6 ms·

Net neutrality needs to go. Why should I, as a private ISP company, be forced to pass through racist content, russian disinformation or anti vaxxer propaganda?

Net neutrality needs to go. Why should I, as a private ISP company, be forced to pass through racist content, russian disinformation or anti vaxxer propaganda? If YouTube is allowed to block content, why aren't ISP's also allowed? We need to call out companies who tollerate hate speech. You can always start your own ISP if you fancy those kinds of content.

lykr0n 6y ago
You can't just go out and start an ISP. That's like saying I can go out and start my own bank or make my own payment processor.
- failrate 6y ago
  It is difficult to start your own ISP or payment processor, but it is possible.
- borski 6y ago
  I agree with your sentiment (that you shouldn't have to), but you actually can do these things. People have started banks and payment processors, and competed successfully with the bigger ones; Stripe is a great example, as is Simple. https://startyourownisp.com https://startyourownisp.com
  - RangerScience 6y ago
    AFAIK Simple is not a bank, it's a (better) UI/UX wrapper around "bank", and they've changed the underlying provider at least once since I've been using them.
    - borski 6y ago
      Fair, but nevertheless: https://www.americanbanker.com/list/new-banks-this-year https://www.americanbanker.com/list/new-banks-this-year
- betterunix2 6y ago
  "You can't just go out and start an ISP." Actually it is not that difficult in a densely populated area using modern wireless networking technologies. NYC Mesh is the example that immediately comes to my mind -- they have installed repeaters on dozens of rooftops and have plenty of peering relationships (though AFAIK they do not provide transit because they are only connected to a single IXP). I also know someone who worked for a wireless ISP in a rural area, though they ultimately went bankrupt probably because of the higher cost per customer in sparsely populated regions (probably the reason rural areas are invariably stuck with a local monopoly that provides terrible service at a high price). Of course, providing competitive service is a different story, and is far more capital intensive...
  - msla 6y ago
    > NYC Mesh is the example that immediately comes to my mind -- they have installed repeaters on dozens of rooftops and have plenty of peering relationships (though AFAIK they do not provide transit because they are only connected to a single IXP). ... which is why people say it's impossible to start an ISP. Building the local part is relatively easy, but, one, how many backhaul networks serve your region, and, two, how many of them are willing to provide service to an entity robbing them of their rightful monopoly on selling overpriced triple-play contracts to everyone in the state?
    - betterunix2 6y ago
      Well, sure, and like I said that rural WISP wound up failing because building and maintaining their wireless backhaul was too expensive for the number of customers they served (and they definitely did not have the budget to build a wired backhaul). In a dense area like NYC, where you can get line of sight to a building that houses an IXP, it is definitely easier to do. As for ISPs selling service, it is not all that hard to get a contract. ISPs like Hurricane Electric will sell service to anyone who can be colocated with one of their POPs, and they are pretty widely distributed (they do not provide residential service and would have no reason to refuse to sell service to a residential ISP). Verizon and AT&T also have wholesale contracts that in theory a smaller ISP could use, and I doubt they would begrudge an ISP that is competing with them in some local market (especially since a small ISP will almost certainly not be able to provide a triple-play package or any form bundling at all, so the big players will always have the upper hand). "Enterprise" transit services can also be used, if you can afford the prices ISPs demand for those contracts (or more precisely, if you can effectively pass the cost on to your residential users). You may have to build out a backhaul to some large building where you can get a fiber connection, but that is not an insurmountable barrier to entry.
tenebrisalietum 6y ago
Why should I, as a power company, be forced to pass through power that is used to support people who I think don't vote according to my political party? You can always start your own power company if you fancy the other political party.
- kypro 6y ago
  I think this was the point OP was making. It's sarcasm. He's mocking those that believe service providers like Facebook and Youtube should be able to discriminate against content they dislike. If YouTube are allowed to regulate content because they're a private company and "go build your own", then by the same logic, why can't the ISPs?
  - aerovistae 6y ago
    Uh I do not think it was sarcasm.
    - kypro 6y ago
      Even so, it's interesting that the opinion was downvoted. I've seen people here make that exact same argument with much praise when the topic is whether or not Facebook should be allowed to regulate user submitted content. I suppose whether or not its sarcastic isn't that important. What's more interesting why there appears to be a kind of hypocritical support for net neutrality, but an opposition to neutrality on global communications platforms like Facebook?
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        Not just downvoted, but flag killed. I don't agree with the comment you're referencing, but I vouched for it to get it unflagged. The presentation may be a little hyperbolic, but it's not an insane position prima facie.
