4 ms·

Google fans: You know how when Apple does something unsavory to further its own business interests, and Apple fans spin the most elaborate arguments to show ho

by gamble 16y ago

Google fans: You know how when Apple does something unsavory to further its own business interests, and Apple fans spin the most elaborate arguments to show how Apple doing what's best for Apple is actually in everyone's interest? This is your chance to be different.

houseabsolute 16y ago
What if I'm not a Google fan but still don't think it's that big of a deal?
invisible 16y ago
What about when people spin a story out-of-control and sensationalizes to the extreme? Or that's not an option...? People aren't even reporting on FACTS, they're making up shit to say Google doesn't support net neutrality and wants the net to be ruled by Google alone. That is total sensationalism and I cannot believe you are resorting to: "Oh, you guys are fans that cannot think because you don't ridicule Google."
- gamble 16y ago
  The only fact here is that Google very quickly switched from a whole-hearted support of net neutrality to, at best, a compromised position endorsed by Verizon, a company with a long history of outright opposition to net neutrality and one that has significant leverage over Google thanks to Droid sales. Their change of heart occurred very shortly after Android began to be perceived as a success and after rumors of a Verizon iPhone. Fundamentally, this is an issue of trust. The deal Google is proposing creates significant wiggle room for the landline carriers, and asks us to trust that the issue will be revisited for wireless carriers somewhere down the road, even though an entrenched discriminatory regime will be much more difficult to dislodge if it becomes a reality on the ground. There is a fairly strong net neutrality movement today, even without Google, an apparently sympathetic FCC, and a Democratic Congress capable of passing a net neutrality bill. There will not be a better opportunity to legislate net neutrality for years, given the likely results of the upcoming midterms. Google is asking us to trust them and wait, when waiting will almost certainly put the enemies of net neutrality into a stronger position. Personally, I don't see a lot of reason to trust Google on this issue. They are like a lifelong Republican who suddenly discovered the attraction of left-wing politics after losing his primary and joining the Democrats.
  - zarfle 16y ago
    What's the sympathetic FCC and the Democratic Congress accomplished towards Net Neutrality lately? "Congress rebukes FCC on Net neutrality rules" http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20005834-38.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20005834-38.html "In theory, most Democrats favor Net neutrality. But theory doesn't always mesh with political practice. Rank-and-file Dems are clamoring for Net neutrality about as much as Bush-era Republicans were clamoring for limited government: it's a valuable talking point, but of course there's no need to do anything hasty. (Besides, even in this anti-incumbent year, how many single-issue Net neutrality voters are there?) The last time there was a major rewrite of telecommunications laws, it took something like five years for Congress' internal mechanisms to spit out the Telecommunications Act of 1996. A push for national cable franchising legislation went on for years but died without a vote."
bad_user 16y ago
I am a Google fan, but I'm also taxing their mistakes ... and in this case I think they are right. I've never seen a piece of regulation done by government that actually worked, quite the contrary, because of government interventions many monopolies/oligopolies are possible. Only monopolies can act in anti-competitive / anti-consumer ways, and without them you wouldn't need regulation in the first place. Customers want to watch Youtube and contrary to popular belief, costumers aren't stupid ... they just sometime don't care enough ... but they will care once that video from Youtube can't be viewed in HD although they have an (advertised) 20 Mbps line ... and they'll also know whom to blame. And you know why, because everybody knows an information Maven that will explain to them why their current ISP sucks, and they also know Connectors that will spread this information to other people (yeah, it's called a viral effect through word-of-mouth ... in the real world; it's quite efficient ... the American revolution started that way ;)). This is the way the free market always worked ... and government regulation is just fixing the symptoms rather than the disease. As I've said in another thread regarding wireless Internet ... in my country there are not one, but 3 3G Internet providers ... all of them announcing new offers on a monthly basis. 2 of them have pre-pay options and to be honest I've never seen so much competition. So why the fuck should government step in and regulate that? You want to keep the Internet free? Then fucking work towards preventing monopolies.
ZeroGravitas 16y ago
Net neutrality has always been in Google's own best interest, which makes this storyline even weirder.

