5 ms·

> it's not about whether people actually like net neutrality, they clearly don't. I disagree with you here, those who are informed are are for net neutrality,

by takeda 7y ago

> it's not about whether people actually like net neutrality, they clearly don't. I disagree with you here, those who are informed are are for net neutrality, not against it. No one wants ISP (or in fact anyone) deciding what sites they can visit or not.

fphhotchips 7y ago
I think 'they' in this statement refers to the members of the FCC that wanted the change.
Traster 7y ago
Sorry, by they, I meant the FCC.
- takeda 7y ago
  Ah I see, but also not entirely true either, they were divided internally as well. There are 5 commissioners, 2 of them were actually pro NN, the other 2 + chairman Pai were against it, so they were overruled.
colejohnson66 7y ago
> I disagree with you here, those who are informed are are for net neutrality, not against it. I know a software engineer who is very much against net neutrality. He also happens to be very much pro free market (in the “no regulation at all” approach).
- pstuart 7y ago
  Libertarianism is a hell of a drug.
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  Right when I was first learning about libertarianism and it was really appealing to me, I was also listening to a whole bunch of Martin Luther King Jr speeches. MLK was extremely smart and well read - a genuine philosopher of great value. As much as he valued community based power, and as much as the democrats stifled and blocked his movement at almost every step of the way, he still believed there was a time for government action. When a great mass of people are starving or struggling to merely get by, the government can and in his opinion should help. And it's hard to argue against that. The state is a cause of a great many problems - mass incarceration, the obstruction of black freedom movements, drone killings, and more which must be stopped - but at the same time, the state is an institution we have now. We must build our own resilient institutions to replace the state, but I think it ignores the suffering of millions to say the state should never be used to help the less privileged. I get really frustrated with libertarian types that would dismantle useful state programs before we've got something to replace them. They seem uninterested in the suffering that might cause, and I think they would do well to focus more advocacy on building the replacements before dismantling government systems. Interestingly I've learned that there is a big difference between "left libertarians" and "right libertarians". I think the left libertarians and the socialist anarchists could actually be allies if they could get past all their language differences and knee jerk reactions. My roommate is a knowledgeable left libertarian and it's amazing how similar our end goals are but how different our language and conceptual frameworks for getting there can sometimes be.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    "They eagerly seek you, not commendably, but they wish to shut you out, in order that you may seek them." Yeah, it's from the Bible. Yeah, Paul was talking about something completely different from political programs. It still seems to fit. There are people who seek to destroy the existing system first, in order that there will be no alternative but to build a replacement. They thereby show that they seriously doubt their ability to persuade people that their alternative is better. (They also assume that their alternative is the only alternative, or at least is the one that will be chosen. They are, I think, over-optimistic in doing so.)
