4 ms·

> Democrats will restore the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) clear authority to take strong enforcement action against broadband providers who violate

> Democrats will restore the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) clear authority to take strong enforcement action against broadband providers who violate net neutrality principles This seems antithetical to their newfound views on how corporations like Twitter should be able to block political news on their platforms. I don't see how it's dramatically different for Twitter (or Facebook or Google) deciding to block the New York Post than it is for Comcast to do so. It's not obvious to me right now which is the party for a free and open internet.

ceejayoz 6y ago
"Net Neutrality" has never been about moderation of content on websites. Conflating the two is disingenuous.
- nostromo 6y ago
  Your comment is content-free and breaks the HN guideline to assume good faith. I’d like to hear why you think it is terrible when Comcast bans a website but fine when Google/Facebook/Twitter do it. Both groups have monopolistic power. And, if anything, the ISPs are much less powerful and less important than the big tech companies. If anything they should be held to a higher standard.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    > Your comment is content-free and breaks the HN guideline to assume good faith. Nah. > I’d like to hear why you think it is terrible when Comcast bans a website but fine when Google/Facebook/Twitter do it. In many areas of the country, there is only one ISP available. In my area, there's two, but one only offers very slow DSL; there is a de facto monopoly on meaningful internet service. This is not the case for social media. > Both groups have monopolistic power. That you had to say "Google/Facebook/Twitter" and not just one of them clearly indicates that they do not.
    - nostromo 6y ago
      The majority Americans have a choice in ISPs, so do you think they should be able to block any websites they like - just like Twitter? Hey, it’s their platform... don’t like it, go somewhere else. And every American has a choice in cellphone service providers - so they can block journalist they don’t favor too. What could possibly go wrong?
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        > The majority Americans have a choice in ISPs... Not really, no. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/12/new-fcc-data-indicates-future-broadband-access-most-americans-will-be-monopoly https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/12/new-fcc-data-indicates... > The major takeaway of this report, which provides policymakers in D.C. and the states a wide-ranging view of available data to see trends in the Internet, is that competition for broadband only looks good at slow speeds while a vast majority of Americans (EFF estimates at least 68 million) are facing monopoly or no access to high-speed broadband. > Instead, in a handful of markets we have reviewed, we find that the average price consumers pay ranges from 200% to 400% above competitive rates and that cable prices are established surgical precision in order to extract monopoly rents. For example, I myself would have to pay $159.95 for a gigabit service whereas my coworkers would pay $40 for a superior product.
        nostromo 6y ago
        It's only a monopoly when you're narrowly focused not on internet access, but on fiber specifically. My goodness you folks will bend over backwards to defend the world's largest corporations censoring journalists. It shows just how illiberal the Democratic Party has become. It's very lonely right now for those of us that believe in freedom of speech as an ideal worth standing up for.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        > It's only a monopoly when you're narrowly focused not on internet access, but on fiber specifically. That's not actually what the highlighted quotes say.
triceratops 6y ago
> I don't see how it's dramatically different for Twitter (or Facebook or Google) deciding to block the New York Post than it is for Comcast to do so. If Comcast decides to block the New York Post, you can't see it at all until you change your Internet provider. That may involve breaking a contract, and will certainly cost you time and money. And that's if you have a choice at all - large swathes of the country have only one ISP. Many apartment buildings only have hookups for one provider. If TwitFaceGoog don't show NYP links you're free to type in their domain name in your web browser and go to the site directly. Suggesting there's no difference between the two is dishonest.
- nostromo 6y ago
  Let's choose a very similar example then. If you use a Comcast email address -- is it ok for them to scan emails you send to your friends, and quietly delete them if they contain links to newspapers they don't approve of? This would be illegal under net neutrality, and is identical to what Twitter and Facebook are doing regularly.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    > is it ok for them to scan emails you send to your friends, They're probably already doing this, at the very least to scan for viruses and filter scammy emails. > quietly delete them if they contain links...they don't approve of? That's what a spam filter does. > This would be illegal under net neutrality a) ISPs aren't subject to net neutrality. They were, but now they aren't. Guess who voted to make it that way? b) It would be a dick move and would cost the ISP a lot of business. Email is 1:1 and you (presumably) consented to receive email from your friends. But it isn't illegal afaik. Can you cite the relevant law you think makes this action illegal? > is identical to what Twitter and Facebook are doing regularly. Maybe, maybe not. It's not illegal. Considering that an ISP operates at the network layer and social networks operate at the application layer, such comparisons are meaningless. ISPs perform plenty of network-layer moderation that you never see and might never find out about.

