3 ms·

Are there any examples of where the issues that fall under network neutrality have resulted in unavoidable censorship (higher charges would not apply, since the

Are there any examples of where the issues that fall under network neutrality have resulted in unavoidable censorship (higher charges would not apply, since the option to pay higher fees does exist, regardless of whether it is "fair" or not).

Jtsummers 6y ago
Censorship, not that I know of. But Twitter can't really censor anything, only their platform (same with Facebook). Content they block can be accessed through other means. Net neutrality, however, applies to the operators who can (effectively) bar access short of finding a separate provider. Examples of things net neutrality would bar would be slowing/blocking Bittorrent connections (traffic shaping), slowing competitors (Netflix), etc. And those things have happened and likely will continue to happen without net neutrality legislation.
- mistermann 6y ago
  > Censorship, not that I know of. But Twitter can't really censor anything, only their platform (same with Facebook). "Can't really censor anything", except what they can (and do, with a rather heavy lean to one political side) censor: arguably one of the top two "popular information" dissemination platforms on the planet. The same goes for Facebook, and YouTube, if to differing degrees. The same may also be happening within mainstream newspapers and TV news, but due to the nature of those businesses, any censorship that may be occurring is less discoverable (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). > Content they block can be accessed through other means. Can be, in theory - whether it actually is (as compared to the alternate scenario of if it had not been censored on the major platforms), is unknown (due to the discoverability issue, difficulty in finding it (search engine "optimizations", deplatforming), additional effort, etc). It may seem like it isn't unknown (the sense of omniscience that comes with human consciousness), but it actually is unknown. What I really enjoy about these types of conversations is the somewhat disingenuous ~"can't see the elephant in the room" nature. It is not complicated to realize that if censorship occurs on a platform, then therefore dissemination and consumption of the information will decrease (that's the whole point of it)...yet if one observes conversations on HN, I'd say at least a good third of the comments are written as if the reader genuinely doesn't realize this. That's perfectly fine of course, free speech and all that, but it's really fascinating to consider from a human psychology/neurology perspective. Even more fun is "breaking the 4th wall" of forums by pointing out this meta-pespective, and then observing replies that seem as if they literally hadn't seen that portion of the comment.

Jtsummers 6y ago

Censorship, not that I know of. But Twitter can't really censor anything, only their platform (same with Facebook). Content they block can be accessed through other means. Net neutrality, however, applies to the operators who can (effectively) bar access short of finding a separate provider. Examples of things net neutrality would bar would be slowing/blocking Bittorrent connections (traffic shaping), slowing competitors (Netflix), etc. And those things have happened and likely will continue to happen without net neutrality legislation.

mistermann 6y ago
> Censorship, not that I know of. But Twitter can't really censor anything, only their platform (same with Facebook). "Can't really censor anything", except what they can (and do, with a rather heavy lean to one political side) censor: arguably one of the top two "popular information" dissemination platforms on the planet. The same goes for Facebook, and YouTube, if to differing degrees. The same may also be happening within mainstream newspapers and TV news, but due to the nature of those businesses, any censorship that may be occurring is less discoverable (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). > Content they block can be accessed through other means. Can be, in theory - whether it actually is (as compared to the alternate scenario of if it had not been censored on the major platforms), is unknown (due to the discoverability issue, difficulty in finding it (search engine "optimizations", deplatforming), additional effort, etc). It may seem like it isn't unknown (the sense of omniscience that comes with human consciousness), but it actually is unknown. What I really enjoy about these types of conversations is the somewhat disingenuous ~"can't see the elephant in the room" nature. It is not complicated to realize that if censorship occurs on a platform, then therefore dissemination and consumption of the information will decrease (that's the whole point of it)...yet if one observes conversations on HN, I'd say at least a good third of the comments are written as if the reader genuinely doesn't realize this. That's perfectly fine of course, free speech and all that, but it's really fascinating to consider from a human psychology/neurology perspective. Even more fun is "breaking the 4th wall" of forums by pointing out this meta-pespective, and then observing replies that seem as if they literally hadn't seen that portion of the comment.