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > I think it ignores the suffering of millions to say the state should never be used to help the less privileged. If the state actually did help the less privileged, that would be one thing. But the state programs that claim to help the less privileged, mostly don't. And even when they do, the hoops the less privileged have to jump through to get the help are ridiculous. My wife and I have a friend who is on food stamps; he's disabled and unable to work, has been for years. Every year when his food stamps come up for renewal, even though not a single thing has changed with his situation, the county finds a way to screw it up and we have to call them and get it straightened out. Imagine what happens to people who don't have friends that can help them navigate the system. The root of the problem is not that helping the less privileged is a bad thing; it's that the state is the worst possible tool for the job. > I get really frustrated with libertarian types that would dismantle useful state programs before we've got something to replace them. We do have something to replace them: private charity. Anyone can found a nonprofit charity organization to help the less privileged. And they would do a much better job of it than the state does. The fact that the state is doing it at all hurts the actual ability to help people, because the people who would actually do a good job at it are thinking that the state is already taking care of it so they don't have to. Which means that there are actually more people who need help that are not getting it, than there would be if the state were simply out of the business altogether and everybody knew that it was up to them, as private individuals and private charities, to do it.
    - Firadeoclus 7y ago
- chupasaurus 7y ago
  > free market (in the “no regulation at all” approach) I'd like to call that view "free as in oligopoly".
- pdonis 7y ago
  > I know a software engineer who is very much against net neutrality. He also happens to be very much pro free market (in the “no regulation at all” approach). Is he also in favor of ending the monopolies that ISPs have over Internet access in most places in the US? I'm also pro free market, and if ISPs were a free market I would also be against net neutrality as a government regulation. But ISPs are not a free market; they are huge beneficiaries of government regulation. So net neutrality is one of those unfortunate cases where we need government regulation to offset the effects of other government regulation. That's the bet we can do if having a truly free market is not an option.
  - badRNG 7y ago
    It may not be entirely relevant, but I'd love to know this engineer's perspective on the .ORG TLD sale and whether they believe the CA AG overstepped. After all, it is a transaction between to private entities.
root_axis 7y ago
> No one wants ISP (or in fact anyone) deciding what sites they can visit or not. A lot of people do want that because they view prohibiting it as a government take over of the internet. I personally think that is absurd, but it's a very popular opinion.
- takeda 7y ago
  They are misinformed, the ISPs spent a lot of effort trying to confuse people. They confuse people implying that government tries to start controlling Internet now and it didn't do that before, when the reverse is true. Is like trying to convince people that first amendment should be abolished, because it is enforced by the government and they should not control what we can say or not. It is flipping the whole thing upside down, and many confused people are supporting it, when they really want the opposite.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    I don't agree that they are confused, at least not most of them. Rather, those views comport with their existing perspectives on government regulation of the private sector. Even in this very forum it is not uncommon to see people seriously argue that regulations are fundamentally bad for consumers, including net neutrality. I disagree with this perspective, but I don't think it's accurate to say they are confused about their position. The most common argument I hear against net neutrality is that it's unnecessary government overreach and that ISPs would never try to dictate network traffic in a draconian fashion because it would be bad for business. I won't list all the problems with this reasoning since I'd be preaching to the choir, but this is a belief that a lot of people have.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > A lot of people do want that because they view prohibiting it as a government take over of the internet. I personally think that is absurd, but it's a very popular opinion. Can you point to some places where this opinion is expressed? I've never encountered it.
  - 7y ago