      - jdkfkror 6y ago
        Meme thoughts. Fashionable thoughts. Group think. Vista sucks. Windows 7 is awesome. IE sucks. Get everyone on Chrome. Wait, Chrome sucks, get everyone on Firefox. Nuclear energy good, Electron bad. Do Not Track is bad because it is enabled by default. Firefox is awesome because it blocks trackers by default. Net neutrality is good. Facebook needs to block content. China needs to stop blocking content. Nobody actually thinks, they just spread the same memes.
baq 6y ago
total freedom is indistinguishable from anarchy. civilization developed laws for a reason. why can't you just punch anyone in the face? why can't you set the forest on fire? why can't you buy living people? don't get me wrong, all these things you list are IMHO very bad and shouldn't be on the internet, but let's create institutions that have the right tools to filter them (these tools include new laws). ISPs have the right tools to forward packets.
- failrate 6y ago
  Automatic content filtering does not work. For example, after the buyout, Tumblr implemented content filtering. The image they presented as being safe to share was immediately filtered by their software. Let me repeat that: Tumblr's content filter produced a false positive with their own safe reference!
  - dkersten 6y ago
    > Automatic content filtering does not work. So how is an ISP supposed to do it, then, if there is no NN? Doesn't the same argument work there, too?
    - failrate 6y ago
      The ISP will allow their traffic or traffic from their business partners through cheaper and unimpeded. They will ensure that traffic from competitors is less reliable and more expensive. NN is about treating all packets equally.
      - dkersten 6y ago
        Yes. This is a money thing and has nothing to do with the discussion here, which is ” Why should I, as a private ISP company, be forced to pass through racist content, russian disinformation or anti vaxxer propaganda?”
- fallingfrog 6y ago
  Technically anarchy doesn’t mean the absence of rules or organization, just the absence of hierarchies that place one person/group in a strictly superior position to others.
ffpip 6y ago
ISP's dont host content. Imagine if Airlines block you from flying everywhere, but the place you want to travel to hasn't blocked you from entering it. They should not have that power, expect in extremely rare cases
- jdkfkror 6y ago
  > In a statement Tuesday, PAL Airlines said the two men would be banned indefinitely from the airline's flights. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/racist-comments-pal-flight-1.5390513 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/racist-...
  - moritonal 6y ago
    Because they insulted people on the same plane. In this metaphor that'd be like an ISP blocking a customer because they were hacking other customers, which is fine.
    - jdkfkror 6y ago
      You are making my point. If someone puts racist content on the net and a black customer complains, it's fine for the ISP to block them.
      - Fjolsvith 6y ago
        Your example only works if the offensive content was sent unsolicited. If the person offended sought out the content I do not think the content should be banned (assuming the content was legal speech).
  - ffpip 6y ago
    That is different. ISP's have those kinds of power too. Try running a DDOS attack without the ISP blocking you. Or try accessing banned content, without workarounds. A good read on who should be held responsible, written by Cloudflare's CEO. https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/
nitwit005 6y ago
> We need to call out companies who tollerate hate speech. You're absolutely right. I condemn all the phone companies and mail carriers who do nothing to stop people from using their services for hate speech. They should listen in on every call, and open every envelope, to ensure content is acceptable. Sarcasm, in case that wasn't clear.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  I don’t think anybody cares that much about one to one communications. You don’t know or care what your neighbor is communicating to their friends. When things are public and ad supported, then people (and advertisers) care.
tzs 6y ago
> If YouTube is allowed to block content, why aren't ISP's also allowed? Because, to use a transportation analogy, your ISP is like a taxi service and YouTube is like a store in the mall. We let stores in the mall decide who is allowed in (subject to certain broad antidiscrimination laws), but we don't let taxis refuse customers that want to go to any particular store in the mall.
UhDev 6y ago
This sounds like some sort of hate speech to me, ban this guy!
renewiltord 6y ago
Lots of coherent arguments on the Internet but here's the short form: It's good for society for the following things to be done: - permit people to offer infrastructure - indemnify them from the acts users commit while using the infrastructure (push law enforcement up to the gov) - in exchange, force them to not be able to select who uses the infrastructure (push discrimination up to the gov) Essentially, it's useful to have private parties provide unified public services. This allows you to privatize certain things (power generation, trains, the DMV if you desired, etc.) while retaining the privileges and duties the operator has to comply with if they were the government. There's obviously nuance to it, but if you wanted to know, that's the gist of it.

