8 ms·
I wish they would do that as well, but that certainly doesn't invalidate these concerns
by ziftface 5y ago
I wish they would do that as well, but that certainly doesn't invalidate these concerns
- bananabreakfast 5y agoSure it does. It undercuts their entire argument by making it look much more like a political stunt than any kind of serious action.
- ttt0 5y agoISPs don't abuse their power like Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. do.
- verall 5y agoThey absolutely do? ISPs frequently rate the top of most hated companies lists, and many Americans do not have access to more than 1 ISP offering (>=30mbit) high speed internet.
- awillen 5y agoComcast once charged me a $5 self-installation fee. As in I set up the equipment in my house and paid for the privilege. My other option was to not have internet.
- sumedh 5y agoCan someone who has the time and money sue Comcast in court for this fee? I believe a judge will say that fee is not reasonable.
- minsc__and__boo 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_shaping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_shaping
- suifbwish 5y agoActually that is what is known as a red herring argument. Bringing up something unrelated saying that the original argument is invalidated because the same reasoning wasn’t applied to it is a common informal fallacy. Most legal documents have something related to severability which states that even if one part of the document is found to be unreasonable/illegal/illogical, it does not invalidate the rest of the document.
- minsc__and__boo 5y agoThat's not what a red herring is. They're calling out the logical inconsistency of the claims being made, and in turn questioning the genuineness of the speaker's motive.
- Covzire 5y agoI'm not aware of any ISP in the US that has terminated a customer's service for perfectly legal political statements.
- zerocrates 5y agoCertainly it has happened on the hosting side: connectivity, domain names, etc.
- minsc__and__boo 5y agoOutside of certain protected class situations, Freedom of Association allows anyone to terminate service irregardless of legality of political statements made on their own privately-owned platform. And no, political stance is not a protected class.
- pumaontheprowl 5y agoHence why Google needs to be made a public utility.
- minsc__and__boo 5y agoExcept search engines are not a necessary service for the public, which is what a public utility is. Reclassifying a privately owned business to restrict their freedom of association because you think they threaten your political views is autocratic behavior, not democratic.
- gruez 5y agoIt doesn't invalidate the concerns, but it makes you question their motivations.
- wyager 5y agoIf this violates your a priori expectation of politicians' behavior, your prior was bad.
- jrochkind1 5y agoWhat does it make you suspect their motivations are?
- voxl 5y agoThe obvious? More control over a perceived liberal-biased company from a republican controlled state.
- jrochkind1 5y agoThat is not at all obvious to me, that's why I asked, it wasn't a trick question, there wasn't an answer that was obvious to me! OK. I dunno if that makes much sense to me, I don't think it does. (I am not a conservative fwiw). But thanks for clarifying!
- muyuu 5y agoI'm not American but I find it worrisome that some of the largest companies in the US (and the world) are so "obviously" partisan and willing to exert their power in a partisan fashion, as people accept this reality uncritically - whether it's in favour of their allegiances or not. That's what a dangerously broken society looks like. The common folk should never be openly supportive of "robber baron"-style political activism and it's unprecedented AFAIK.
- jrochkind1 5y agoWell, what is "obvious" is under dispute too. It is not "obvious" to me that for instance Google is particularly partisan. Most big companies donate to both USA parties in large quantities, because they know they need to buy the politicians whoever is in power. I haven't looked it up, but I assume Google is similar in it's lobbying. The largest companies are almost always mostly looking out for their own profits, and use their not inconsiderable power mostly to that end. And that's not unprecedented. I don't know if it should be less worrisome that we accept that uncritically! (Btw, to say something is unprecedented and call it "robber baron style" is a bit confusing, since the term "robber baron" as applied to industrialists/capitalists is over 100 years old! Whatever the "robber baron style" is, it originated in the 19th century! so not unprecedented)