15 ms·

Mozilla Fights for Net Neutrality This May (and Always)

• acheron 9y ago
  I still find it amazing that everything has degraded from the independent hacker culture of the 90s to continually begging for the government to control and regulate the Internet. If you ever posted “what the Internet could really use is for the US Congress to control it!” to Usenet or 1999 Slashdot you would have gotten flamed to a crisp. I mean, God knows I’m not going to use a Google product, so I’m sticking with Firefox anyway, but Mozilla certainly doesn’t do themselves any favors.
  • rootlocus 9y ago
    While I understand the sentiment, I don't believe the "independent hacker culture" faced the same issues we do today with regards to accessing the internet.
  • marricks 9y ago
    Without net neutrality ISP's can start prioritizing traffic and block others at their digression. With the massive consolidation of ISPs people don't have the option to punish companies for pulling such crap. Since many ISPs also have cable bundles they have an active interest to block services like Netflix. So... do you see the horrendous picture? Shouldn't we, as citizens, be able to tell ISPs they have to provide everything to us EQUALLY and not block content? The libertarian fantasy of 90s internet is dead and buried, repealing Net Neutrality is just pissing on it's grave.
  • sp332 9y ago
    There's not enough independent hacker spirit to cover the whole country in decent internet. The big ISPs depend on government-enforced franchise agreements and all the public money they can get to eliminate competition. That said, hackers are citizens too, and we can at least fight for protections from the ISPs that exist.
    • tinalumfoil 9y ago
      You can't separate NN from being government control of the internet. Even if the government made some bad deals with ISPs isn't really relevant. And you can try to do mental gymnastics to get around it, but what NN supporters basically say is, "the companies that provide our access the internet can't be trusted to act in the best interest of the consumer, so we need the government to tell them how to do their job". And the same thinking has led to GDPR and FOSTA, and to ignore that is to ignore a pretty sad change in people's opinion: the government is now more trustworthy than tech companies in protecting people's use of the internet. And maybe sadder is that this new thinking is probably warranted, but let's not make excuses. Warranted or not, NN needs to be called out for what it is.
      • sp332 9y ago
        The internet has always been controlled by the government from day 1. And while you may wish to work toward a more independent net, wishing won't make it so overnight. We've go to do what we can with what we've got. Local governments make deals with ISPs to get coverage to a certain % of the population in exchange for exclusivity. Adding NN to the deal is just negotiating terms in an existing agreement. If we had a free-r market or some competition that might be a better way to get what we want, but we don't.
        • briandear 9y ago
          > If we had a freeR market or some competition that might be a better way to get what we want, but we don't. So why aren’t we fighting for that? My problem with NN is not the idea, but the pro-government politics of those so loudly supporting it. I trust free markets far more than I trust governments. If Nancy Pelosi or Maxine Waters were in charge of American internet — I find that pretty horrifying.
          • zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
            > So why aren’t we fighting for that? Because it is an inherently unstable equilibrium. Having two communication networks (of the same level of service, so this does not apply to adding a next-generation network with far higher bandwidth than the exiting network) is as economically sensible as having two power grids or two competing sewer pipes: It necessarily almost doubles the costs (because what dominates the costs is laying the cables, not buying the uplink). A link that is unused because the house is using the competitor's network still has nearly the same costs for the network owner as if the house were using their network. Which means the best strategy for the established network is to undercut the new competitor in order to kill it. The marginal costs of connecting a customer are minimal, while losing too many customers to the competition would allow them to do the same thing to you. That's why people generally wouldn't invest in such a network in the first place. Competition works at the backbone level, as there is enough traffic overall to fill the pipes of multiple competitors. But last-mile networks consist of links that are either used and paid for, or unused with no option to sell the capacity to somebody else, so there is a natural tendency towards a monopoly (which is also in a way in the interest of the customer: Building two networks necessarily doubles the cost, which ultimately the customers have to pay for). Also, they are in charge of the American internet anyway. One law regulating some aspect of the internet does not in any way change how much power people have over some other aspect. If people can make a law banning hacker news, they can do so without NN regulation existing beforehand.
