3 ms·

TR busted the trusts all those years ago, and contrary to popular belief, our plutocrats were spared the guillotine. A few decades later we got Glass-Steagall,

TR busted the trusts all those years ago, and contrary to popular belief, our plutocrats were spared the guillotine. A few decades later we got Glass-Steagall, then the New Deal, yet somehow capitalism managed to survive. Her premise that inaction in the face of immense private, unelected, and unaccountable power is preferable to government intervention because a bunch of bureaucrats are going to turn us into a technologically stagnated eastern bloc is BS. Plain and simple.

twblalock 9y ago
She didn’t make that argument. Your interpretation of the article is uncharitable at best. If I were to interpret your comments as uncharitably as you have interpreted her article, I might think you were intentionally presenting a strawman version of her argument.
- jstewartmobile 9y ago
  I admittedly took a liberty with "eastern bloc". Aside from that, where did I do her wrong?
  - twblalock 9y ago
    Her point is that the true threat to net neutrality is large content providers and social networks, e.g. Google and Facebooks, not ISPs. That means net neutrality regulations aren’t going to solve the real problem, and also that solving the real problem is not straightforward because regulating content providers for neutrality is far more problematic than preventing ISPs from favoring some traffic over other traffic. Problematic enough that maybe governments could not do it well or fairly, and that such regulation might do more harm than good in the end.
    - jstewartmobile 9y ago
      Repealing ISP rules = good. Making new rules for tech companies = bad. Doing something = hard. Inaction. We've had laws, OLD laws, regulating things that are far more subjective than bandwidth (which is quantifiable), or even "free speech", yet civilization continues to hobble along...
    - gregmac 9y ago
      That is entirely redefining what net neutrality actually is, then arguing that because it's not 100% effective at solving the redefined problem, we shouldn't do it at all. Net neutrality is mostly about last mile. If your town has five restaurants but one has signed contracts so it's the only one that serves your favorite type of beer, you can argue that it's unfair and beer regulation is necessary, but that's an entirely different problem than if a cop stands at the end of your driveway and physically prevents you from leaving if you are even thinking of going to one of the other restaurants. Or maybe worse, only allows you to go to one of the other restaurants. It's not a stretch to say once the cop is there, they can also regulate what other stores you go to, what products you bring into your house, what delivery companies are allowed, or what type of car you can drive. Net neutrality mainly prevents that cop from standing there. It doesn't attempt to solve all possible ways your freedoms can be restricted, but it does try to tackle a pretty damn invasive and wide reaching one you otherwise can't do much about.

twblalock 9y ago

She didn’t make that argument. Your interpretation of the article is uncharitable at best. If I were to interpret your comments as uncharitably as you have interpreted her article, I might think you were intentionally presenting a strawman version of her argument.

jstewartmobile 9y ago
I admittedly took a liberty with "eastern bloc". Aside from that, where did I do her wrong?
- twblalock 9y ago
  Her point is that the true threat to net neutrality is large content providers and social networks, e.g. Google and Facebooks, not ISPs. That means net neutrality regulations aren’t going to solve the real problem, and also that solving the real problem is not straightforward because regulating content providers for neutrality is far more problematic than preventing ISPs from favoring some traffic over other traffic. Problematic enough that maybe governments could not do it well or fairly, and that such regulation might do more harm than good in the end.
  - jstewartmobile 9y ago
    Repealing ISP rules = good. Making new rules for tech companies = bad. Doing something = hard. Inaction. We've had laws, OLD laws, regulating things that are far more subjective than bandwidth (which is quantifiable), or even "free speech", yet civilization continues to hobble along...
  - gregmac 9y ago
    That is entirely redefining what net neutrality actually is, then arguing that because it's not 100% effective at solving the redefined problem, we shouldn't do it at all. Net neutrality is mostly about last mile. If your town has five restaurants but one has signed contracts so it's the only one that serves your favorite type of beer, you can argue that it's unfair and beer regulation is necessary, but that's an entirely different problem than if a cop stands at the end of your driveway and physically prevents you from leaving if you are even thinking of going to one of the other restaurants. Or maybe worse, only allows you to go to one of the other restaurants. It's not a stretch to say once the cop is there, they can also regulate what other stores you go to, what products you bring into your house, what delivery companies are allowed, or what type of car you can drive. Net neutrality mainly prevents that cop from standing there. It doesn't attempt to solve all possible ways your freedoms can be restricted, but it does try to tackle a pretty damn invasive and wide reaching one you otherwise can't do much about.