lykr0n 6y ago

You can't just go out and start an ISP. That's like saying I can go out and start my own bank or make my own payment processor.

failrate 6y ago
It is difficult to start your own ISP or payment processor, but it is possible.
borski 6y ago
I agree with your sentiment (that you shouldn't have to), but you actually can do these things. People have started banks and payment processors, and competed successfully with the bigger ones; Stripe is a great example, as is Simple. https://startyourownisp.com https://startyourownisp.com
- RangerScience 6y ago
  AFAIK Simple is not a bank, it's a (better) UI/UX wrapper around "bank", and they've changed the underlying provider at least once since I've been using them.
  - borski 6y ago
    Fair, but nevertheless: https://www.americanbanker.com/list/new-banks-this-year https://www.americanbanker.com/list/new-banks-this-year
betterunix2 6y ago
"You can't just go out and start an ISP." Actually it is not that difficult in a densely populated area using modern wireless networking technologies. NYC Mesh is the example that immediately comes to my mind -- they have installed repeaters on dozens of rooftops and have plenty of peering relationships (though AFAIK they do not provide transit because they are only connected to a single IXP). I also know someone who worked for a wireless ISP in a rural area, though they ultimately went bankrupt probably because of the higher cost per customer in sparsely populated regions (probably the reason rural areas are invariably stuck with a local monopoly that provides terrible service at a high price). Of course, providing competitive service is a different story, and is far more capital intensive...
- msla 6y ago
  > NYC Mesh is the example that immediately comes to my mind -- they have installed repeaters on dozens of rooftops and have plenty of peering relationships (though AFAIK they do not provide transit because they are only connected to a single IXP). ... which is why people say it's impossible to start an ISP. Building the local part is relatively easy, but, one, how many backhaul networks serve your region, and, two, how many of them are willing to provide service to an entity robbing them of their rightful monopoly on selling overpriced triple-play contracts to everyone in the state?
  - betterunix2 6y ago
    Well, sure, and like I said that rural WISP wound up failing because building and maintaining their wireless backhaul was too expensive for the number of customers they served (and they definitely did not have the budget to build a wired backhaul). In a dense area like NYC, where you can get line of sight to a building that houses an IXP, it is definitely easier to do. As for ISPs selling service, it is not all that hard to get a contract. ISPs like Hurricane Electric will sell service to anyone who can be colocated with one of their POPs, and they are pretty widely distributed (they do not provide residential service and would have no reason to refuse to sell service to a residential ISP). Verizon and AT&T also have wholesale contracts that in theory a smaller ISP could use, and I doubt they would begrudge an ISP that is competing with them in some local market (especially since a small ISP will almost certainly not be able to provide a triple-play package or any form bundling at all, so the big players will always have the upper hand). "Enterprise" transit services can also be used, if you can afford the prices ISPs demand for those contracts (or more precisely, if you can effectively pass the cost on to your residential users). You may have to build out a backhaul to some large building where you can get a fiber connection, but that is not an insurmountable barrier to entry.

tenebrisalietum 6y ago

Why should I, as a power company, be forced to pass through power that is used to support people who I think don't vote according to my political party? You can always start your own power company if you fancy the other political party.

kypro 6y ago
I think this was the point OP was making. It's sarcasm. He's mocking those that believe service providers like Facebook and Youtube should be able to discriminate against content they dislike. If YouTube are allowed to regulate content because they're a private company and "go build your own", then by the same logic, why can't the ISPs?
- aerovistae 6y ago
  Uh I do not think it was sarcasm.
  - kypro 6y ago
    Even so, it's interesting that the opinion was downvoted. I've seen people here make that exact same argument with much praise when the topic is whether or not Facebook should be allowed to regulate user submitted content. I suppose whether or not its sarcastic isn't that important. What's more interesting why there appears to be a kind of hypocritical support for net neutrality, but an opposition to neutrality on global communications platforms like Facebook?
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Not just downvoted, but flag killed. I don't agree with the comment you're referencing, but I vouched for it to get it unflagged. The presentation may be a little hyperbolic, but it's not an insane position prima facie.
    - jdkfkror 6y ago
      Meme thoughts. Fashionable thoughts. Group think. Vista sucks. Windows 7 is awesome. IE sucks. Get everyone on Chrome. Wait, Chrome sucks, get everyone on Firefox. Nuclear energy good, Electron bad. Do Not Track is bad because it is enabled by default. Firefox is awesome because it blocks trackers by default. Net neutrality is good. Facebook needs to block content. China needs to stop blocking content. Nobody actually thinks, they just spread the same memes.

