3 ms·

He doesn't make a valid point, though. He makes a completely orthogonal point. If you believe his point, that what Twitter is doing is bad, then how can you jus

He doesn't make a valid point, though. He makes a completely orthogonal point. If you believe his point, that what Twitter is doing is bad, then how can you justify expanding the ability to do that to other, unavoidable actors? If I don't like what Twitter is doing, I can choose to instead go to Gab or Mastodon or even just start my own blog. If Cox decides to get in on the censoring game, and I don't like what they're doing, I can't do a thing about it.

rdtsc 9y ago
> If Cox decides to get in on the censoring game, and I don't like what they're doing, I can't do a thing about it. Agree, that's the main issue. If you could choose between 3 ISPs then the one with less censorship and throttling would win and others would be "squashed" by the market. There would be no need for net neutrality rules. But in some areas there is just one provider so nothing can be done. And it's not a new thing, it's been years for the market to grow and develop, but it hasn't. > If Cox decides to get in on the censoring game, and I don't like what they're doing, I can't do a thing about it. It's a good point, however practically they have no financial incentive to censor based on content. Yeah if could one day, so you're at their mercy, but so far their censorship has been around extorting higher fees either from you or from services you connect to (Netflix, Google, Facebook etc). Verizon for example throttled my Youtube and Netflix even as I was paying a premium for high tier "FiOS" or whatever it was called package. Google, Twitter, Facebook on the other has been engaged in a more dangerous censorship. We saw the story yesterday about FB squashing posts from Romanian protest organizers. So in that respect it is closer to the classic silencing and squashing of free speech. Calling them out and taking a jab at them doesn't seem terrible. It won't save net neutrality at this point but if it forced or embarrassed those companies to reduce their censorship it seems worth it.

rdtsc 9y ago

> If Cox decides to get in on the censoring game, and I don't like what they're doing, I can't do a thing about it. Agree, that's the main issue. If you could choose between 3 ISPs then the one with less censorship and throttling would win and others would be "squashed" by the market. There would be no need for net neutrality rules. But in some areas there is just one provider so nothing can be done. And it's not a new thing, it's been years for the market to grow and develop, but it hasn't. > If Cox decides to get in on the censoring game, and I don't like what they're doing, I can't do a thing about it. It's a good point, however practically they have no financial incentive to censor based on content. Yeah if could one day, so you're at their mercy, but so far their censorship has been around extorting higher fees either from you or from services you connect to (Netflix, Google, Facebook etc). Verizon for example throttled my Youtube and Netflix even as I was paying a premium for high tier "FiOS" or whatever it was called package. Google, Twitter, Facebook on the other has been engaged in a more dangerous censorship. We saw the story yesterday about FB squashing posts from Romanian protest organizers. So in that respect it is closer to the classic silencing and squashing of free speech. Calling them out and taking a jab at them doesn't seem terrible. It won't save net neutrality at this point but if it forced or embarrassed those companies to reduce their censorship it seems worth it.