6 ms·

I appreciate the quote but I don’t appreciate your comment. It seems to serve no purpose but to be inflammatory. To signal to “your people” that you’re with the

I appreciate the quote but I don’t appreciate your comment. It seems to serve no purpose but to be inflammatory. To signal to “your people” that you’re with them, and signal to everyone else that you think they’re an idiot. I have half a mind to flag it. I like neutral ISPs, but I think Kavanaugh is probably correct, from a strictly constitutional sense ISPs should have a right to modify traffic in any way they like. If you disagree, at least give me a hint as to your thinking.

nrb 8y ago
I think the hangup there is that in many cities there exists a government-sanctioned monopoly in internet access, in many areas the public actually funded the infrastructure, or in other areas collusion exists to limit customer freedom to choose a provider. Monopoly of access and absolute control over the network should be inversely proportional.
- furgooswft13 8y ago
  The same argument could be made, and often is, that a few private social media companies, hosting services, domain registrars, payment processors etc. hold similar monopoly status, for different reasons. And it's no more easy to start any of those on your own than it is to start your own ISP. Sure the barrier to entry to make your own website at some random domain is pretty low, but that's more akin to setting up a wireless router to provide internet to your roommates and calling it an ISP than it is to making something with any sort of significant penetration, load handling capability, and financial sustainability.
  - zalebz 8y ago
    "private social media companies, hosting services, domain registrars, payment processors" - interesting how all of those on your list require me to use an ISP first. in my town there is literally one ISP option. I have used several different providers for every service you listed. there is a big difference between a near/effective monopoly and literally one option or no service at all.
    - furgooswft13 8y ago
      Copy pasting from another of my replies in this thread: The argument of "ISP's choice is very limited in many areas, so it's different" seems rather weak to me. You can just use a cell carrier, or satellite, or even dial-up. If that sounds like "you can just start your own social media platform, your own website, your own payment processor, your own registrar, or just be accessible through an IP address, or tor etc." it should. All those options suck. E.g., your ISP is likely not the only option, just the only decent one.
      - zalebz 8y ago
        "Just use" the exact same company for a dial up option. "Just use" a cellular provider that does not actually provide a data signal (dropped calls and constantly resending texts is my reality not tethering my computer for fast data). I guess technically I have the "option" to use overpriced satellite service that has a latency that makes RDP to my data center 80 miles away unusable (geo stationary orbit altitude is a bitch). I actually appreciate that I even have 5Mbit DSL but don't tell me I have a weak argument about ISP choice - there is but one choice - even if I grant you a satellite option I have literally two or three choices total. To re-address my original points, I first have to use an ISP to access any of the dozens, hundreds, thousands of other digital services that have been brought up. I'm not sure how you are so dismissive of this fact that alone places this service in a category unto itself. Once I have an internet pipe, I can freely use the 0.1% market share or the 99% market share social media/hosting/search engine/registrar/etc company with literally no friction and based on my whim on that day. And the next day I can cancel and choose another option. And a year later I can choose the 5% share up and coming option and so on. Explain to me how this is so similar to my ISP "choice"? I can also literally start my own social media platform, hosting company, or registrar tomorrow. However, even if I were independently wealthy and purchased spools upon spools of fiber/coax cable that totaled thousands of linear miles, I could NOT just start digging and running it where I chose and become an ISP option for my neighbors. Again, explain to me how ISPs are just exactly like all of these other examples you brought up?
  - nrb 8y ago
    That's a pretty dishonest comparison to a massive percentage of the country that literally has no ISP choice; I can name several viable products for each of the industries you mentioned off the top of my head.
writepub 8y ago
Thank you for your comment - It proves my long-held theory that HN comments don't get flagged for breaking TOS, they get flagged by people who - 1. Have the power to flag (which everyone on HN doesn't equally have) 2. Disagree with the opinion expressed in a comment. The flagging and banning system on HN needs revisiting. HN has become an echo chamber of opinions deemed kosher by those with flagging/moderation privileges. At the very least, when flagging, HN should ask what TOS clause was violated.
- yesenadam 8y ago
  By 'TOS' I guess you mean the guidelines, and the comment in question fairly obviously violates half a dozen of them.
  - furgooswft13 8y ago
    I'll agree the first paragraph seems to. The rest are fine. I suspect even without the 1st it still would have gotten downvoted.
    - yesenadam 8y ago
      I was referring to "Jesus fucking christ", not sure what you're talking about.
      - furgooswft13 8y ago
        The comment above the one you replied to, which is what I assumed we were talking about. Could be wrong. Not sure how "Jesus fucking christ" really violates any rules much less several. I know HN isn't supposed to be reddit, but I think that outlawing common expletives is a pretty low bar. He wasn't insulting anyone in-particular.
        DoreenMichele 8y ago
        I'm not Christian, but I grew up in The Bible Belt. I tend to swear a lot. My adult sons joke that I use the F word like others use very. So I'm certainly no prude. The expression in question is offensive to sincere Christians not for the cussing per se, but for taking the lord's name in vain. It's a big form of disrespect of their religious beliefs. You could think of it as verbally pissing on their icons. Out of respect for others, I try to keep my internet comments pg-13-ish and edit out the worst of the swearing if I'm writing while tired or distracted and my bad habits are showing more than usual. Yet I am generally disinclined to use expressions like Jesus Fucking Christ because I'm aware of how very, very offensive it is to sincere Christians. (I'm not saying I never do it. But I don't think I do it on HN, which is a shared public space. It doesn't sit well with me.) We don't use, for example, "the N word." People can get fired over such racial slurs. I don't see any reason why we should casually dismiss the idea of basic respect for a major religion and its tenets. Is there any real reason why the exclamation needs to target the Christian religion in order to adequately express exasperation?
furgooswft13 8y ago
Yea. I may not like the idea of it but from a strictly constitutional view it seems correct. ISP's are private entities after all. We already have major social media platforms, hosting providers, domain registrars, payment processors, credit card companies, even DDoS protection companies all "exercising editorial control" of content, so why not ISP's? The argument of "ISP's choice is very limited in many areas, so it's different" seems rather weak to me. You can just use a cell carrier, or satellite, or even dial-up. If that sounds like "you can just start your own social media platform, your own website, your own payment processor, your own registrar, or just be accessible through an IP address, or tor etc." it should. All those options suck. Yet the people who are most militant about Net Neutrality are usually totally okay with every other private entity doing whatever they want (as long as it ends up aligning with their ideology). I'm not here to suggest any solution to all this, just to say I don't think there's anything untoward about a judge ruling in line with the first amendment of the Constitution. Ideally this whole mess will lead us towards more competition and decentralization on the Internet, but given the way it has developed in the past 20 years, I'm not very hopeful.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- romwell 8y ago
  >so why not ISP's? Because it has to effing stop somewhere, that's why. Sorry, but saying that giving government-granted telco monopolies[1] a right to censor content is "in line with the first amendment" is the most bizzarre thing I've seen today. [1]Neither spectrum nor the right to lay down cables are a free market.
rsingel 8y ago
There's a very long history of industries considered so vital to other kinds of commerce that they can be classified as "common carriers" that are not allowed to discriminate against what things to transport. These are known as common carriers. Here's a short list: Every domestic passenger airline Every domestic freight carrying airline Busses Ferries Cabs Lyft Uber FedEx UPS USPS Passenger Railroads Freight Rail Service Many oil pipelines Even roller coasters Landlines Mobile phone service Applying Title II of the Communications Act to broadband service, which applies common carrier obligations and privileges (e.g. you can't get sued for what you carry) isn't a violation of Verizon's free speech rights and ruling so isn't conservative at all.
aerovistae 8y ago
Frankly, you're basically right. I am signalling to people who believe in a free internet that I'm with them. Simultaneously, I'm signaling my belief that you'd have to be an idiot to believe that the censoring of our speech by ISPs is equivalent to them expressing their own speech. Got me red-handed.

