5 ms·

> 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

> 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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.
- root_axis 6y ago
  > Can you point to some places where this opinion is expressed? I've never encountered it. HN for starters. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9107915 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9107915 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14347013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14347013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9114134 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9114134 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20166118 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20166118 And many more examples if you search. But not just here, I've seen this opinion represented pretty much anywhere I see net neutrality discussed. Anecdotally, it's nowhere near a majority opinion, but it's definitely not an uncommon one.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    I don't see anyone in the links you provided saying they want ISPs to decide what sites they can visit or not. I only see them saying that they believe government regulation of the Internet in the name of net neutrality would be worse than having to bargain with ISPs about access to content as private entities bargaining with other private entities. I happen to think they are wrong as a matter of tactics in this particular case: governments gave ISPs the special privileges they have now, and if we can't get governments to just withdraw those privileges altogether and force ISPs to compete on a level playing field, net neutrality regulation might be the "least worst" alternative we can actually achieve. But as far as being skeptical of government regulation in general, and government regulation of any form of mass communication in particular, as a longer term strategic position I think they are right. Net neutrality regulation, even if we could get it, would not allow us to just sit back and relax, problem solved. We would still have to be prepared to protest the next time the government tries to overreach, and the next, and the next, and the next...
    - root_axis 6y ago
      > I don't see anyone in the links you provided saying they want ISPs to decide what sites they can visit or not. I only see them saying that they believe government regulation of the Internet in the name of net neutrality would be worse than having to bargain with ISPs about access to content as private entities bargaining with other private entities. A distinction without a practical difference. They do want ISPs to decide what sites they can and cannot visit because that is the defacto state of affairs in a world without net neutrality, it is only that they are satisfied with the decisions the ISPs have made thus far.

takeda 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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.

root_axis 6y ago
> Can you point to some places where this opinion is expressed? I've never encountered it. HN for starters. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9107915 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9107915 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14347013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14347013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9114134 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9114134 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20166118 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20166118 And many more examples if you search. But not just here, I've seen this opinion represented pretty much anywhere I see net neutrality discussed. Anecdotally, it's nowhere near a majority opinion, but it's definitely not an uncommon one.
- pdonis 6y ago
  I don't see anyone in the links you provided saying they want ISPs to decide what sites they can visit or not. I only see them saying that they believe government regulation of the Internet in the name of net neutrality would be worse than having to bargain with ISPs about access to content as private entities bargaining with other private entities. I happen to think they are wrong as a matter of tactics in this particular case: governments gave ISPs the special privileges they have now, and if we can't get governments to just withdraw those privileges altogether and force ISPs to compete on a level playing field, net neutrality regulation might be the "least worst" alternative we can actually achieve. But as far as being skeptical of government regulation in general, and government regulation of any form of mass communication in particular, as a longer term strategic position I think they are right. Net neutrality regulation, even if we could get it, would not allow us to just sit back and relax, problem solved. We would still have to be prepared to protest the next time the government tries to overreach, and the next, and the next, and the next...
  - root_axis 6y ago
    > I don't see anyone in the links you provided saying they want ISPs to decide what sites they can visit or not. I only see them saying that they believe government regulation of the Internet in the name of net neutrality would be worse than having to bargain with ISPs about access to content as private entities bargaining with other private entities. A distinction without a practical difference. They do want ISPs to decide what sites they can and cannot visit because that is the defacto state of affairs in a world without net neutrality, it is only that they are satisfied with the decisions the ISPs have made thus far.