6 ms·

Plain and simple: Net neutrality is hypocrisy

20 points by mudil 16y ago

Don't believe politicians? Take it from techies: http://scripting.com/stories/2010/12/19/netNeutralityIsHypocrisy.html

guelo 16y ago
I know this is ad hominem, but Robert McDowell is one of many corporate lobbyists appointed by Bush to undermine a federal agency.
- agentultra 16y ago
  It's not ad hominem; it's good to know sources, especially with an opinion piece like this.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    It certainly is ad hominem. - attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad+hominem http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad+hominem It's also hard to see how it is relevant.
    - blueben 16y ago
      It's not attacking his character, but rather his bias. And the funding that supports his opinion is entirely relevant; He is paid to craft arguments in opposition to Network Neutrality.
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        Accusing him of being biased is attacking his character. As for his funding source, which of his arguments does that invalidate? Which of his facts is false, as a result of him being funded by Verizon (or whoever)? (By the way, I don't even agree with him. Just pointing out that ad hominem is a logical fallacy, except under fairly limited circumstances - specifically when facts are presented that the reader cannot verify.) [Edit: just thought of another circumstance where it isn't a logical fallacy. "You are wrong because of XXX. Also you are stupid." In this case, the argument is unchanged regardless of the attack on character.]
        agentultra 16y ago
        In the context of a proper debate, bias is expected since the opposing view will be supported by your opponent. In the context of an essay, there is no opponent. The author is responsible for drawing conclusions from evidence which they use to support their thesis. The corollary is an opinion piece. The author is free to derive evidence which supports their pre-determined conclusion. Such articles are able to be complete fabrications and misleading while lime-lighting in our media as legitimate articles to report. If the reader is not aware of the author's bias they may be mislead in their own conclusions. Therefore it is not ad hominem to draw into question the bias of an author of an article. Doing so may invalidate any argument they have made which relies on the intended omission of evidence which may counter their argument. Sometimes it is the only way by which a reader can distinguish an opinion piece from a proper essay when the distinction isn't made clear by the publisher of the article.
lazylland 16y ago
I don't get his arguments ... it just seemed like one big REGULATION IS EVIL rant/FUD. Did I miss anything ?
- stupidsignup 16y ago
  Nope, you did not miss anything. There is not a single argument in the whole piece. But hey, what do you expect from a Republican? Hey, just got down voted by a Republican. That's a special honor. Keep it coming.
  - anonymoushn 16y ago
    I don't think we should make this about elephant corporatist shills vs. donkey corporatist shills.
    - stupidsignup 16y ago
      This comment is too smart for me (and added a new word to my english vocabulary). Care to elaborate on what you mean?
      - anonymoushn 16y ago
        After most elected Republicans and Democrats voted for EESA in 2008 (against the wishes of their constituents by 100:1 or more) and after Bush's PATRIOT Act and Obama's decision to renew it, it should be apparent that the major political parties are functionally identical and not interested in their voters. Dividing people along party lines distracts from the issues while changing nothing. The issue here is net neutrality.
        stupidsignup 16y ago
        This is like saying just because China and the US act much in the same way (for example, they are the leaders in environment pollution) there is no distinction between people who believe in a communist regime vs. in a democratic government. Of course a distinction between Republicans and Democrats is useful. For example it is a good prediction to say if you have a PhD, you are probably not a Republican.
regularfry 16y ago
Let me get this straight: nothing is broken right now, and therefore legislation to stop it from being broken in the future is... bad? Is that seriously what he's suggesting?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- iamdave 16y ago
  Reminds me of the 2006 Bush Energy Policies.
- mudil 16y ago
  That's right. Ronald Reagan liked to describe the sequence of actions that government typically takes toward private business: "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it."
RockyMcNuts 16y ago
The thing is, in most locations broadband is a monopoly. Show me the competition, innovation, and capital investment in the last mile, and I'll consider your argument that regulation will stifle innovation, competition, and capital investment. Netflix is a good example... show me that even with all your advantages and investment in view on demand, you were able to deliver a customer experience as good as Netflix, and I'll consider your argument that you should help determine what services to offer and how to charge for them.
bumbledraven 16y ago
I like what Stephen Kinsella wrote in response to this article in "Against Net Neutrality" http://networkedblogs.com/c3MxZ http://networkedblogs.com/c3MxZ): ``It is true that some corporations probably have extra-market power to control aspects of the Internet, as the result of state interventions such as IP, FCC licensing, antitrust law, big business favoritism, and so on. But the solution is not to grant the state even more power to regulate private companies... [N]et neutrality is an attempt by the state to [seize] more power to control private property rights as an ostensible response to various "market failures" that are really themselves caused by state intervention.''