nrb 8y ago

I think the hangup there is that in many cities there exists a government-sanctioned monopoly in internet access, in many areas the public actually funded the infrastructure, or in other areas collusion exists to limit customer freedom to choose a provider. Monopoly of access and absolute control over the network should be inversely proportional.

furgooswft13 8y ago
The same argument could be made, and often is, that a few private social media companies, hosting services, domain registrars, payment processors etc. hold similar monopoly status, for different reasons. And it's no more easy to start any of those on your own than it is to start your own ISP. Sure the barrier to entry to make your own website at some random domain is pretty low, but that's more akin to setting up a wireless router to provide internet to your roommates and calling it an ISP than it is to making something with any sort of significant penetration, load handling capability, and financial sustainability.
- zalebz 8y ago
  "private social media companies, hosting services, domain registrars, payment processors" - interesting how all of those on your list require me to use an ISP first. in my town there is literally one ISP option. I have used several different providers for every service you listed. there is a big difference between a near/effective monopoly and literally one option or no service at all.
  - furgooswft13 8y ago
    Copy pasting from another of my replies in this thread: The argument of "ISP's choice is very limited in many areas, so it's different" seems rather weak to me. You can just use a cell carrier, or satellite, or even dial-up. If that sounds like "you can just start your own social media platform, your own website, your own payment processor, your own registrar, or just be accessible through an IP address, or tor etc." it should. All those options suck. E.g., your ISP is likely not the only option, just the only decent one.
    - zalebz 8y ago
      "Just use" the exact same company for a dial up option. "Just use" a cellular provider that does not actually provide a data signal (dropped calls and constantly resending texts is my reality not tethering my computer for fast data). I guess technically I have the "option" to use overpriced satellite service that has a latency that makes RDP to my data center 80 miles away unusable (geo stationary orbit altitude is a bitch). I actually appreciate that I even have 5Mbit DSL but don't tell me I have a weak argument about ISP choice - there is but one choice - even if I grant you a satellite option I have literally two or three choices total. To re-address my original points, I first have to use an ISP to access any of the dozens, hundreds, thousands of other digital services that have been brought up. I'm not sure how you are so dismissive of this fact that alone places this service in a category unto itself. Once I have an internet pipe, I can freely use the 0.1% market share or the 99% market share social media/hosting/search engine/registrar/etc company with literally no friction and based on my whim on that day. And the next day I can cancel and choose another option. And a year later I can choose the 5% share up and coming option and so on. Explain to me how this is so similar to my ISP "choice"? I can also literally start my own social media platform, hosting company, or registrar tomorrow. However, even if I were independently wealthy and purchased spools upon spools of fiber/coax cable that totaled thousands of linear miles, I could NOT just start digging and running it where I chose and become an ISP option for my neighbors. Again, explain to me how ISPs are just exactly like all of these other examples you brought up?
- nrb 8y ago
  That's a pretty dishonest comparison to a massive percentage of the country that literally has no ISP choice; I can name several viable products for each of the industries you mentioned off the top of my head.

