11 ms·

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 reg

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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
  What if those laws reinforce the power of bad corporations it was supposed to crush down ? Oops
  - contravariant 8y ago
    What if the absence of those laws reinforces the power of bad corporations it was supposed to crush down ? Oops
  - hinkley 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
  Then they need to find a better business model
  - AndrewDucker 8y ago
    Not everything needs to be a business. Some things can be a public good.
    - ttoinou 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
  Hackers don’t need anything, that’s the point. Hackers find a way.
  - bhhaskin 8y ago
    Hackers might find away, but regular users do not.
    - tzahola 8y ago
      Good. Regular users ruined the Internet.
craftyguy 8y ago
Well we have two choices: 1) government regulation, or 2) ISP regulation. We are on track for #2 thanks to ajit.
- eurleif 8y ago
  You're confused. ISPs aren't regulators. They're incapable of regulating anything.
  - craftyguy 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
  Do you have any credible affirmative proposal/suggestion Freer markets
  - KozmoNau7 8y 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 8y ago
      The current free market situation has created monopolies in many areas Such as ?
      - KozmoNau7 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
      I'm in France countryside too and we have a lot of different ISP
      - 8y ago
devnonymous 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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.
  - 8y ago
bo1024 8y 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.

rootlocus 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
What if those laws reinforce the power of bad corporations it was supposed to crush down ? Oops
- contravariant 8y ago
  What if the absence of those laws reinforces the power of bad corporations it was supposed to crush down ? Oops
- hinkley 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
Then they need to find a better business model
- AndrewDucker 8y ago
  Not everything needs to be a business. Some things can be a public good.
  - ttoinou 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
Hackers don’t need anything, that’s the point. Hackers find a way.
- bhhaskin 8y ago
  Hackers might find away, but regular users do not.
  - tzahola 8y ago
    Good. Regular users ruined the Internet.

craftyguy 8y ago

Well we have two choices: 1) government regulation, or 2) ISP regulation. We are on track for #2 thanks to ajit.

eurleif 8y ago
You're confused. ISPs aren't regulators. They're incapable of regulating anything.
- craftyguy 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
Do you have any credible affirmative proposal/suggestion Freer markets
- KozmoNau7 8y 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 8y ago
    The current free market situation has created monopolies in many areas Such as ?
    - KozmoNau7 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
    I'm in France countryside too and we have a lot of different ISP
    - 8y ago

devnonymous 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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.
- 8y ago

bo1024 8y 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.