4 ms·

Besides economic and historical facts, I think one of the biggest reasons to flee municipal broadband is its liability to become a tool of government repression

Besides economic and historical facts, I think one of the biggest reasons to flee municipal broadband is its liability to become a tool of government repression. What we're essentially proposing is that at the dusk of paper and analog media we want the government to be the provider of information and communication infrastructure. I'm reminded of a quote from Martin Niemöller.... Perhaps our Constitution would protect us against such things. But why risk it?

jmyeet 5mo ago
This is just a slippery slope fallacy and I'm honestly confused as to why it's so sticky. Are we really concerned about possible repression by Marquette, MI? And what would that look like exactly? Also, what are we comparing it to? Social media companies do untold amounts of repression. My problem with this kind of argument is that it weights future hypothetical harm as more important than documented historical harm. Did we forget how Verizon FIOS throttled Netflix [1]? Also, what examples do we have of any municipal broadband in the US doing any kind of repression? The truth here is that big companies are more complicit to government intervention than small ones are. It's an odd quote to bring up because Niemoller was a concentration camp guard turned survivor who was arguing against inaction against the Nazis because it doesn't affect you, against being a bystander basically. Are we really likening municipal broadband to the Holocaust? Really? [1]: https://blog.flashrouters.com/2021/07/12/tired-netflix-throttling-verizon-fios-isps/ https://blog.flashrouters.com/2021/07/12/tired-netflix-throt...
- akramachamarei 5mo ago
  Yes, we should really be concerned about the government repressing internet users on its network. Surely you've noticed the hubbub about age verification recently. Maybe not Marquette, but in other places I certainly would expect the government to try to, for example ban porn under the guise of "protecting kids", or policing "hate speech" under the guise of preventing "incitements to violence". Now, you may not like porn, you may think you don't engage in hate speech, but as in the Niemöller quote, we shouldn't wait for the next disfavoured group to be us. We are I think, thankfully, very far from that, but I don't even want to take steps in that direction. Maybe this is just a hypothetical future harm. I'm not sure the benefits are any more concrete. After all, if Fios throttles your Netflix, you can (usually) pick another competitor. Would a municipal broadband provider permit competition? Seems unlikely to me, unless the state is willing to forgo the taxes from citizens who go with a private ISP, which I don't think they'd tolerate. And what if all the ISPs were throttling, i.e. you really had no alternative? I think it's worth asking what economic forces are incentivizing that, and why we think municipal ISPs wouldn't be subject to them? And if they are, who is paying to compensate? > The truth here is that big companies are more complicit to government intervention than small ones are. Seems backwards to me. Small company, small litigation warchest. It's "yessir" or we evaporate you. Why do you think it's the other way around?

jmyeet 5mo ago

This is just a slippery slope fallacy and I'm honestly confused as to why it's so sticky. Are we really concerned about possible repression by Marquette, MI? And what would that look like exactly? Also, what are we comparing it to? Social media companies do untold amounts of repression. My problem with this kind of argument is that it weights future hypothetical harm as more important than documented historical harm. Did we forget how Verizon FIOS throttled Netflix [1]? Also, what examples do we have of any municipal broadband in the US doing any kind of repression? The truth here is that big companies are more complicit to government intervention than small ones are. It's an odd quote to bring up because Niemoller was a concentration camp guard turned survivor who was arguing against inaction against the Nazis because it doesn't affect you, against being a bystander basically. Are we really likening municipal broadband to the Holocaust? Really? [1]: https://blog.flashrouters.com/2021/07/12/tired-netflix-throttling-verizon-fios-isps/ https://blog.flashrouters.com/2021/07/12/tired-netflix-throt...

akramachamarei 5mo ago
Yes, we should really be concerned about the government repressing internet users on its network. Surely you've noticed the hubbub about age verification recently. Maybe not Marquette, but in other places I certainly would expect the government to try to, for example ban porn under the guise of "protecting kids", or policing "hate speech" under the guise of preventing "incitements to violence". Now, you may not like porn, you may think you don't engage in hate speech, but as in the Niemöller quote, we shouldn't wait for the next disfavoured group to be us. We are I think, thankfully, very far from that, but I don't even want to take steps in that direction. Maybe this is just a hypothetical future harm. I'm not sure the benefits are any more concrete. After all, if Fios throttles your Netflix, you can (usually) pick another competitor. Would a municipal broadband provider permit competition? Seems unlikely to me, unless the state is willing to forgo the taxes from citizens who go with a private ISP, which I don't think they'd tolerate. And what if all the ISPs were throttling, i.e. you really had no alternative? I think it's worth asking what economic forces are incentivizing that, and why we think municipal ISPs wouldn't be subject to them? And if they are, who is paying to compensate? > The truth here is that big companies are more complicit to government intervention than small ones are. Seems backwards to me. Small company, small litigation warchest. It's "yessir" or we evaporate you. Why do you think it's the other way around?