  • wwweston 9y ago
    > continually begging for the government to control and regulate the Internet Some of what government does is formalize things people come up with on their own and provide various institutions for reinforcing and administering those things. Property itself, for example. The relevant policy proposals where net neutrality is concerned mostly formalize the operating considerations that the "independent hacker culture of the 90s" came up with. When some private stewards of net infrastructure defect from those considerations to plans that have significant drawbacks and no plausible benefits beyond profit margins, it seems reasonable to trust institutions that are accountable to the public in a different way. "Government control" also doesn't seem like a particularly apt characterization of net neutrality policy, but who knows, maybe you also characterize the FDA as government control of what you eat and assault laws as government control of your actions.
  • contravariant 9y ago
    I suppose asking for laws to prevent people from controlling and regulating the internet is technically asking the government for more control and regulations, but that's a rather weird way of putting it.
    • ttoinou 9y ago
      What if those laws reinforce the power of bad corporations it was supposed to crush down ? Oops
      • contravariant 9y ago
        What if the absence of those laws reinforces the power of bad corporations it was supposed to crush down ? Oops
      • hinkley 9y ago
        If you are talking about regulatory capture, I’d need some concrete examples of how you think this constitutes RC. Complex laws around data recording and reporting might count as RC because of the resources involved (S-O for example). But net neutrality? Not seeing it.
  • boomboomsubban 9y ago
    It's almost like Mozilla tried the whole "no regulation" thing, only to find themselves crushed under the boot of an ultra rich competitor.
    • ttoinou 9y ago
      Then they need to find a better business model
      • AndrewDucker 9y ago
        Not everything needs to be a business. Some things can be a public good.
        • ttoinou 9y ago
          Not everything needs to be a business The Mozilla team is supposed to work without getting anything exchanged from users of their work ? Some things can be a public good. Businesses and providing public goods are not opposed
      • boomboomsubban 9y ago
        What business model would you suggest against Microsoft funding their product without expectation of making a profit?
        • reitanqild 8y ago
          And Google advertising their browser in the world's most lucrative spot, one that others cannot even bid for, the one on Google's front page?
  • forapurpose 9y ago
    > independent hacker culture Independent hackers need net neutrality; otherwise access to their innovations and startups will be limited, and their access to the Internet from which they get ideas, inspiration, and collaboration, will also be limited. I wonder how that spirit would survive if people only had access to major commercial websites. EDIT: Imagine the FOSS project with no budget to buy access, and any project that challenges the status quo (political, corporate, etc.) and is given no or minimal access. Where would hacker culture and the world be without those projects? I agree that it's a loss that we have to turn to government, but it's better than no net neutrality at all. Net neutrality used to be accomplished by cooperation, good faith, and maybe even enlightened self-interest (something U.S. corporations often lack). But the stakes on the Internet are now in the trillions of dollars and (long ago) it has attracted the greedy and power-hungry, who are not going to cooperate and act in good faith. That's why democratic government exists, to give that power to ordinary citizens, distributed fairly via the vote. At least that's the theory in some places: all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed > begging for the government to control and regulate That would be, desiring all citizens to control and regulate via their representatives, rather than having a few powerful citizens make the decisions on their own.
    • erikpukinskis 9y ago
      Hackers don’t need anything, that’s the point. Hackers find a way.
      • bhhaskin 9y ago
        Hackers might find away, but regular users do not.
        • tzahola 9y ago
          Good. Regular users ruined the Internet.
  • craftyguy 9y ago
    Well we have two choices: 1) government regulation, or 2) ISP regulation. We are on track for #2 thanks to ajit.
    • eurleif 9y ago
      You're confused. ISPs aren't regulators. They're incapable of regulating anything.
      • craftyguy 9y ago
        They definitely are capable of regulating traffic to/from you, based on its content and source/destination, and charging you differently based on how much regulation you want to endure.
        • eurleif 9y ago
          My ISP is capable of determining the services it offers to me, its customer. Your ISP is capable of determining the services it offers to you, its customer. No ISP is capable of mandating behavior from third parties who haven't chosen to engage in an economic exchange with it, meaning that no ISP is capable of regulation.
          • zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
            My country is capable of determining the services it offers me, its citizen. Your country is capable of determining the services it offers to you, its citizen. No country is capable of mandating behavior from third parties who haven't chosen to engage in a citizenship relationship with it, meaning that no country is capable of regulation.
            • theyinwhy 9y ago
              If you are an US-american I would like to point out your president just regulated how other companies, citizens and countries have to interact with Iran.
