5 ms·

I'm sympathetic towards the ISP and the readers of academic journals. However, this is also a gross violation of net neutrality. The ISP's power over a website

I'm sympathetic towards the ISP and the readers of academic journals. However, this is also a gross violation of net neutrality. The ISP's power over a website is evident from their ability to block a website they have differences with. This is both encouraging (that the ISP cares) & frightening (that the ISP has total control)

bigiain 8y ago
Seems eminently fair and reasonable to me. Elsever got a court to order a gross violation of net neutrality. The ISP had no interest or desire to implement blocking of any sort. Once it's hand is forced via legal means, it needs to obtain that capability - and using it with discretion as a protest is a perfect demonstration as to why they should _not_ have that capability.
- writepub 8y ago
  About ideals and philosophies - they only matter when pushed to their limits. Free speech only matters when the said speech is disagreeable, ISP power only matters when the ISP disagrees with a website. Yes - we all approve of the ISP's action, but this instance was in our favor. Will the next be against? Power begets corruption.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    Then perhaps ISPs shouldn't be blocking any websites at all. Unfortunately the courts have made this impossible though. In order to get net neutrality back, they would have to reverse that court decision that forced websites to be blocked.
  - bigiain 8y ago
    "The next"? How about "one of the previous"??? https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/03/07/comcast-xfinity-paypal-net-neutrality/ https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/03/07/comcast-xfinity-... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080213/133855251.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080213/133855251.shtml Banhof's stance is that they do not even want the capability to block websites. This is something I wholeheartedly agree with. It certainly means some speech with which I strongly disagree is protected as well as speech with which I do agree. ISPs should _not_ have this kind of power. Banhof do not want it, but since they're being forced into acquiring and using that capability, using it to protest against it seems eminently reasonable.
kalleboo 8y ago
Net Neutrality is less of a concern when you actually have a choice of ISPs. I can choose between around 100 ISPs where I live (going over a shared open-access fiber network) so if one ISP does something nasty it's easy to switch

bigiain 8y ago

Seems eminently fair and reasonable to me. Elsever got a court to order a gross violation of net neutrality. The ISP had no interest or desire to implement blocking of any sort. Once it's hand is forced via legal means, it needs to obtain that capability - and using it with discretion as a protest is a perfect demonstration as to why they should _not_ have that capability.

writepub 8y ago
About ideals and philosophies - they only matter when pushed to their limits. Free speech only matters when the said speech is disagreeable, ISP power only matters when the ISP disagrees with a website. Yes - we all approve of the ISP's action, but this instance was in our favor. Will the next be against? Power begets corruption.
- stale2002 8y ago
  Then perhaps ISPs shouldn't be blocking any websites at all. Unfortunately the courts have made this impossible though. In order to get net neutrality back, they would have to reverse that court decision that forced websites to be blocked.
- bigiain 8y ago
  "The next"? How about "one of the previous"??? https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/03/07/comcast-xfinity-paypal-net-neutrality/ https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/03/07/comcast-xfinity-... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080213/133855251.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080213/133855251.shtml Banhof's stance is that they do not even want the capability to block websites. This is something I wholeheartedly agree with. It certainly means some speech with which I strongly disagree is protected as well as speech with which I do agree. ISPs should _not_ have this kind of power. Banhof do not want it, but since they're being forced into acquiring and using that capability, using it to protest against it seems eminently reasonable.

kalleboo 8y ago

Net Neutrality is less of a concern when you actually have a choice of ISPs. I can choose between around 100 ISPs where I live (going over a shared open-access fiber network) so if one ISP does something nasty it's easy to switch