3 ms·
> In other words, we shouldn't ban something unless we know its actually harmful. That is like saying we shouldn't have checks on a president's power because t
by TearsInTheRain 8y ago
> In other words, we shouldn't ban something unless we know its actually harmful.
That is like saying we shouldn't have checks on a president's power because they might be a good dictator. In the long run preventing ISP's abuses is going to be more beneficial than "beneficial" infringements on NN. Imho ISPs shouldnt have the power to determine which companies qualify for unlimited data streaming even if they aren't using that power to shut down competitors (yet)
- skwirl 8y agoSaying that we shouldn't ban businesses and consumers from engaging in voluntary activities unless harm can be demonstrated is actually nothing like saying we shouldn't have checks on the president's power because they might be a good dictator. I fully support net neutrality but some of these analogies are absurd.
- rhino369 8y agoThat is bad analogy. NN could always be implemented later and a dictator can't just be voted out of office.
- mmirate 8y agoUnchecked presidential power can do literally anything to you, without recourse. Unchecked power of an ISP can do literally anything to your internet service, and only as long as you stay with that ISP. Unchecked and abused power of an ISP also leads to other ISPs competing on "not doing the X harmful thing that Y ISP does", meaning that in the aggregate the harmful ISP loses business anyway.