  • not_kurt_godel 9y ago
    It's hard for me to imagine this comment having been made in good faith. Do you have any credible affirmative proposal/suggestion to preserve the essential qualities of the Internet that government-mandated net neutrality achieves, or are you being willfully ignorant and myopic? When "independent hacker culture" finds a way to fund an 'independent' alternative national/global Internet infrastructure to the tune of hundreds of billions (trillion(s)?) of dollars, please do let me know. (Perhaps you've forgotten or never realized that that the Usenet/Slashdot of old you so wistfully refer to would never have even existed without ARPANET, a government-funded project.)
    • ttoinou 9y ago
      Do you have any credible affirmative proposal/suggestion Freer markets
      • KozmoNau7 9y ago
        Isn't that always the parroted "solution"? The current free market situation has created monopolies in many areas. How would you propose that "freer markets" would solve this? What we are seeing now is that people literally have to build their own non-profit mesh networks (as in NYC), just to get around the monopolies. If there was actual competition, that would have been necessary.
        • ttoinou 9y ago
          The current free market situation has created monopolies in many areas Such as ?
          • KozmoNau7 9y ago
            Countless cities and towns where there is only one ISP, or a duopoly in cahoots to keep prices high and service low, and freezing competitors such as Google Fiber out of the market. This isn't exactly new information, if you haven't noticed the problem by now, you must have been living under a rock. There are hundreds of credible reports and articles about this problem.
  • Fnoord 9y ago
    What I find amazing is that there are still people on this planet who oppose anything a government does, so they end up at the perils of corporations. I guess, according to you, GDPR is also a Bad Thing (tm)? Hint: it is a response to an industry which failed to regulate itself. When corporations cannot manage themselves, the government must interact by rule of law. An example of that is the sale of frequencies such as 4G. Or the prohibition of usage of certain frequencies because the government uses them for military purposes. You may agree or disagree with some of these, but they serve a purpose which in the end can be deducted to being useful for the people (ie. the military, in the end, serves the purpose to protect the people). If the government protects the interest of the [all] the people, equally, which they do in the case of net neutrality then the government uses its vast power to keep the corporations on a leash so that [all] the people can benefit. That is not anarchism, true, because the government uses its authority against very powerful monopolies/duopolies or other power vacuums with commercial interests. It is akin to the old GPL vs BSDL debate. And if you had that debate on Usenet or Slashdot there was no consensus precisely because there's the camp who believes in an authority and the anarchistic one.
    • RaleyField 9y ago
      > Hint: it is a response to an industry which failed to regulate itself. Hint: maybe stop being condescending. Also, I'm from EU and I'm split on GDPR. On one side I acknowledge its benefits and where it's coming from (the industry is known for highly morally dubious practices), on the other hand I don't agree on principle with the implication that users don't/can't have free will to enter into (however unfair) contracts these companies wish to use.
      • Fnoord 9y ago
        > on the other hand I don't agree on principle with the implication that users don't/can't have free will to enter into (however unfair) contracts these companies wish to use. In a capitalist society such apathy leads to a survival of the fittest. I can give many examples of contracts which would be unfair. For example, a minor cannot consent to a contract because they're a minor. That is fair to protect minors (at age of ~20 a person is physically an adult and around ~25 the brain is fully grown). I can apply your logic "on principle" there as well. Principles like these lack nuance which realistic situations demand because they are not black and white.
  • AsyncAwait 9y ago
    Capitalism only works because of regulation, otherwise you'd have a society resembling a dystopian novel. In the 90s, there were many small ISPs, who were themselves run by enthusiast, so net neutrality was sort of implicitly preserved. In an age where many don't have a second choice for an ISP, net neutrality seems like the only way to at least somewhat preserve an equal playing field on the internet. If you have a better solution, I want to hear it. EDIT: Also, this whole U.S. right-leaning libertarian, (assumed based on your comment), thing of not wanting to involve the government in anything ever is so strange to me - you rely on them every day to enforce your property rights, ensure you have clean water in your tap etc. I understand that in many ways it can be very dysfunctional, but you have to evaluate on a case by case basis. Involvement in foreign military interventions, most would agree is pretty bad, firefighters are very good, so are roads etc. Ultimately, if we accept that the government has a monopoly on the use of force, then we must also see that if something positive is to be destroyed by the 'free' market, then we must redirect that government monopoly to enforce that that doesn't happen.