by gamble 16y ago

houseabsolute 16y ago

What if I'm not a Google fan but still don't think it's that big of a deal?

invisible 16y ago

What about when people spin a story out-of-control and sensationalizes to the extreme? Or that's not an option...? People aren't even reporting on FACTS, they're making up shit to say Google doesn't support net neutrality and wants the net to be ruled by Google alone. That is total sensationalism and I cannot believe you are resorting to: "Oh, you guys are fans that cannot think because you don't ridicule Google."

gamble 16y ago
The only fact here is that Google very quickly switched from a whole-hearted support of net neutrality to, at best, a compromised position endorsed by Verizon, a company with a long history of outright opposition to net neutrality and one that has significant leverage over Google thanks to Droid sales. Their change of heart occurred very shortly after Android began to be perceived as a success and after rumors of a Verizon iPhone. Fundamentally, this is an issue of trust. The deal Google is proposing creates significant wiggle room for the landline carriers, and asks us to trust that the issue will be revisited for wireless carriers somewhere down the road, even though an entrenched discriminatory regime will be much more difficult to dislodge if it becomes a reality on the ground. There is a fairly strong net neutrality movement today, even without Google, an apparently sympathetic FCC, and a Democratic Congress capable of passing a net neutrality bill. There will not be a better opportunity to legislate net neutrality for years, given the likely results of the upcoming midterms. Google is asking us to trust them and wait, when waiting will almost certainly put the enemies of net neutrality into a stronger position. Personally, I don't see a lot of reason to trust Google on this issue. They are like a lifelong Republican who suddenly discovered the attraction of left-wing politics after losing his primary and joining the Democrats.
- zarfle 16y ago
  What's the sympathetic FCC and the Democratic Congress accomplished towards Net Neutrality lately? "Congress rebukes FCC on Net neutrality rules" http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20005834-38.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20005834-38.html "In theory, most Democrats favor Net neutrality. But theory doesn't always mesh with political practice. Rank-and-file Dems are clamoring for Net neutrality about as much as Bush-era Republicans were clamoring for limited government: it's a valuable talking point, but of course there's no need to do anything hasty. (Besides, even in this anti-incumbent year, how many single-issue Net neutrality voters are there?) The last time there was a major rewrite of telecommunications laws, it took something like five years for Congress' internal mechanisms to spit out the Telecommunications Act of 1996. A push for national cable franchising legislation went on for years but died without a vote."

bad_user 16y ago

I am a Google fan, but I'm also taxing their mistakes ... and in this case I think they are right. I've never seen a piece of regulation done by government that actually worked, quite the contrary, because of government interventions many monopolies/oligopolies are possible. Only monopolies can act in anti-competitive / anti-consumer ways, and without them you wouldn't need regulation in the first place. Customers want to watch Youtube and contrary to popular belief, costumers aren't stupid ... they just sometime don't care enough ... but they will care once that video from Youtube can't be viewed in HD although they have an (advertised) 20 Mbps line ... and they'll also know whom to blame. And you know why, because everybody knows an information Maven that will explain to them why their current ISP sucks, and they also know Connectors that will spread this information to other people (yeah, it's called a viral effect through word-of-mouth ... in the real world; it's quite efficient ... the American revolution started that way ;)). This is the way the free market always worked ... and government regulation is just fixing the symptoms rather than the disease. As I've said in another thread regarding wireless Internet ... in my country there are not one, but 3 3G Internet providers ... all of them announcing new offers on a monthly basis. 2 of them have pre-pay options and to be honest I've never seen so much competition. So why the fuck should government step in and regulate that? You want to keep the Internet free? Then fucking work towards preventing monopolies.

ZeroGravitas 16y ago

Net neutrality has always been in Google's own best interest, which makes this storyline even weirder.