5 ms·

He spoke for an extended period, and this was one argument among many. Arguably, when Pai was speaking about Twitter, he was talking not about the net neutralit

He spoke for an extended period, and this was one argument among many. Arguably, when Pai was speaking about Twitter, he was talking not about the net neutrality issue, but about threats to free speech on the web. (That is, he was making a response to arguments from net-neutrality advocates that net-neut enables a freer and more open forum for political debate on the web.) To be honest, if I look back at my last 20 years on the internet, I have seen more colorable censorship from the Reddits/Googles/Twitters of the world than from the various satellite cos, ISPs, telcos, quagmiric microwave relay companies, and mobile phone networks I've used to get on the internet. Disclosure: I am on bd of Lincoln Network, which put together the event in D.C. where Pai spoke.

tonysdg 9y ago
> I have seen more colorable censorship from the Reddits/Googles/Twitters of the world Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ (Yes, I'm aware that it's not that simple an issue.)
- ng12 9y ago
  I really wish this comic weren't so widespread. There's the legal protection of Free Speech in the United States and then there's the concept of free speech. This comic intentionally blurs the two in order to bolster the arguments of people advocating for "the right kind" of censorship.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    It doesn't, though. There's also the concept of "free association," which is included in "free speech". Look at it this way: HN is a very heavily moderated board. There are lots of troll posts and spam posts that get removed, usually pretty quickly. Do you believe that's a good thing, or a bad thing?
  - tonysdg 9y ago
    If I'm being honest, I'm willing to buy that argument. You're right in that censorship of any type is dangerous -- it draws a line in the sand, and once there's a line it can always be moved to block viewpoints that the censor disagrees with. But true free speech isn't an option either -- it's well-established that someone falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded room should be held accountable if someone gets injured in the frenzy that follows. The implication there (as I see it) is you can be held accountable for speech that hurts others. So how then do you define "hurting others"? That's where I feel the real debate begins, and those who dislike Reddit/Facebook/others' actions dislike their definition of "hurting others".
H99189 9y ago
This is precisely what rubs me the wrong way about the current pitches for net neutrality and why you won't see the right budge anytime soon. NN is being painted as a censorship issue by the biggest censorship-happy organizations in SV. To date, the only threats to consumers have come in the form of possible throttling and not outright blocking of certain speech. The only precedent I know of regarding censorship of the net has been at the hands of Twitter, Google and Youtube, Reddit, and Facebook, who are happily deleting all the political content they feel like at the moment whether it's illegal activity being discussed or not. As my peer below stated, Comcast was caught disrupting P2P traffic which I hope gets addressed, but that's not how NN it's being sold and sensationalized today. Edit: Clarifications
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Except each of those companies has competition. Voat and Gab, among others, were born out of the idea that Reddit and Twitter were being unfair. And one had the ability to join one of those alternative platforms, even while still remaining a user of the original, without friction, largely because of having a neutral net. If we get ISPs offering "social media packages", what do you think the odds that Voat, Gab, or even Mastodon will be included? If you believe that what Reddit and Twitter are doing is wrong, then why on earth would a reasonable solution be to extend the ability to do more of that to actors that one cannot reasonably avoid? I have a grand total of 1 ISP to choose from. The vast, vast majority of Americans have 1 or 2 to choose from. If NN is revoked, and Cox (my ISP) decides they're going to act like Twitter, then I have exactly no recourse. Why do you believe that is the way to go?
  - H99189 9y ago
    I whole-heartedly agree that ISP's shouldn't be outright blocking anything. I'm Pro-Net Neutrality Net-whatever to keep the pipes open and unfettered by greedy corporations. I'm just pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of the recent campaigns talking about censorship as a possibility when the right has been getting attacked/censored by every big SV company in recent years. Now they're crying about possibility when they're engaged in the very act themselves. I guess they're right, they would know, so yeah i'm pro-NN.
csours 9y ago
That's exactly because people have treated the net like a common carrier. If the net is not a common carrier, you should expect to start seeing more censorship. And there have been problems with ISPs - Comcast silently disrupting P2P connections, etc.
jimbokun 9y ago
"To be honest, if I look back at my last 20 years on the internet, I have seen more colorable censorship from the Reddits/Googles/Twitters of the world than from the various satellite cos, ISPs, telcos, quagmiric microwave relay companies, and mobile phone networks I've used to get on the internet." Which is due to Net Neutrality! Take away Net Neutrality, and the ISPs etc. can also get in on the censorship game.
dsp1234 9y ago
I expect that if I send a letter to the editor of my newspaper, that they are free to edit out any cursing before putting it in their newspaper. I don't expect (or want) the post office to open my letter, read it, and decide to charge an increased fee because I mention it. I don't expect (or want) the post office to open the reply letter, and add an advertisement for the new government owned camping that just opened.
TYPE_FASTER 9y ago
> I have seen more colorable censorship from the Reddits/Googles/Twitters of the world than from the various satellite cos, ISPs, telcos As it should be! People have the freedom to use bandwidth to go to any site they like to. Hypocrisy of the highest order. "We like the free market, except when we do not agree with it."
- rdtsc 9y ago
  > People have the freedom to use bandwidth to go to any site they like to. Especially if they are already paying for it monthly. Google/Twitter/Etc can all at least say "you are not paying for this just mooching off of our infrastructure, don't whine when we delete your post".