    • ttoinou 9y ago
      In an age where many don't have a second choice for an ISP Where ? You have trouble in the US about that but in Europe we have plenty of competition
      • briandear 9y ago
        Please stop saying “Europe has plenty of competition.” I am in France and have exactly 1 ISP where I live. Not everyone in Europe is in a big city. And even in big cities, not every ISP is available at your house even though they advertise that they are in the area.
        • ttoinou 9y ago
          I'm in France countryside too and we have a lot of different ISP
          • 9y ago
  • devnonymous 9y ago
    I don't know if you are intentionally trolling but I'll bite. Independent hacker culture is the exact thing at risk here without government intervention. Else, you'll end up with the fragmented Verizon hacker culture and the Comcast hacker culture and the... Goddess forbid Google / Facebook / Amazon hacker culture, each with its own non-independent thought. As an aside, Why are regulations that prevent bad actors from damaging society, thought of as unnecessary control in the US (see the other big ___ control issue)?
    • briandear 9y ago
      Because regulations that “prevent” bad actors actually have unintended consequences that the big-government people never seem to grasp. And free markets are far more powerful and adapt far more quickly than regulation — while preserving freedom for people to make their own choices. Certain European governments in the past century made regulations to “protect” society — and that resulted in millions of people killed or displaced. China’s Firewall is design to protect society against “bad actors,” and it instead suppresses the free speech of an entire nation. “Bad Actors” to you are innovators, hackers and freedoms fighters to someone else. Trust in government is the stupidest thing a society can ever do. We need governments for sure, but it should be a government with extensive limits to their power and it should be viewed with an attitude of suspicion. But, it seems like people instead are relying upon government to be replacements for parents instead.
      • KozmoNau7 9y ago
        >"free markets are far more powerful and adapt far more quickly than regulation — while preserving freedom for people to make their own choices." That is absolute nonsense, especially for last-mile services, such as electricity, water, sewage, cable and internet. Nobody is going to dig redundant infrastructure, because the entrenched monopoly will simply freeze out any new competitors. It even happened to Google Fiber, despite their gigantic moneybags and public support. There is no choice when an entrenched monopoly can eliminate all competitors, thanks to the monopoly position. Free markets are not the solution to every problem, or even to most problems.
      • 8y ago
  • simion314 9y ago
    If I pirate your software, or use your patents,trademarks, copyrights then the companies,startups will appeal to government to put me in place instead of appealing to free market. So maybe some rules,laws are needed, just that the ones you do not agree are bad and the ones you agree with are essential. Didn't you hear in school a story where some guys went to live in a forest and they agreed to have no rules, then some started to do some bad things and they started added a few rules, then more rules because there were needed to prevent bad things, in the end they got similar rules as in the place where they started.
    • ttoinou 9y ago
      If I pirate your software, or use your patents,trademarks, copyrights then the companies,startups will appeal to government to put me in place instead of appealing to free market. Depends on the jurisdiction of your his company and yours. It might well happen that Asian companies are stealing our technologies and we let them do that, and let our fellow citizens buy their cheap products. It's all about voluntarily exchange, and as long as governments impose monopolies on usage of force and on judicial systems you are bound to rely on the governments to protect your so-called intellectual property rights. I doubt there were IP rights back in the days for hammer, wheels, farming tools etc..
      • simion314 9y ago
        My point was addressed in special for business type people, startups people, they complain that regulation affects their ability to innovate so government is bad but on the other hand the government should do even more to protect them from pirates or China or emigrants. Same person wants 2 contradictory things but there is always a rationalization. The free market has it's benefits but you always need some regulation so it stays free and balanced, otherwise you can get in a not that free market situation (and you can't always blame the government because of missing competition) So have a free market, but keep the eye out, if an monopoly appears break it, if FB tries to buy a small competitor, don't allow it, if company X is playing by the laws but it does damage to the society you change the law so the damage stops.
      • 9y ago
  • bo1024 9y ago
    Net neutrality is almost the opposite of government or anybody else "controlling" the internet. That's like opposing the Second Amendment as being government trying to control guns, since it's a federal law that has to do with guns.