ceejayoz 6y ago

"Net Neutrality" has never been about moderation of content on websites. Conflating the two is disingenuous.

nostromo 6y ago
Your comment is content-free and breaks the HN guideline to assume good faith. I’d like to hear why you think it is terrible when Comcast bans a website but fine when Google/Facebook/Twitter do it. Both groups have monopolistic power. And, if anything, the ISPs are much less powerful and less important than the big tech companies. If anything they should be held to a higher standard.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  > Your comment is content-free and breaks the HN guideline to assume good faith. Nah. > I’d like to hear why you think it is terrible when Comcast bans a website but fine when Google/Facebook/Twitter do it. In many areas of the country, there is only one ISP available. In my area, there's two, but one only offers very slow DSL; there is a de facto monopoly on meaningful internet service. This is not the case for social media. > Both groups have monopolistic power. That you had to say "Google/Facebook/Twitter" and not just one of them clearly indicates that they do not.
  - nostromo 6y ago
    The majority Americans have a choice in ISPs, so do you think they should be able to block any websites they like - just like Twitter? Hey, it’s their platform... don’t like it, go somewhere else. And every American has a choice in cellphone service providers - so they can block journalist they don’t favor too. What could possibly go wrong?
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      > The majority Americans have a choice in ISPs... Not really, no. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/12/new-fcc-data-indicates-future-broadband-access-most-americans-will-be-monopoly https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/12/new-fcc-data-indicates... > The major takeaway of this report, which provides policymakers in D.C. and the states a wide-ranging view of available data to see trends in the Internet, is that competition for broadband only looks good at slow speeds while a vast majority of Americans (EFF estimates at least 68 million) are facing monopoly or no access to high-speed broadband. > Instead, in a handful of markets we have reviewed, we find that the average price consumers pay ranges from 200% to 400% above competitive rates and that cable prices are established surgical precision in order to extract monopoly rents. For example, I myself would have to pay $159.95 for a gigabit service whereas my coworkers would pay $40 for a superior product.
      - nostromo 6y ago
        It's only a monopoly when you're narrowly focused not on internet access, but on fiber specifically. My goodness you folks will bend over backwards to defend the world's largest corporations censoring journalists. It shows just how illiberal the Democratic Party has become. It's very lonely right now for those of us that believe in freedom of speech as an ideal worth standing up for.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        > It's only a monopoly when you're narrowly focused not on internet access, but on fiber specifically. That's not actually what the highlighted quotes say.

triceratops 6y ago

> I don't see how it's dramatically different for Twitter (or Facebook or Google) deciding to block the New York Post than it is for Comcast to do so. If Comcast decides to block the New York Post, you can't see it at all until you change your Internet provider. That may involve breaking a contract, and will certainly cost you time and money. And that's if you have a choice at all - large swathes of the country have only one ISP. Many apartment buildings only have hookups for one provider. If TwitFaceGoog don't show NYP links you're free to type in their domain name in your web browser and go to the site directly. Suggesting there's no difference between the two is dishonest.

nostromo 6y ago
Let's choose a very similar example then. If you use a Comcast email address -- is it ok for them to scan emails you send to your friends, and quietly delete them if they contain links to newspapers they don't approve of? This would be illegal under net neutrality, and is identical to what Twitter and Facebook are doing regularly.
- triceratops 6y ago
  > is it ok for them to scan emails you send to your friends, They're probably already doing this, at the very least to scan for viruses and filter scammy emails. > quietly delete them if they contain links...they don't approve of? That's what a spam filter does. > This would be illegal under net neutrality a) ISPs aren't subject to net neutrality. They were, but now they aren't. Guess who voted to make it that way? b) It would be a dick move and would cost the ISP a lot of business. Email is 1:1 and you (presumably) consented to receive email from your friends. But it isn't illegal afaik. Can you cite the relevant law you think makes this action illegal? > is identical to what Twitter and Facebook are doing regularly. Maybe, maybe not. It's not illegal. Considering that an ISP operates at the network layer and social networks operate at the application layer, such comparisons are meaningless. ISPs perform plenty of network-layer moderation that you never see and might never find out about.