baq 6y ago

total freedom is indistinguishable from anarchy. civilization developed laws for a reason. why can't you just punch anyone in the face? why can't you set the forest on fire? why can't you buy living people? don't get me wrong, all these things you list are IMHO very bad and shouldn't be on the internet, but let's create institutions that have the right tools to filter them (these tools include new laws). ISPs have the right tools to forward packets.

failrate 6y ago
Automatic content filtering does not work. For example, after the buyout, Tumblr implemented content filtering. The image they presented as being safe to share was immediately filtered by their software. Let me repeat that: Tumblr's content filter produced a false positive with their own safe reference!
- dkersten 6y ago
  > Automatic content filtering does not work. So how is an ISP supposed to do it, then, if there is no NN? Doesn't the same argument work there, too?
  - failrate 6y ago
    The ISP will allow their traffic or traffic from their business partners through cheaper and unimpeded. They will ensure that traffic from competitors is less reliable and more expensive. NN is about treating all packets equally.
    - dkersten 6y ago
      Yes. This is a money thing and has nothing to do with the discussion here, which is ” Why should I, as a private ISP company, be forced to pass through racist content, russian disinformation or anti vaxxer propaganda?”
fallingfrog 6y ago
Technically anarchy doesn’t mean the absence of rules or organization, just the absence of hierarchies that place one person/group in a strictly superior position to others.

ffpip 6y ago

ISP's dont host content. Imagine if Airlines block you from flying everywhere, but the place you want to travel to hasn't blocked you from entering it. They should not have that power, expect in extremely rare cases

jdkfkror 6y ago
> In a statement Tuesday, PAL Airlines said the two men would be banned indefinitely from the airline's flights. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/racist-comments-pal-flight-1.5390513 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/racist-...
- moritonal 6y ago
  Because they insulted people on the same plane. In this metaphor that'd be like an ISP blocking a customer because they were hacking other customers, which is fine.
  - jdkfkror 6y ago
    You are making my point. If someone puts racist content on the net and a black customer complains, it's fine for the ISP to block them.
    - Fjolsvith 6y ago
      Your example only works if the offensive content was sent unsolicited. If the person offended sought out the content I do not think the content should be banned (assuming the content was legal speech).
- ffpip 6y ago
  That is different. ISP's have those kinds of power too. Try running a DDOS attack without the ISP blocking you. Or try accessing banned content, without workarounds. A good read on who should be held responsible, written by Cloudflare's CEO. https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/

nitwit005 6y ago

> We need to call out companies who tollerate hate speech. You're absolutely right. I condemn all the phone companies and mail carriers who do nothing to stop people from using their services for hate speech. They should listen in on every call, and open every envelope, to ensure content is acceptable. Sarcasm, in case that wasn't clear.

amanaplanacanal 6y ago
I don’t think anybody cares that much about one to one communications. You don’t know or care what your neighbor is communicating to their friends. When things are public and ad supported, then people (and advertisers) care.

tzs 6y ago

> If YouTube is allowed to block content, why aren't ISP's also allowed? Because, to use a transportation analogy, your ISP is like a taxi service and YouTube is like a store in the mall. We let stores in the mall decide who is allowed in (subject to certain broad antidiscrimination laws), but we don't let taxis refuse customers that want to go to any particular store in the mall.

UhDev 6y ago

This sounds like some sort of hate speech to me, ban this guy!

renewiltord 6y ago

Lots of coherent arguments on the Internet but here's the short form: It's good for society for the following things to be done: - permit people to offer infrastructure - indemnify them from the acts users commit while using the infrastructure (push law enforcement up to the gov) - in exchange, force them to not be able to select who uses the infrastructure (push discrimination up to the gov) Essentially, it's useful to have private parties provide unified public services. This allows you to privatize certain things (power generation, trains, the DMV if you desired, etc.) while retaining the privileges and duties the operator has to comply with if they were the government. There's obviously nuance to it, but if you wanted to know, that's the gist of it.