writepub 8y ago

Thank you for your comment - It proves my long-held theory that HN comments don't get flagged for breaking TOS, they get flagged by people who - 1. Have the power to flag (which everyone on HN doesn't equally have) 2. Disagree with the opinion expressed in a comment. The flagging and banning system on HN needs revisiting. HN has become an echo chamber of opinions deemed kosher by those with flagging/moderation privileges. At the very least, when flagging, HN should ask what TOS clause was violated.

yesenadam 8y ago
By 'TOS' I guess you mean the guidelines, and the comment in question fairly obviously violates half a dozen of them.
- furgooswft13 8y ago
  I'll agree the first paragraph seems to. The rest are fine. I suspect even without the 1st it still would have gotten downvoted.
  - yesenadam 8y ago
    I was referring to "Jesus fucking christ", not sure what you're talking about.
    - furgooswft13 8y ago
      The comment above the one you replied to, which is what I assumed we were talking about. Could be wrong. Not sure how "Jesus fucking christ" really violates any rules much less several. I know HN isn't supposed to be reddit, but I think that outlawing common expletives is a pretty low bar. He wasn't insulting anyone in-particular.
      - DoreenMichele 8y ago
        I'm not Christian, but I grew up in The Bible Belt. I tend to swear a lot. My adult sons joke that I use the F word like others use very. So I'm certainly no prude. The expression in question is offensive to sincere Christians not for the cussing per se, but for taking the lord's name in vain. It's a big form of disrespect of their religious beliefs. You could think of it as verbally pissing on their icons. Out of respect for others, I try to keep my internet comments pg-13-ish and edit out the worst of the swearing if I'm writing while tired or distracted and my bad habits are showing more than usual. Yet I am generally disinclined to use expressions like Jesus Fucking Christ because I'm aware of how very, very offensive it is to sincere Christians. (I'm not saying I never do it. But I don't think I do it on HN, which is a shared public space. It doesn't sit well with me.) We don't use, for example, "the N word." People can get fired over such racial slurs. I don't see any reason why we should casually dismiss the idea of basic respect for a major religion and its tenets. Is there any real reason why the exclamation needs to target the Christian religion in order to adequately express exasperation?

furgooswft13 8y ago

Yea. I may not like the idea of it but from a strictly constitutional view it seems correct. ISP's are private entities after all. We already have major social media platforms, hosting providers, domain registrars, payment processors, credit card companies, even DDoS protection companies all "exercising editorial control" of content, so why not ISP's? The argument of "ISP's choice is very limited in many areas, so it's different" seems rather weak to me. You can just use a cell carrier, or satellite, or even dial-up. If that sounds like "you can just start your own social media platform, your own website, your own payment processor, your own registrar, or just be accessible through an IP address, or tor etc." it should. All those options suck. Yet the people who are most militant about Net Neutrality are usually totally okay with every other private entity doing whatever they want (as long as it ends up aligning with their ideology). I'm not here to suggest any solution to all this, just to say I don't think there's anything untoward about a judge ruling in line with the first amendment of the Constitution. Ideally this whole mess will lead us towards more competition and decentralization on the Internet, but given the way it has developed in the past 20 years, I'm not very hopeful.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
romwell 8y ago
>so why not ISP's? Because it has to effing stop somewhere, that's why. Sorry, but saying that giving government-granted telco monopolies[1] a right to censor content is "in line with the first amendment" is the most bizzarre thing I've seen today. [1]Neither spectrum nor the right to lay down cables are a free market.

rsingel 8y ago

There's a very long history of industries considered so vital to other kinds of commerce that they can be classified as "common carriers" that are not allowed to discriminate against what things to transport. These are known as common carriers. Here's a short list: Every domestic passenger airline Every domestic freight carrying airline Busses Ferries Cabs Lyft Uber FedEx UPS USPS Passenger Railroads Freight Rail Service Many oil pipelines Even roller coasters Landlines Mobile phone service Applying Title II of the Communications Act to broadband service, which applies common carrier obligations and privileges (e.g. you can't get sued for what you carry) isn't a violation of Verizon's free speech rights and ruling so isn't conservative at all.

aerovistae 8y ago

Frankly, you're basically right. I am signalling to people who believe in a free internet that I'm with them. Simultaneously, I'm signaling my belief that you'd have to be an idiot to believe that the censoring of our speech by ISPs is equivalent to them expressing their own speech. Got me red-handed.