast, please. They would be delighted to hear that terms of service is all it took to convince you to override NN. You are renting their cable and ability to send traffic over their infrastructure, aren't you? How is cable infrastructure renting different than DNS/Video-site/email renting?

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.
      - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
        >Without net neutrality, you might not have an audience in the first place. DNS can be, and was, taken away without any due legal process. That was my wake up call. Google cloud is registering domains and has that control over it. When it comes to dire situations, if my ISP does funny business, I can choose another ISP e.g. a mobile connection. No different than taking another road to go to the bank. My account and money in there is still safe. If the bank take away my account without due legal process, does it matter if the roads to get to the bank were traffic/pothole/toll free? For a YouTube content creator, who spent years building brand and audience, one fine day to wake up and have videos demonetized and/or account suspended is like bank terminating your account without giving you a dime from your account. With bank, you can get government/FDIC engaged, with YouTube, they are the Gods of that universe. >And as for your analogy, no. It's like renting a paper notebook, Paying account holders of g-suite apps from google, faced account termination with no cause, no access to videos/files/emails. This is digital violence and much bigger threat that has materialized, and is far greater than NN. If terms of service are enough to allow Google doing what it does, why can't Comcast do the same with their terms of service? I didn't know it was that easy to do. Don't tell Comcast, please. They would be delighted to hear that terms of service is all it took to convince you to override NN. You are renting their cable and ability to send traffic over their infrastructure, aren't you? How is cable infrastructure renting different than DNS/Video-site/email renting?