• marricks 9y ago
  It's amazing how "politicized" net neutrality has become in the last 6 months. A year ago I couldn't find anyone honestly arguing to repeal it. Reddit, HN, everywhere I looked people (and companies) besides ISPs said repealing net neutrality was bad. In comes Trump and Ajit Pia, and suddenly there is another side, the "against government regulation". It's a talking point anyone who watches Fox News or reads the Wall Street journal can proudly stand behind. Now we have a side, Net Neutrality is a "liberal thing" and ISPs determining what content we can get at what speed is up for debate. Linked in is a horrible platform to get news on, and especially to read comments on, but the top comments for a NN article were all PRO-REPEAL, what a reversal! And looking at comments on HN & Reddit you can actually see people who fell for the bait and took it as a "government encroachment" argument. It's truly sad, this particular debate was beautiful for a bit because of the the political spectrum united behind it, that has crumbled to the perennial partisan debate of left vs right.
  • matte_black 9y ago
    The worst thing that ever happened was liberals wrapping their arms around Net Neutrality and claiming it as “their” issue. This immediately caused a knee jerk reaction in conservatives who will oppose anything liberals will support and thus the coalition to repeal Net Neutrality was born and ultimately triumphed.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • devwastaken 9y ago
      I think that's a very partisan way of looking at a complex issue. 'liberals wrapping their arms around net neutrality' is not why net neutrality is being repealed, and not why the coalition to repeal Net Neutrailty was created. You can look towards the significant amount of contributions to various politicians and individuals in government that have come from ISP's and see quite a clear picture of the source of NN being repealed.
      • 9y ago
• ghba66 9y ago
  I don't know why Mozilla thinks it's okay to politically align themselves. Shouldn't they stay neutral if they want to make a browser for everybody and all of that? Reminds me of the Tor project calling themselves a "human rights project"
  • jageen 9y ago
    It is not only mozzila remember a long time ago youtube also show it's icon into red to show that they are against net neutrality. Another thing is it is their domain (Internet) they are not fight for global warming or wars in syria or anything else.
  • colejohnson66 9y ago
    While I agree with you on companies aligning themselves, net neutrality isn’t a partisan issue. The only people who make it partisan are Congress
    • ghba66 9y ago
      I am not from the US so I don't know if it's a partisan issue, but I don't agree with NN, so them implying everybody agrees on that because it's the common good is completely bonkers.
      • Jonnax 9y ago
        A company is free to align themselves with any goal they wish to have. They see that their strategy aligns with the majority of their users and the user's they wish to attract. You have the freedom to not use their product if you don't align with them. If you're not from the US what country are you from that would have a benefit from eliminating net neutrality? What are your reasons for not supporting it? The argument is whether net neutrality is for the common good or not. Are you saying the only companies that can take a stance are ISPs? And they can lobby governments but an independent company cannot?
        • ghba66 9y ago
• dilap 9y ago
  Has Mozilla said anything about FOSTA or fought against it in any way? I feel like NN is basically just a diversion to deflect attention and energy from things that are actually restricting freedom on the internet.
  • boomboomsubban 9y ago
    They strongly opposed it[1], but there are fewer options available to fight it. With net neutrality, a lawsuit attacks how the FCC are interpreting a 1934/1996 law, and they can show that violating that law is hurting Mozilla. With FOSTA, there's no clear damages and any lawsuit would need to argue the passed law is unconstitutional. https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2017/08/02/fighting-crime-shouldnt-kill-internet/ https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2017/08/02/fighting-crime...
  • dingo_bat 9y ago
    If you want to understand Mozilla's actions, just treat them like a proxy for Google. Things google cannot publicly speak about, Mozilla does it for them. In this case, nn by design takes power away from infrastructure companies (ISPs) and gives it to internet services companies (google, facebook, etc.). So Mozilla is very actively supporting it.
    • boomboomsubban 9y ago
      In no way can Mozilla's actions be taken as a proxy for Google. Yes, most of their revenue comes from Google now, but this is a recent change and there's no reason to think that contract gave Google any control. Next, Google has already voiced their support for net neutrality. They even have a real "proxy," the Internet Association, pledging to support lawsuits like the Mozilla one. https://www.google.com/takeaction/action/net-neutrality/ https://www.google.com/takeaction/action/net-neutrality/
      • dingo_bat 9y ago
        > but this is a recent change and there's no reason to think that contract gave Google any control. You're not thinking hard enough then I guess. Mozilla gets 97% of its funding from Google. That's implicit control right there. Google can fail to renew the contract and Mozilla goes poof!
• ryanpcmcquen 9y ago
  I am yet to hear anyone who is anti Net Neutrality arguing for electricity or other utilities not to be regulated ...
  • nsomaru 9y ago
    Erm, this is not about whether the internet is regulated or not. In fact, there might even be 'pro net neutrality' regulation. Imagine you paid more for electricity when using your geyser.