by takeda 7y ago

fphhotchips 7y ago

I think 'they' in this statement refers to the members of the FCC that wanted the change.

Traster 7y ago

Sorry, by they, I meant the FCC.

takeda 7y ago
Ah I see, but also not entirely true either, they were divided internally as well. There are 5 commissioners, 2 of them were actually pro NN, the other 2 + chairman Pai were against it, so they were overruled.

colejohnson66 7y ago

> I disagree with you here, those who are informed are are for net neutrality, not against it. I know a software engineer who is very much against net neutrality. He also happens to be very much pro free market (in the “no regulation at all” approach).

pstuart 7y ago
Libertarianism is a hell of a drug.
TaylorAlexander 7y ago
Right when I was first learning about libertarianism and it was really appealing to me, I was also listening to a whole bunch of Martin Luther King Jr speeches. MLK was extremely smart and well read - a genuine philosopher of great value. As much as he valued community based power, and as much as the democrats stifled and blocked his movement at almost every step of the way, he still believed there was a time for government action. When a great mass of people are starving or struggling to merely get by, the government can and in his opinion should help. And it's hard to argue against that. The state is a cause of a great many problems - mass incarceration, the obstruction of black freedom movements, drone killings, and more which must be stopped - but at the same time, the state is an institution we have now. We must build our own resilient institutions to replace the state, but I think it ignores the suffering of millions to say the state should never be used to help the less privileged. I get really frustrated with libertarian types that would dismantle useful state programs before we've got something to replace them. They seem uninterested in the suffering that might cause, and I think they would do well to focus more advocacy on building the replacements before dismantling government systems. Interestingly I've learned that there is a big difference between "left libertarians" and "right libertarians". I think the left libertarians and the socialist anarchists could actually be allies if they could get past all their language differences and knee jerk reactions. My roommate is a knowledgeable left libertarian and it's amazing how similar our end goals are but how different our language and conceptual frameworks for getting there can sometimes be.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  "They eagerly seek you, not commendably, but they wish to shut you out, in order that you may seek them." Yeah, it's from the Bible. Yeah, Paul was talking about something completely different from political programs. It still seems to fit. There are people who seek to destroy the existing system first, in order that there will be no alternative but to build a replacement. They thereby show that they seriously doubt their ability to persuade people that their alternative is better. (They also assume that their alternative is the only alternative, or at least is the one that will be chosen. They are, I think, over-optimistic in doing so.)
- pdonis 7y ago
  > I think it ignores the suffering of millions to say the state should never be used to help the less privileged. If the state actually did help the less privileged, that would be one thing. But the state programs that claim to help the less privileged, mostly don't. And even when they do, the hoops the less privileged have to jump through to get the help are ridiculous. My wife and I have a friend who is on food stamps; he's disabled and unable to work, has been for years. Every year when his food stamps come up for renewal, even though not a single thing has changed with his situation, the county finds a way to screw it up and we have to call them and get it straightened out. Imagine what happens to people who don't have friends that can help them navigate the system. The root of the problem is not that helping the less privileged is a bad thing; it's that the state is the worst possible tool for the job. > I get really frustrated with libertarian types that would dismantle useful state programs before we've got something to replace them. We do have something to replace them: private charity. Anyone can found a nonprofit charity organization to help the less privileged. And they would do a much better job of it than the state does. The fact that the state is doing it at all hurts the actual ability to help people, because the people who would actually do a good job at it are thinking that the state is already taking care of it so they don't have to. Which means that there are actually more people who need help that are not getting it, than there would be if the state were simply out of the business altogether and everybody knew that it was up to them, as private individuals and private charities, to do it.
  - Firadeoclus 7y ago
chupasaurus 7y ago
> free market (in the “no regulation at all” approach) I'd like to call that view "free as in oligopoly".
pdonis 7y ago
> I know a software engineer who is very much against net neutrality. He also happens to be very much pro free market (in the “no regulation at all” approach). Is he also in favor of ending the monopolies that ISPs have over Internet access in most places in the US? I'm also pro free market, and if ISPs were a free market I would also be against net neutrality as a government regulation. But ISPs are not a free market; they are huge beneficiaries of government regulation. So net neutrality is one of those unfortunate cases where we need government regulation to offset the effects of other government regulation. That's the bet we can do if having a truly free market is not an option.
- badRNG 7y ago
  It may not be entirely relevant, but I'd love to know this engineer's perspective on the .ORG TLD sale and whether they believe the CA AG overstepped. After all, it is a transaction between to private entities.

root_axis 7y ago

> No one wants ISP (or in fact anyone) deciding what sites they can visit or not. A lot of people do want that because they view prohibiting it as a government take over of the internet. I personally think that is absurd, but it's a very popular opinion.

takeda 7y ago
They are misinformed, the ISPs spent a lot of effort trying to confuse people. They confuse people implying that government tries to start controlling Internet now and it didn't do that before, when the reverse is true. Is like trying to convince people that first amendment should be abolished, because it is enforced by the government and they should not control what we can say or not. It is flipping the whole thing upside down, and many confused people are supporting it, when they really want the opposite.
- root_axis 7y ago
  I don't agree that they are confused, at least not most of them. Rather, those views comport with their existing perspectives on government regulation of the private sector. Even in this very forum it is not uncommon to see people seriously argue that regulations are fundamentally bad for consumers, including net neutrality. I disagree with this perspective, but I don't think it's accurate to say they are confused about their position. The most common argument I hear against net neutrality is that it's unnecessary government overreach and that ISPs would never try to dictate network traffic in a draconian fashion because it would be bad for business. I won't list all the problems with this reasoning since I'd be preaching to the choir, but this is a belief that a lot of people have.
pdonis 7y ago
> A lot of people do want that because they view prohibiting it as a government take over of the internet. I personally think that is absurd, but it's a very popular opinion. Can you point to some places where this opinion is expressed? I've never encountered it.
- 7y ago