3 ms·
The problem with the current net neutrality debate is that it seems to stop at layer 3 of the ISO stack. There's no reason why we should have dozens of incompat
by wang_li 9y ago
The problem with the current net neutrality debate is that it seems to stop at layer 3 of the ISO stack. There's no reason why we should have dozens of incompatible video calling apps, why media streaming only works with a particular vendor's application.
Not to mention that many of the big players in silicon valley like to jump back and forth over the line of "is a provider" / "is not a provider". Twitter and Google and Facebook like to police the content on their systems, which is their right, but at the same time they like to hold up the DMCA safe harbor provision anytime someone finds copyrighted material on their networks. They have no problem banning unpopular parties from their networks while simultaneously profiting from clear copyright violations.
We should insist that net neutrality extend all the way to layer 7.
- karmelapple 9y agoFocusing on even getting it to that point is important, though. I'd suggest let's focus our efforts on getting some bit of Net Neutrality written into law (not just a guideline by the FCC) to at least protect certain things, then move to improve that law over time. Let's not sacrifice the good for the perfect.
- s73ver_ 9y agoMaybe, but it would be absolute folly to allow neutrality at layer 3 to be lost just to prove a point.
- zaroth 9y agoWait, what? You think government regulation should dictate how I let competitors access my L7 application servers to host their own content in the name of "neutrality"? I think I must be misunderstanding what you mean. How could a "neutrality" argument possibly apply to my proprietary application stack?
- isostatic 9y agoThat's fine if you want to operate a proprietary platform, however you should be held liable for what your users do with it. Facebook etc want the control of a private operator but the protection of a common service, which seems wrong.
- Terr_ 9y agoTBF, it's called network-neutrality, not data-and-application-neutrality. The latter isn't something traditional we're about to lose, but a novel goal for the future which is qualitatively and quantitatively different.
- smnrchrds 9y agoI remember having to explain to my younger sibling that "yes, you can send an email to a Yahoo address from your Gmail account. No, seriously, try it, I am not kidding." They are much younger than I am and they grew up in a world of walled gardens. To them, that's just the way things are and have always been. It's a shame.
- isostatic 9y agoWhen I was a kid, compuserve, aol, even msn later were all walled gardens. It was shocking when compuserve opened up gateways to the fledging web. The open network existed as "normal" for maybe a decade.
- jrnichols 9y agoi've had similar instances, but it was solely because many kids nowadays have no idea that there is a such a thing as email that is not "Gmail." Google has done such a sneaky job of spreading into education that kids know nothing that isn't Google. They know Google Drive, YouTube, Gmail, Chrome, and are confused when something else is in front of them. Google has become the walled garden that they pretend they aren't.
- tbabb 9y agoIt sounds like you are suggesting we make forum moderation illegal. That's like the difference between saying who's allowed on the sidewalk vs. saying who's allowed in the bar. EDIT: In case it's not clear, this comment is pro-net neutrality. I am pointing out the absurdity of disallowing site owners from curating their own content.