tonysdg 9y ago

> I have seen more colorable censorship from the Reddits/Googles/Twitters of the world Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ (Yes, I'm aware that it's not that simple an issue.)

ng12 9y ago
I really wish this comic weren't so widespread. There's the legal protection of Free Speech in the United States and then there's the concept of free speech. This comic intentionally blurs the two in order to bolster the arguments of people advocating for "the right kind" of censorship.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  It doesn't, though. There's also the concept of "free association," which is included in "free speech". Look at it this way: HN is a very heavily moderated board. There are lots of troll posts and spam posts that get removed, usually pretty quickly. Do you believe that's a good thing, or a bad thing?
- tonysdg 9y ago
  If I'm being honest, I'm willing to buy that argument. You're right in that censorship of any type is dangerous -- it draws a line in the sand, and once there's a line it can always be moved to block viewpoints that the censor disagrees with. But true free speech isn't an option either -- it's well-established that someone falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded room should be held accountable if someone gets injured in the frenzy that follows. The implication there (as I see it) is you can be held accountable for speech that hurts others. So how then do you define "hurting others"? That's where I feel the real debate begins, and those who dislike Reddit/Facebook/others' actions dislike their definition of "hurting others".

H99189 9y ago

This is precisely what rubs me the wrong way about the current pitches for net neutrality and why you won't see the right budge anytime soon. NN is being painted as a censorship issue by the biggest censorship-happy organizations in SV. To date, the only threats to consumers have come in the form of possible throttling and not outright blocking of certain speech. The only precedent I know of regarding censorship of the net has been at the hands of Twitter, Google and Youtube, Reddit, and Facebook, who are happily deleting all the political content they feel like at the moment whether it's illegal activity being discussed or not. As my peer below stated, Comcast was caught disrupting P2P traffic which I hope gets addressed, but that's not how NN it's being sold and sensationalized today. Edit: Clarifications

s73ver_ 9y ago
Except each of those companies has competition. Voat and Gab, among others, were born out of the idea that Reddit and Twitter were being unfair. And one had the ability to join one of those alternative platforms, even while still remaining a user of the original, without friction, largely because of having a neutral net. If we get ISPs offering "social media packages", what do you think the odds that Voat, Gab, or even Mastodon will be included? If you believe that what Reddit and Twitter are doing is wrong, then why on earth would a reasonable solution be to extend the ability to do more of that to actors that one cannot reasonably avoid? I have a grand total of 1 ISP to choose from. The vast, vast majority of Americans have 1 or 2 to choose from. If NN is revoked, and Cox (my ISP) decides they're going to act like Twitter, then I have exactly no recourse. Why do you believe that is the way to go?
- H99189 9y ago
  I whole-heartedly agree that ISP's shouldn't be outright blocking anything. I'm Pro-Net Neutrality Net-whatever to keep the pipes open and unfettered by greedy corporations. I'm just pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of the recent campaigns talking about censorship as a possibility when the right has been getting attacked/censored by every big SV company in recent years. Now they're crying about possibility when they're engaged in the very act themselves. I guess they're right, they would know, so yeah i'm pro-NN.

csours 9y ago

That's exactly because people have treated the net like a common carrier. If the net is not a common carrier, you should expect to start seeing more censorship. And there have been problems with ISPs - Comcast silently disrupting P2P connections, etc.

jimbokun 9y ago

"To be honest, if I look back at my last 20 years on the internet, I have seen more colorable censorship from the Reddits/Googles/Twitters of the world than from the various satellite cos, ISPs, telcos, quagmiric microwave relay companies, and mobile phone networks I've used to get on the internet." Which is due to Net Neutrality! Take away Net Neutrality, and the ISPs etc. can also get in on the censorship game.

dsp1234 9y ago

I expect that if I send a letter to the editor of my newspaper, that they are free to edit out any cursing before putting it in their newspaper. I don't expect (or want) the post office to open my letter, read it, and decide to charge an increased fee because I mention it. I don't expect (or want) the post office to open the reply letter, and add an advertisement for the new government owned camping that just opened.

TYPE_FASTER 9y ago

> I have seen more colorable censorship from the Reddits/Googles/Twitters of the world than from the various satellite cos, ISPs, telcos As it should be! People have the freedom to use bandwidth to go to any site they like to. Hypocrisy of the highest order. "We like the free market, except when we do not agree with it."

rdtsc 9y ago
> People have the freedom to use bandwidth to go to any site they like to. Especially if they are already paying for it monthly. Google/Twitter/Etc can all at least say "you are not paying for this just mooching off of our infrastructure, don't whine when we delete your post".