3 ms·

I am glad you commented, so that others could rebut your misguided position. It's not usually kosher to comment on voting here, but I think in this case it's w

by natch 9y ago

I am glad you commented, so that others could rebut your misguided position. It's not usually kosher to comment on voting here, but I think in this case it's worth making an exception to help keep you readable: I un-did my downvote of you because I hope that others who, out of innocent ignorance perhaps, currently share your position, will be able to read your comment (I don't want you to go to full invisibility) and then read and consider the responses to it. I would advise anyone who agrees with this guy (abtinf) to really think it through a bit. The "regulation is bad therefore ALL regulation is bad" trap is easy to fall into. Even if you are a strict libertarian, net neutrality is a case where regulation is stopping really bad things from happening, and, though it sounds paradoxical, enabling MORE freedom, not less.

zionic 9y ago
While there is potentially an argument to me made that a hostile government could use this expanded power to "regulate" for some nefarious purpose, you have to actually go that far for it to be an argument. For example {hypothetical} "Net Neutrality gives alphabet-soup-agency a form of super-DMCA that I don't trust them to have"
abtinf 9y ago
It is unfortunate that your experiment of encouraging rebuttal didn't work out. When it comes to this issue, emotion and politics trump reason.
- natch 9y ago
  If you really think that's how it is, I encourage you to learn more about what net neutrality is before commenting further on it.
- ionised 9y ago
  When it comes to this issue, emotion and politics trump reason. Right. You're describing your own view there.
nunyabuizness 9y ago
> net neutrality is a case where regulation is stopping really bad things from happening I'm fairly anti-regulation and I from what I understand, net neutrality is a (federal) regulatory solution to a problem created by explicitly by (state + local) regulation. I honestly don't understand why people think that net neutrality is a better solution than a (currently non-existant) federal policy to remove state and local regulations that created ISP oligopolies which limited internet freedom in the first place.
- Natanael_L 9y ago
  Unless you can guarantee everybody will have access to multiple ISP:s (effectively impossible unless the backbone owners for your area offers open access to their network), net neutrality is pretty much necessary to guarantee that people can communicate freely.
- literallycancer 9y ago
  You don't have regulation forcing companies to share infrastructure with competitors in the US? Like the electrical grid or water pipes? Building things from scratch to compete with an established competitor at that scale is nearly impossible, you'd never see any new players entering the market if they had to build a new grid. Why is net neutrality different? >I honestly don't understand why people think that net neutrality is a better solution than a (currently non-existant) federal policy to remove state and local regulations that created ISP oligopolies which limited internet freedom in the first place. You'd have to break up the oligopolies first, right?

by natch 9y ago

zionic 9y ago

While there is potentially an argument to me made that a hostile government could use this expanded power to "regulate" for some nefarious purpose, you have to actually go that far for it to be an argument. For example {hypothetical} "Net Neutrality gives alphabet-soup-agency a form of super-DMCA that I don't trust them to have"

abtinf 9y ago

It is unfortunate that your experiment of encouraging rebuttal didn't work out. When it comes to this issue, emotion and politics trump reason.

natch 9y ago
If you really think that's how it is, I encourage you to learn more about what net neutrality is before commenting further on it.
ionised 9y ago
When it comes to this issue, emotion and politics trump reason. Right. You're describing your own view there.

nunyabuizness 9y ago

> net neutrality is a case where regulation is stopping really bad things from happening I'm fairly anti-regulation and I from what I understand, net neutrality is a (federal) regulatory solution to a problem created by explicitly by (state + local) regulation. I honestly don't understand why people think that net neutrality is a better solution than a (currently non-existant) federal policy to remove state and local regulations that created ISP oligopolies which limited internet freedom in the first place.

Natanael_L 9y ago
Unless you can guarantee everybody will have access to multiple ISP:s (effectively impossible unless the backbone owners for your area offers open access to their network), net neutrality is pretty much necessary to guarantee that people can communicate freely.
literallycancer 9y ago
You don't have regulation forcing companies to share infrastructure with competitors in the US? Like the electrical grid or water pipes? Building things from scratch to compete with an established competitor at that scale is nearly impossible, you'd never see any new players entering the market if they had to build a new grid. Why is net neutrality different? >I honestly don't understand why people think that net neutrality is a better solution than a (currently non-existant) federal policy to remove state and local regulations that created ISP oligopolies which limited internet freedom in the first place. You'd have to break up the oligopolies first, right?