4 ms·

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 boa

by 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...
- decebalus1 9y ago
  I forgot one thing. I would definitely be in favor of no regulation what-so-ever on the internet, but only in the context of a healthy ISP ecosystem. I get where you're coming from with your opinion, I really do. What I'm not in favor is giving an existing oligopoly (which came to power mainly due to point 1. in my previous post) an unbalanced ratio of power over its relationship with the consumer (I include here end-users such as us and small/large companies which leverage internet access to sell their services) on the premise of the 'free market' and the promise that corporations won't do any harm. I don't trust that at all. Historically, Verizon and AT&T haven't lived up even to their commitments which were made when corporate mergers were approved. Why should I trust that they will not do unethical market practices with the nuclear bomb that the republicans put in their hands? Why won't the legislature eliminate FBAR reporting for individuals making less than $1M/yr on the promise that I won't move all my money out of the country to avoid taxes? I promise I won't do it but if you catch me, there will be no legal repercussions, right? I would call this the 'Financial freedom bill, reverting the draconian fiscal regulations for the common man' Me, particularly, I was stuck with Comcast as my only option for about 5 years (couple years ago, now I have 2 ISP to choose from). They jacked up my prices for no reason and there was nothing I could do. Absolutely nothing. Why should I trust them now to NOT throttle my content or make me pay extra now that they legally can do whatever they want? Doing so will be cataloged as a 'free market' practice now and if I don't agree, I should change carriers, right? Change it to the other member of the same lobbying group which made this deregulation possible which will in turn throttle content.

by g09980 9y ago

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...

decebalus1 9y ago
I forgot one thing. I would definitely be in favor of no regulation what-so-ever on the internet, but only in the context of a healthy ISP ecosystem. I get where you're coming from with your opinion, I really do. What I'm not in favor is giving an existing oligopoly (which came to power mainly due to point 1. in my previous post) an unbalanced ratio of power over its relationship with the consumer (I include here end-users such as us and small/large companies which leverage internet access to sell their services) on the premise of the 'free market' and the promise that corporations won't do any harm. I don't trust that at all. Historically, Verizon and AT&T haven't lived up even to their commitments which were made when corporate mergers were approved. Why should I trust that they will not do unethical market practices with the nuclear bomb that the republicans put in their hands? Why won't the legislature eliminate FBAR reporting for individuals making less than $1M/yr on the promise that I won't move all my money out of the country to avoid taxes? I promise I won't do it but if you catch me, there will be no legal repercussions, right? I would call this the 'Financial freedom bill, reverting the draconian fiscal regulations for the common man' Me, particularly, I was stuck with Comcast as my only option for about 5 years (couple years ago, now I have 2 ISP to choose from). They jacked up my prices for no reason and there was nothing I could do. Absolutely nothing. Why should I trust them now to NOT throttle my content or make me pay extra now that they legally can do whatever they want? Doing so will be cataloged as a 'free market' practice now and if I don't agree, I should change carriers, right? Change it to the other member of the same lobbying group which made this deregulation possible which will in turn throttle content.