5 ms·

From my point of view, a curated internet would be much less noisy. I'd only be allowed to access to the content that I want to have access to. Reducing the am

by rlyshw 9y ago

From my point of view, a curated internet would be much less noisy. I'd only be allowed to access to the content that I want to have access to. Reducing the amount of useless and distracting information that I can see would increase my overall productivity. I realize I could just blacklist sites like reddit and youtube on my laptop, but when I have control over it, I'll just turn it off and browse anyway. If access came at a premium, I'd be much more selective of the information and content I consume through these distracting sites. I don't think ending Net Neutrality is the best way of filtering the noise, but I think it is one (naive) attempt at doing so.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> From my point of view, a curated internet would be much less noisy. I'd only be allowed to access to the content that I want to have access to. No, you'd only have access to the content that curator wanted you to have access to.
- rlyshw 9y ago
  Ok, but the curators would need to provide a suitably large range of content in order to stay competitive.
  - renko 9y ago
    They don't need to stay competitive because most areas of the country only have one option.
    - gordonyx 9y ago
      Nothing is less competitive than a government monopoly.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        If something is going to be uncompetitive in any case, you strip the power to leverage that for additional control from the uncompetitive thing. Government road networks face no competition, but that's virtually never an issue because no one is leveraging that monopoly to restrict competition elsewhere, not to charge rents beyond what it takes to maintain he road network (or even sufficient to that end.) Last mile connectivity is a natural monopoly, whether or not it is a government monopoly.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Ok, but the curators would need to provide a suitably large range of content in order to stay competitive. Assuming that there was robust competition or low barriers to entry so that new competitors could easily jump in, sure. But that's basically nothing like the US ISP market.

by rlyshw 9y ago

dragonwriter 9y ago

> From my point of view, a curated internet would be much less noisy. I'd only be allowed to access to the content that I want to have access to. No, you'd only have access to the content that curator wanted you to have access to.

rlyshw 9y ago
Ok, but the curators would need to provide a suitably large range of content in order to stay competitive.
- renko 9y ago
  They don't need to stay competitive because most areas of the country only have one option.
  - gordonyx 9y ago
    Nothing is less competitive than a government monopoly.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      If something is going to be uncompetitive in any case, you strip the power to leverage that for additional control from the uncompetitive thing. Government road networks face no competition, but that's virtually never an issue because no one is leveraging that monopoly to restrict competition elsewhere, not to charge rents beyond what it takes to maintain he road network (or even sufficient to that end.) Last mile connectivity is a natural monopoly, whether or not it is a government monopoly.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Ok, but the curators would need to provide a suitably large range of content in order to stay competitive. Assuming that there was robust competition or low barriers to entry so that new competitors could easily jump in, sure. But that's basically nothing like the US ISP market.