31 ms·

it's not needed, the fcc doesnt have the authority, keeping the government away from internet is a good thing

polygamous_bat 2y ago
> keeping the government away from internet is a good thing See, I would have agreed more with this if most of our internet infrastructures were not controlled by three megacorps with more power than many small to medium sized economies in the world. As it stands, the only valid option is to fight fire with fire.
- barney54 2y ago
  And what has happened after the Trump FCC un-wound the previous net neutrality rules? Did the internet go to hell?
  - Dou8Le 2y ago
    No, likely in anticipation of the rules being changed back. Better question for you. Why did ISPs attempt to fake support for repealing Net Neutrality [0][1], as well as spend money lobbying Congress? You'll note in that article that there were also fake comments in support of Net Neutrality, apparently mostly generated by one individual, but many, many fake comments against it from ISPs that even used real people's identities [2]. These aren't the actions a company takes if they don't have incentive. [0] https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2021/attorney-general-james-issues-report-detailing-millions-fake-comments-revealing https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2021/attorney-general-james-... [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/11/29/public-comments-to-the-federal-communications-commission-about-net-neutrality-contain-many-inaccuracies-and-duplicates/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/11/29/public-comme... [2] https://mashable.com/article/fake-net-neutrality-comment-fcc https://mashable.com/article/fake-net-neutrality-comment-fcc
  - kelnos 2y ago
    No, because California and 12 other states, as well as quite a few local governments, passed their own net neutrality laws. The larger, national ISPs were pretty hamstrung: they couldn't really follow the NN laws in the places where they existed, but then impose non-neutral terms in the places where they didn't, without running into lots of trouble. A federal rule is good, though, to harmonize things, even if the state/local laws were more or less already doing the job.
- JacobThreeThree 2y ago
  If anti competitive corporations are the problem, why not pursue these monopolistic companies using the existing anti-trust laws? Why does there need to be a new law with the FCC involved?
LastTrain 2y ago
In some libertarian dream the FCC lacks authority...
- komali2 2y ago
  The American libertarian dream confuses me because unlike libertarians abroad (where it's a synonym with "anarchist") they stop with political authority, and seem to have no issue with corporate authority. The ISP business in the USA is very clearly an oligopoly with the top players colluding. Not sure how a rugged individual is supposed to fight back against that.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    The usual claim in right libertarian circles is that monopolies only arise because they can bribe the government into passing laws that enable them to exist.
    - pseudalopex 2y ago
      Or everyone is happy with the monopoly.
      - int_19h 2y ago
        Yep, the Peter Thiel school of thought. But people like that tend to not stay libertarian in any meaningful sense for long; to quote Thiel himself, "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible". That's how you get neo-reactionaries, basically.
        mindslight 2y ago
        You only get neo-reactionaries out of people that define their freedom as including their abilities to coerce others, and then get frustrated that said "freedom" is being impinged. They think they're morally right because they've defined away the coercion. Personally, around the time the whole Unqualified Reservations / NRx thing was starting up, I considered myself a libertarian with more rightist sympathies. Reading UR and its classification of left versus right is actually what pushed me back into seeing that my philosophy is more aligned with the left. Axiomatic framing and fundamentalism simply doesn't work (cf Gödel). Systems need to be judged on their effective results regardless of their implementations' terminology.
EasyMark 2y ago
Is keeping the government away from roads a good thing? From helping poor people with basic necessities of life? Keeping children out of workhouses?
- 4RealFreedom 2y ago
  Where did anyone say that?
  - kelnos 2y ago
    I think the point the person you're replying to was trying to make is that the line drawn between things the government should have a hand in vs. things they should leave alone is fairly arbitrary, and is a matter of opinion. So saying the government should be kept away from the internet is just one place to draw the line, and it's perhaps interesting to know of other places where someone might draw that line, in order to get a baseline, and determine if it's even worth trying to have a productive discussion with them about government regulation.
    - 4RealFreedom 2y ago
      The way you positioned the argument is helpful and conducive to a conversation. Just throwing out scenarios and expecting me to derive meaning isn't productive.
kelnos 2y ago
Ah yes, keeping the US government away from the thing they created in the first place. That's seems workable, sure.
- SamPatt 2y ago
  The internet was explicitly privatized and deregulated in 1995 by the Clinton Administration. It has flourished under private sector control without net neutrality. A 30 year track record of success, yet people are still clambering to have it back under government control.

