3 ms·

> If people don't like what you have to say, or how you are saying it, they are free to walk away. Yes, but it's funny that we're now deliberating conflating '

> If people don't like what you have to say, or how you are saying it, they are free to walk away. Yes, but it's funny that we're now deliberating conflating 'people' with 'private corporations', a conflation that folks on the left vociferously condemned when it came to Citizens United. I think we should look at ourselves a bit more carefully in the mirror - are private corporations supposed to be held to a higher standard or not? Especially when they have de facto monopolistic control over platforms that everyone uses. For example, it's all very well to say that Google is a private corporation free to censor you if it wishes, until you're a content creator that is de facto knocked off the air because of Content ID, without any of the due process that copyright law actually demands. Put in another context, should we get rid of net neutrality because Comcast ought to have the right to decide what content goes over its pipes?

magduf 8y ago
>Put in another context, should we get rid of net neutrality because Comcast ought to have the right to decide what content goes over its pipes? No, we should ban monopolies for one thing, and 2) the whole point of net neutrality is to bring the idea of "common carrier" to the internet. If you provide the transit pathways, you shouldn't get to play favorites. I'll make an analogy: if you own a public stage, you should have every right to deny access to Nazis who want to use it to publicly promote their viewpoint. However, if you own a train system (which also happens to be a government-granted monopoly and highly regulated as such), you should have no right to restrict the Nazis' travel, as long as they follow the rules and don't create a disturbance; they should be able to buy train tickets just like anyone else. (Now if they attack people on the train, or try to make public speeches on them or in the stations, that's different.)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
zamalek 8y ago
> should we get rid of net neutrality because Comcast NN governs as though the service is a public utility. There are some businesses that are crucial for upholding FoS (they could be equated to soapboxes). Patreon is not crucial for protecting FoS, nor is YouTube. > Especially when they have de facto monopolistic control The important determinant is that it is not de jure. > left vociferously condemned The left condemned it because it was pluralist, and the left agreed with majoritarian ideologies (hence: democrats). Furthermore, things were radically different back then. The Democrats originally supported the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Republicans rose as the opposition. All that tu quoque proves is that times and people change. In more practical terms: a private corporation consists of human beings, who may not want to deal with certain ideologies.
cabalamat 8y ago
> should we get rid of net neutrality because Comcast ought to have the right to decide what content goes over its pipes? Not only should we not get rid of net neutrality, we should enshrine it as a principle further up the protocol stack.
pgodzin 8y ago
The difference between YouTube or Patreon and Comcast is that one is a platform while the other provides infrastructure. Net neutrality applies specifically to ISPs because often there is no alternative. Meanwhile, a different platform (of which many exist) is trivial to switch to. The reason that some platforms are more popular than others is precisely because they are tailored to appeal to the mainstream without extreme content pushing people off.

magduf 8y ago

>Put in another context, should we get rid of net neutrality because Comcast ought to have the right to decide what content goes over its pipes? No, we should ban monopolies for one thing, and 2) the whole point of net neutrality is to bring the idea of "common carrier" to the internet. If you provide the transit pathways, you shouldn't get to play favorites. I'll make an analogy: if you own a public stage, you should have every right to deny access to Nazis who want to use it to publicly promote their viewpoint. However, if you own a train system (which also happens to be a government-granted monopoly and highly regulated as such), you should have no right to restrict the Nazis' travel, as long as they follow the rules and don't create a disturbance; they should be able to buy train tickets just like anyone else. (Now if they attack people on the train, or try to make public speeches on them or in the stations, that's different.)

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

zamalek 8y ago

> should we get rid of net neutrality because Comcast NN governs as though the service is a public utility. There are some businesses that are crucial for upholding FoS (they could be equated to soapboxes). Patreon is not crucial for protecting FoS, nor is YouTube. > Especially when they have de facto monopolistic control The important determinant is that it is not de jure. > left vociferously condemned The left condemned it because it was pluralist, and the left agreed with majoritarian ideologies (hence: democrats). Furthermore, things were radically different back then. The Democrats originally supported the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Republicans rose as the opposition. All that tu quoque proves is that times and people change. In more practical terms: a private corporation consists of human beings, who may not want to deal with certain ideologies.

cabalamat 8y ago

> should we get rid of net neutrality because Comcast ought to have the right to decide what content goes over its pipes? Not only should we not get rid of net neutrality, we should enshrine it as a principle further up the protocol stack.

pgodzin 8y ago

The difference between YouTube or Patreon and Comcast is that one is a platform while the other provides infrastructure. Net neutrality applies specifically to ISPs because often there is no alternative. Meanwhile, a different platform (of which many exist) is trivial to switch to. The reason that some platforms are more popular than others is precisely because they are tailored to appeal to the mainstream without extreme content pushing people off.