    • dingo_bat 9y ago
      > Erm, this is not about whether the internet is regulated or not. Then you are in the wrong place, this discussion is about applying the Title 2 regulations on ISPs. I'm not sure which "net neutrality" you are referring to which is not about regulation.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • ryanpcmcquen 9y ago
      This is 100% about ISP regulation.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • pitaj 8y ago
    People often pick and choose their fights. Common utility companies like power and water are pretty different from regulating ISPs. They're controlled locally, by the state or municipality. So changes in policy don't affect the entire US. The utility companies have their own problems, like not being incentivised to innovate much. Power companies have also pushed for onerous regulations on solar power in the past to maintain their monopoly on providing power.
• lucb1e 9y ago
  How many months has it been? I'm quite sick of hearing about net neutrality. Europe has it so if it's so necessary, vote with your feet (hosting and VPN wise) and they'll get the message. And if they block vpns, I've heard great success stories of community Internet which is supposedly faster and cheaper. You might even be able to get net neutrality by just running your own ISP rather than trying to get huge corps in line. Can we stop repeating the same thing over and over again? We're all well aware that it's something everyone wants except those who stand to make money off of it.
  • wmeredith 9y ago
    Firstly, it's been years not months ;) And no. We can't just stop talking about it, clearly. Some of us feel this is the issue (who controls the flow of information) that will decide all other issues moving forward. How about you vote with your "feet" and go find some other online forum where you can converse with your fellow defeatists? Oh, you like this place and want to stay? Maybe you love it and are invested and want to fight for it? I see.
  • brynjolf 9y ago
    That sounds like you given up. Don't let your brittle spirit deter others.
    • lucb1e 8y ago
      I haven't given up: we already won. That things are crap in freedom country doesn't make me want to scroll past headlines about HELP US for months on end.
• tokyodude 9y ago
  this is tangentially related but what are mozilla's plans for autoplay in Firefox? Chrome just effectively broke net neutrality in Chrome by whitelisting a bunch of websites. They claim chrome will learn your preferences and auto-magically whitelist others sites you run videos on but that hardly seems fair. Why did the other sites not have to pass that hurdle? Worse, it only works if you're logged in where as whitelisted sites work always. Use a public computer or an incognito window and non-whitelisted sites stop autoplaying. Consider youtubecompetitor.com trying to autoplay videos like youtube. Users have a bad experience because the videos don't autoplay so they are unlikely to ever do as well as youtube. Isn't that exactly the kind of thing that net neutrality is trying to avoid, picking winners and losers. I want to make youtubecompetitor.com do I now have to pay off Chrome (and Firefox, and Safari, and Edge) to get them to whitelist my site for autoplay? Why does youtube get a pass? Similarly if Firefox doesn't use a whitelist then users will have a worse experience on may sites vs chrome so there's certainly an incentive for Firefox to use the same or similar whitelist to Google. I don't know what the best solution would be. Off the top of my head I'd prefer browser disallow autoplay by default and let me manually give sites permission to autoplay via a butterbar or other prompt "Can this site autoplay? Yes/No". One click and youtube gets whitelisted. One click and youtubecompetitor gets whitelisted. That seems far more "neutral" In any case I'm curious what Mozilla's response is to Chrome's whitelisting winners.
  • wmeredith 9y ago
    Chrome != The Net. Huge difference here. People have a choice when it comes to browser, social network, news, search engine, ecommerce... As long as what's coming down the pipe is equal. Net neutrality is about the pipe, which is a layer above Chrome.
  • brynjolf 9y ago
    That is one strange whataboutism. Why would you ask that here unless you want to change the conversation to something else, something that suits the corporations more? Net neutrality is more important than autoplaying videos, without it you won't be able to decide what you autoplay.
  • jchw 9y ago
• sintaxi 8y ago
  I expect Mozilla to do a much better job at educating the public on the pros and cons on a complex topic like this. Seems like they're just blindly taking a side. I expect Mozilla has a team of Lawyers who should all be able to speak intelligently on the topic. So where are they? Mozilla tell me... - Why does classifying internet as Title 2 make sense? - Why is the Sherman Act (1890) not adequate for preventing ISPs from picking winners? - Why do we want ISP to have to apply for broadcasting licenses and thus giving the government the power to shut down content without court order?
• wpdev_63 8y ago
  fightforthefuture.org