3 ms·
You're not wrong. But when the alternative is their platforms being used to spread misinformation and hate, there's not really many other options.
by gkoberger 8y ago
You're not wrong. But when the alternative is their platforms being used to spread misinformation and hate, there's not really many other options.
- buboard 8y agothey should be neutral. I find it funny how people go up in arms about net neutrality but do a 180 about the information platform providers in the level above ISPs.
- gkoberger 8y agoI think roads, electricity, and water should be a public utility, but I don't think someone should be able to walk into a Starbucks and scream hateful nonsense. Here's the difference: Alex Jones can go create his own video site easily, but he can't create his own worldwide ISP.
- burnallofit 8y agoI don't think Alex Jones knows how to code. And if he used an existing infrastructure like AWS, I would hope AWS would kick him off of it.
- bcheung 8y agoIt's not the same. Starbucks is a strawman. People have to take action and opt in to watching something on YouTube. They have a choice. If people don't want to hear someone they never have to. Youtube doesn't provide the means for publishers to interrupt what you are currently watching (well there's ads but that's a bit different as ads have increase scrutiny).
- buboard 8y agoOn the internet, the roads, electricity and water are private utilities.
- fwn 8y agoI think it is because ISPs (unlike Facebook et al.) are not very successful at participating in the public discourse. If they would manage their brand as well as Apple, people would probably praise the end of net neutrality.