20 points by mudil 16y ago

Don't believe politicians? Take it from techies: http://scripting.com/stories/2010/12/19/netNeutralityIsHypocrisy.html

guelo 16y ago

I know this is ad hominem, but Robert McDowell is one of many corporate lobbyists appointed by Bush to undermine a federal agency.

agentultra 16y ago
It's not ad hominem; it's good to know sources, especially with an opinion piece like this.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  It certainly is ad hominem. - attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad+hominem http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad+hominem It's also hard to see how it is relevant.
  - blueben 16y ago
    It's not attacking his character, but rather his bias. And the funding that supports his opinion is entirely relevant; He is paid to craft arguments in opposition to Network Neutrality.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      Accusing him of being biased is attacking his character. As for his funding source, which of his arguments does that invalidate? Which of his facts is false, as a result of him being funded by Verizon (or whoever)? (By the way, I don't even agree with him. Just pointing out that ad hominem is a logical fallacy, except under fairly limited circumstances - specifically when facts are presented that the reader cannot verify.) [Edit: just thought of another circumstance where it isn't a logical fallacy. "You are wrong because of XXX. Also you are stupid." In this case, the argument is unchanged regardless of the attack on character.]
      - agentultra 16y ago
        In the context of a proper debate, bias is expected since the opposing view will be supported by your opponent. In the context of an essay, there is no opponent. The author is responsible for drawing conclusions from evidence which they use to support their thesis. The corollary is an opinion piece. The author is free to derive evidence which supports their pre-determined conclusion. Such articles are able to be complete fabrications and misleading while lime-lighting in our media as legitimate articles to report. If the reader is not aware of the author's bias they may be mislead in their own conclusions. Therefore it is not ad hominem to draw into question the bias of an author of an article. Doing so may invalidate any argument they have made which relies on the intended omission of evidence which may counter their argument. Sometimes it is the only way by which a reader can distinguish an opinion piece from a proper essay when the distinction isn't made clear by the publisher of the article.

lazylland 16y ago

I don't get his arguments ... it just seemed like one big REGULATION IS EVIL rant/FUD. Did I miss anything ?

stupidsignup 16y ago
Nope, you did not miss anything. There is not a single argument in the whole piece. But hey, what do you expect from a Republican? Hey, just got down voted by a Republican. That's a special honor. Keep it coming.
- anonymoushn 16y ago
  I don't think we should make this about elephant corporatist shills vs. donkey corporatist shills.
  - stupidsignup 16y ago
    This comment is too smart for me (and added a new word to my english vocabulary). Care to elaborate on what you mean?
    - anonymoushn 16y ago
      After most elected Republicans and Democrats voted for EESA in 2008 (against the wishes of their constituents by 100:1 or more) and after Bush's PATRIOT Act and Obama's decision to renew it, it should be apparent that the major political parties are functionally identical and not interested in their voters. Dividing people along party lines distracts from the issues while changing nothing. The issue here is net neutrality.
      - stupidsignup 16y ago
        This is like saying just because China and the US act much in the same way (for example, they are the leaders in environment pollution) there is no distinction between people who believe in a communist regime vs. in a democratic government. Of course a distinction between Republicans and Democrats is useful. For example it is a good prediction to say if you have a PhD, you are probably not a Republican.

regularfry 16y ago

Let me get this straight: nothing is broken right now, and therefore legislation to stop it from being broken in the future is... bad? Is that seriously what he's suggesting?

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
iamdave 16y ago
Reminds me of the 2006 Bush Energy Policies.
mudil 16y ago
That's right. Ronald Reagan liked to describe the sequence of actions that government typically takes toward private business: "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it."

RockyMcNuts 16y ago

The thing is, in most locations broadband is a monopoly. Show me the competition, innovation, and capital investment in the last mile, and I'll consider your argument that regulation will stifle innovation, competition, and capital investment. Netflix is a good example... show me that even with all your advantages and investment in view on demand, you were able to deliver a customer experience as good as Netflix, and I'll consider your argument that you should help determine what services to offer and how to charge for them.

bumbledraven 16y ago

I like what Stephen Kinsella wrote in response to this article in "Against Net Neutrality" http://networkedblogs.com/c3MxZ http://networkedblogs.com/c3MxZ): ``It is true that some corporations probably have extra-market power to control aspects of the Internet, as the result of state interventions such as IP, FCC licensing, antitrust law, big business favoritism, and so on. But the solution is not to grant the state even more power to regulate private companies... [N]et neutrality is an attempt by the state to [seize] more power to control private property rights as an ostensible response to various "market failures" that are really themselves caused by state intervention.''