7 ms·

I find it funny that some people still see Net Neutrality as 'government controlling the internet'. They should take a look at FOSTA if they want to know what g

I find it funny that some people still see Net Neutrality as 'government controlling the internet'. They should take a look at FOSTA if they want to know what government controlling the internet really looks like.

nercht12 8y ago
It is government controlling the internet. It's the extent and who that is different. In this case, it's only forcing a fair playing field. Kinda like highways being public vs. toll instead of telling you what cars you are and are not allowed to drive. I'd like a "free" internet, but I still have to admit it's going to cost someone else's "freedom".
- cdancette 8y ago
  So we can summarize saying it's customers freedom against ISP freedom.
  - nercht12 8y ago
    Yes
  - ianai 8y ago
    No, that implies companies have the same rights as individual people. They do not and should not as they don’t have the same legal constraints as people. There’s no human equivalent to many of the abilities enjoyed by corporations and corporations don’t die and cannot be imprisoned. They’re also able to raise funds in ways humans may not. The list goes on from there.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      If I ran an ISP without incorporating, should I be able to disregard net neutrality?
    - cdancette 8y ago
      What I said doesn't imply this at all. I'm just stating that there's a trade-off between the freedom of corporations and the freedom of the people (but different kind of freedoms, ofc)
      - ianai 8y ago
        I’m thinking it over.
    - nl 8y ago
      I think you are actually in agreement with the person you are replying to? They point out it is freedom of ISPS vs natural people, and you are pointing out that considering ISP rights the same as people is bad.
  - fallingfrog 8y ago
    The only freedom that nobody should have is the freedom to take away somebody else's freedom.
    - cdancette 8y ago
      "my freedom ends where yours begins"
- ryanpcmcquen 8y ago
  Controlling ISPs !== controlling the internet.
  - adventured 8y ago
    You're contradicting everything the pro net neutrality people have said for years, namely that without it the ISPs will control the Internet. Part of the premise is that the ISPs do in fact have control over the Internet by acting as the monopoly access point, and that they can do various terrible things accordingly. If you control the ISPs - ie how almost all Americans access the Internet - you inherently do control the Internet.
chimeracoder 8y ago
> They should take a look at FOSTA if they want to know what government controlling the internet really looks like. Unfortunately, that's not a winning argument from a rhetorical perspective. Almost every single person in both the House and the Senate, of both parties, voted for FOSTA/SESTA. FOSTA and SESTA are truly abominable bills. They're arguably the most anti-gay bills passed at the federal level since DOMA in 1996. But telling people "net neutrality isn't about controlling the Internet, because it's not as bad as these other bills that received near-unanimous, bipartisan support" isn't going to win over any allies who weren't already in your camp on both issues in the first place.
- ryanpcmcquen 8y ago
  I made no mention of it 'not being as bad' as other bills. I stand by my statement. Net Neutrality is government regulating ISPs. ISPs are not the internet. And I think it could convert those in the anti camp. Some are against Net Neutrality because they see it as government control of the internet (it is not). They need to recognize that FOSTA is directly what they perceive Net Neutrality to be (at least in terms of results).
  - chimeracoder 8y ago
    > And I think it could convert those in the anti camp. Some are against Net Neutrality because they see it as government control of the internet (it is not). They need to recognize that FOSTA is directly what they perceive Net Neutrality to be (at least in terms of results). As someone who's fairly active around both issues, trust me when I say that all this will do is solidify their opposition to net neutrality, and in the worst case, strengthen their support of FOSTA/SESTA. No, it's not consistent. But it's also not a line of reasoning that will work with opponents of net neutrality. Politics isn't always cut and dry the way we might wish.
    - ryanpcmcquen 8y ago
      In my experience in discussing these issues with people who were pro-FOSTA, this argument has helped them realize that it is violating the first amendment, and an example of government controlling the internet. So I have to respectfully disagree with your conclusion.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

nercht12 8y ago

It is government controlling the internet. It's the extent and who that is different. In this case, it's only forcing a fair playing field. Kinda like highways being public vs. toll instead of telling you what cars you are and are not allowed to drive. I'd like a "free" internet, but I still have to admit it's going to cost someone else's "freedom".

cdancette 8y ago
So we can summarize saying it's customers freedom against ISP freedom.
- nercht12 8y ago
  Yes
- ianai 8y ago
  No, that implies companies have the same rights as individual people. They do not and should not as they don’t have the same legal constraints as people. There’s no human equivalent to many of the abilities enjoyed by corporations and corporations don’t die and cannot be imprisoned. They’re also able to raise funds in ways humans may not. The list goes on from there.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    If I ran an ISP without incorporating, should I be able to disregard net neutrality?
  - cdancette 8y ago
    What I said doesn't imply this at all. I'm just stating that there's a trade-off between the freedom of corporations and the freedom of the people (but different kind of freedoms, ofc)
    - ianai 8y ago
      I’m thinking it over.
  - nl 8y ago
    I think you are actually in agreement with the person you are replying to? They point out it is freedom of ISPS vs natural people, and you are pointing out that considering ISP rights the same as people is bad.
- fallingfrog 8y ago
  The only freedom that nobody should have is the freedom to take away somebody else's freedom.
  - cdancette 8y ago
    "my freedom ends where yours begins"
ryanpcmcquen 8y ago
Controlling ISPs !== controlling the internet.
- adventured 8y ago
  You're contradicting everything the pro net neutrality people have said for years, namely that without it the ISPs will control the Internet. Part of the premise is that the ISPs do in fact have control over the Internet by acting as the monopoly access point, and that they can do various terrible things accordingly. If you control the ISPs - ie how almost all Americans access the Internet - you inherently do control the Internet.

chimeracoder 8y ago

> They should take a look at FOSTA if they want to know what government controlling the internet really looks like. Unfortunately, that's not a winning argument from a rhetorical perspective. Almost every single person in both the House and the Senate, of both parties, voted for FOSTA/SESTA. FOSTA and SESTA are truly abominable bills. They're arguably the most anti-gay bills passed at the federal level since DOMA in 1996. But telling people "net neutrality isn't about controlling the Internet, because it's not as bad as these other bills that received near-unanimous, bipartisan support" isn't going to win over any allies who weren't already in your camp on both issues in the first place.

ryanpcmcquen 8y ago
I made no mention of it 'not being as bad' as other bills. I stand by my statement. Net Neutrality is government regulating ISPs. ISPs are not the internet. And I think it could convert those in the anti camp. Some are against Net Neutrality because they see it as government control of the internet (it is not). They need to recognize that FOSTA is directly what they perceive Net Neutrality to be (at least in terms of results).
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > And I think it could convert those in the anti camp. Some are against Net Neutrality because they see it as government control of the internet (it is not). They need to recognize that FOSTA is directly what they perceive Net Neutrality to be (at least in terms of results). As someone who's fairly active around both issues, trust me when I say that all this will do is solidify their opposition to net neutrality, and in the worst case, strengthen their support of FOSTA/SESTA. No, it's not consistent. But it's also not a line of reasoning that will work with opponents of net neutrality. Politics isn't always cut and dry the way we might wish.
  - ryanpcmcquen 8y ago
    In my experience in discussing these issues with people who were pro-FOSTA, this argument has helped them realize that it is violating the first amendment, and an example of government controlling the internet. So I have to respectfully disagree with your conclusion.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]