> keeping the government away from internet is a good thing See, I would have agreed more with this if most of our internet infrastructures were not controlled by three megacorps with more power than many small to medium sized economies in the world. As it stands, the only valid option is to fight fire with fire.

barney54 2y ago
And what has happened after the Trump FCC un-wound the previous net neutrality rules? Did the internet go to hell?
- Dou8Le 2y ago
  No, likely in anticipation of the rules being changed back. Better question for you. Why did ISPs attempt to fake support for repealing Net Neutrality [0][1], as well as spend money lobbying Congress? You'll note in that article that there were also fake comments in support of Net Neutrality, apparently mostly generated by one individual, but many, many fake comments against it from ISPs that even used real people's identities [2]. These aren't the actions a company takes if they don't have incentive. [0] https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2021/attorney-general-james-issues-report-detailing-millions-fake-comments-revealing https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2021/attorney-general-james-... [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/11/29/public-comments-to-the-federal-communications-commission-about-net-neutrality-contain-many-inaccuracies-and-duplicates/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/11/29/public-comme... [2] https://mashable.com/article/fake-net-neutrality-comment-fcc https://mashable.com/article/fake-net-neutrality-comment-fcc
- kelnos 2y ago
  No, because California and 12 other states, as well as quite a few local governments, passed their own net neutrality laws. The larger, national ISPs were pretty hamstrung: they couldn't really follow the NN laws in the places where they existed, but then impose non-neutral terms in the places where they didn't, without running into lots of trouble. A federal rule is good, though, to harmonize things, even if the state/local laws were more or less already doing the job.
JacobThreeThree 2y ago
If anti competitive corporations are the problem, why not pursue these monopolistic companies using the existing anti-trust laws? Why does there need to be a new law with the FCC involved?

LastTrain 2y ago

In some libertarian dream the FCC lacks authority...

komali2 2y ago
The American libertarian dream confuses me because unlike libertarians abroad (where it's a synonym with "anarchist") they stop with political authority, and seem to have no issue with corporate authority. The ISP business in the USA is very clearly an oligopoly with the top players colluding. Not sure how a rugged individual is supposed to fight back against that.
- int_19h 2y ago
  The usual claim in right libertarian circles is that monopolies only arise because they can bribe the government into passing laws that enable them to exist.
  - pseudalopex 2y ago
    Or everyone is happy with the monopoly.
    - int_19h 2y ago
      Yep, the Peter Thiel school of thought. But people like that tend to not stay libertarian in any meaningful sense for long; to quote Thiel himself, "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible". That's how you get neo-reactionaries, basically.
      - mindslight 2y ago
        You only get neo-reactionaries out of people that define their freedom as including their abilities to coerce others, and then get frustrated that said "freedom" is being impinged. They think they're morally right because they've defined away the coercion. Personally, around the time the whole Unqualified Reservations / NRx thing was starting up, I considered myself a libertarian with more rightist sympathies. Reading UR and its classification of left versus right is actually what pushed me back into seeing that my philosophy is more aligned with the left. Axiomatic framing and fundamentalism simply doesn't work (cf Gödel). Systems need to be judged on their effective results regardless of their implementations' terminology.

EasyMark 2y ago

Is keeping the government away from roads a good thing? From helping poor people with basic necessities of life? Keeping children out of workhouses?

4RealFreedom 2y ago
Where did anyone say that?
- kelnos 2y ago
  I think the point the person you're replying to was trying to make is that the line drawn between things the government should have a hand in vs. things they should leave alone is fairly arbitrary, and is a matter of opinion. So saying the government should be kept away from the internet is just one place to draw the line, and it's perhaps interesting to know of other places where someone might draw that line, in order to get a baseline, and determine if it's even worth trying to have a productive discussion with them about government regulation.
  - 4RealFreedom 2y ago
    The way you positioned the argument is helpful and conducive to a conversation. Just throwing out scenarios and expecting me to derive meaning isn't productive.

kelnos 2y ago

Ah yes, keeping the US government away from the thing they created in the first place. That's seems workable, sure.

SamPatt 2y ago
The internet was explicitly privatized and deregulated in 1995 by the Clinton Administration. It has flourished under private sector control without net neutrality. A 30 year track record of success, yet people are still clambering to have it back under government control.