6 ms·

Startups existed just fine before 2015 (when the repealed regulation was passed.) So why this now? I loathe Comcast & AT&T as much as any other person, but it

by g09980 9y ago

Startups existed just fine before 2015 (when the repealed regulation was passed.) So why this now? I loathe Comcast & AT&T as much as any other person, but it seems like this issue has been sensationalized/editorialized so that any sensible commentary is drowned out. Edit: Well, this is an unpopular opinion (-2 points currently).

auspex 9y ago
This is a common argument with a major flaw. The reason NN was put in place is because Verizon tried to do what the companies want to do today. It's like saying the stock market was fine before the SEC banned insider trading. Yes, it was fine until some people started doing things that affect a large number of people in a negative or un fair way.
decebalus1 9y ago
Stop spreading disinformation, the regulations from 2015 and reclassification is just legislative juggling. Net neutrality was an issue from way before that (1). See numerous violations (2) and try to assert what changes does a startup have if they are in direct competition with a service which the ISP offers along with internet. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S... (2) https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio... People don't downvote you because they don't agree with your 'opinion', it's just that you're wrong. What you wrote is not an opinion, it's just disinformation.
- g09980 9y ago
  That source (Free Press) is an advocacy organization, so it by definition presents one side of a story. The pros without the cons, or something. I'm in the boat where I trust companies more than I trust the government, and believe that the original NN regulation was a path for the government to start actively censoring the internet, China-style. Want to see more debate (even if devil's advocate) along these lines instead of "they are killing startups" and "they are taking away our free YouTube."
  - decebalus1 9y ago
    > That source (Free Press) is an advocacy organization, so it by definition presents one side of a story. The pros without the cons, or something. That doesn't make it wrong. You can research each instance and find it documented in other sources too. > I'm in the boat where I trust companies more than I trust the government, and believe that the original NN regulation was a path for the government to start actively censoring the internet, China-style. This belief is flawed or misdirected for the following reasons: 1. Revolving door policy, lobbying and elimination of PAC contribution limits for corporations has unified the two and for all intents and purposes there is absolutely no difference between government and companies when it comes to who should be trusted. 2. the government doesn't need to censor the internet anymore. For years, deliberate propaganda using sockpuppets has been proven way more effective in influencing public opinion than straight-up censorship, especially in western societies. Also, if you're looking at censorship, look no further than companies with no backbone but with a lot of greed, not the government (1) (2) (3). 3. Censorship is a different matter. I hate it when people bring it up to oppose NN as it diverts the conversation. NN is about regulating a public utility and limiting monolopies, not necessarily free speech or free internet (whatever the hell that means as I don't know anymore after the republicans use it to define exactly the opposite of what the common understanding would be). Regardless of regulation, referring to censorship, look at Comcast passing the buck (4): "We do not and will not block, throttle, or discriminate against lawful content. " Who decides what's lawful or not? If the Government deems far-left/right or any other website opposing something which the government/military-industrial complex deems as unlawful, how does that work with\without net neutrality rules? Just look at what happened to Wikileaks. Overnight, censorship and corporate economic boycott was in full effect, regardless of laws or regulations. (1) http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/24/technology/business/cloudflare-ceo-interview-daily-stormer/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/24/technology/business/cloudfla... (2) http://blog.dilbert.com/2016/10/03/the-week-i-became-a-target/ http://blog.dilbert.com/2016/10/03/the-week-i-became-a-targe... (3) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/opinion/sunday/the-blog-that-disappeared.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/opinion/sunday/the-blog-t... (4) https://twitter.com/comcast/status/933394263689351175?lang=en https://twitter.com/comcast/status/933394263689351175?lang=e...
    - 9y ago

by g09980 9y ago

auspex 9y ago

This is a common argument with a major flaw. The reason NN was put in place is because Verizon tried to do what the companies want to do today. It's like saying the stock market was fine before the SEC banned insider trading. Yes, it was fine until some people started doing things that affect a large number of people in a negative or un fair way.

decebalus1 9y ago

Stop spreading disinformation, the regulations from 2015 and reclassification is just legislative juggling. Net neutrality was an issue from way before that (1). See numerous violations (2) and try to assert what changes does a startup have if they are in direct competition with a service which the ISP offers along with internet. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S... (2) https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio... People don't downvote you because they don't agree with your 'opinion', it's just that you're wrong. What you wrote is not an opinion, it's just disinformation.

g09980 9y ago
That source (Free Press) is an advocacy organization, so it by definition presents one side of a story. The pros without the cons, or something. I'm in the boat where I trust companies more than I trust the government, and believe that the original NN regulation was a path for the government to start actively censoring the internet, China-style. Want to see more debate (even if devil's advocate) along these lines instead of "they are killing startups" and "they are taking away our free YouTube."
- decebalus1 9y ago
  > That source (Free Press) is an advocacy organization, so it by definition presents one side of a story. The pros without the cons, or something. That doesn't make it wrong. You can research each instance and find it documented in other sources too. > I'm in the boat where I trust companies more than I trust the government, and believe that the original NN regulation was a path for the government to start actively censoring the internet, China-style. This belief is flawed or misdirected for the following reasons: 1. Revolving door policy, lobbying and elimination of PAC contribution limits for corporations has unified the two and for all intents and purposes there is absolutely no difference between government and companies when it comes to who should be trusted. 2. the government doesn't need to censor the internet anymore. For years, deliberate propaganda using sockpuppets has been proven way more effective in influencing public opinion than straight-up censorship, especially in western societies. Also, if you're looking at censorship, look no further than companies with no backbone but with a lot of greed, not the government (1) (2) (3). 3. Censorship is a different matter. I hate it when people bring it up to oppose NN as it diverts the conversation. NN is about regulating a public utility and limiting monolopies, not necessarily free speech or free internet (whatever the hell that means as I don't know anymore after the republicans use it to define exactly the opposite of what the common understanding would be). Regardless of regulation, referring to censorship, look at Comcast passing the buck (4): "We do not and will not block, throttle, or discriminate against lawful content. " Who decides what's lawful or not? If the Government deems far-left/right or any other website opposing something which the government/military-industrial complex deems as unlawful, how does that work with\without net neutrality rules? Just look at what happened to Wikileaks. Overnight, censorship and corporate economic boycott was in full effect, regardless of laws or regulations. (1) http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/24/technology/business/cloudflare-ceo-interview-daily-stormer/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/24/technology/business/cloudfla... (2) http://blog.dilbert.com/2016/10/03/the-week-i-became-a-target/ http://blog.dilbert.com/2016/10/03/the-week-i-became-a-targe... (3) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/opinion/sunday/the-blog-that-disappeared.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/opinion/sunday/the-blog-t... (4) https://twitter.com/comcast/status/933394263689351175?lang=en https://twitter.com/comcast/status/933394263689351175?lang=e...
  - 9y ago