3 ms·

I'm operating under the good faith assumption that hatsix actually hasn't come across any discussions relating server bans and net neutrality before reading you

by md224 13y ago

I'm operating under the good faith assumption that hatsix actually hasn't come across any discussions relating server bans and net neutrality before reading your comment and the original article. That's what I took his comment to mean. In that case, it would be helpful to actually link to resources that discuss the two. For example: http://commons.oreilly.com/wiki/index.php/Network_Neutrality:_Distinctions_and_Controversies#Ban_on_.22servers.22 http://commons.oreilly.com/wiki/index.php/Network_Neutrality... Also: http://www.jthtl.org/content/articles/V2I1/JTHTLv2i1_Wu.PDF http://www.jthtl.org/content/articles/V2I1/JTHTLv2i1_Wu.PDF (search for the phrase "Restrictions on Providing Content") Now the question becomes: does this reflect a widely-held view?

comex 13y ago
> I'm operating under the good faith assumption that hatsix actually hasn't come across any discussions relating server bans and net neutrality before reading your comment and the original article. That's what I took his comment to mean. Even if he hadn't, the article quotes Google itself as promoting a particular server-based application as benefiting from net neutrality. That should be enough to demonstrate some level of hypocrisy.
- hatsix 13y ago
  I really had not heard of any discussions of user-side server bans w/regard to net neutrality. The quotes in the article do NOT suggest that google has changed stances or flip-flopped. It's the inferences and assumptions that the author made between the quotes that suggest that. His arguments are only valid if I the reader already believes that Google's definition of "any type of Server" is consistent with the wikipedia definition of "any type of Server". The author provides no proof that this is the case. The article even points out that google employees are assuring customers that gaming servers and other non-commercial servers are NOT banned. My very non-hypocritical argument is that google used vague language in their ToS, as most ISPs do, in order to give differentiation between personal and business class service. The author decided to interpret the ToS with a specific wikipedia definition of "Server", despite lack of any indication from Google that this is what was intended, and specific cited and official instances that indicate that this is NOT what is intended. Despite lack of positive evidence for this interpretation and even citing negative evidence, the author asserts that Google is now against Net Neutrality.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > My very non-hypocritical argument is that google used vague language in their ToS, as most ISPs do, in order to give differentiation between personal and business class service. The author decided to interpret the ToS with a specific wikipedia definition of "Server", despite lack of any indication from Google that this is what was intended, and specific cited and official instances that indicate that this is NOT what is intended. Despite lack of positive evidence for this interpretation and even citing negative evidence, the author asserts that Google is now against Net Neutrality. As a defense of Google's position as not conflicting with the Open Internet Report and Order that they lobbied for, that seems to fail on the grounds that using "vague language" about what is prohibited in the Terms of Service seems to be directly in conflict with the transparency provisions of the Report and Order (and, also, with the transparency principle which is part of the standard for evaluating whether practices limiting use of lawful applications, devices, and services are valid as "reasonable network management practices" under the neutrality provisions of the order.) So, this argument, rather than contradicting the charges against Google, actually supports them.

by md224 13y ago

comex 13y ago

> I'm operating under the good faith assumption that hatsix actually hasn't come across any discussions relating server bans and net neutrality before reading your comment and the original article. That's what I took his comment to mean. Even if he hadn't, the article quotes Google itself as promoting a particular server-based application as benefiting from net neutrality. That should be enough to demonstrate some level of hypocrisy.

hatsix 13y ago
I really had not heard of any discussions of user-side server bans w/regard to net neutrality. The quotes in the article do NOT suggest that google has changed stances or flip-flopped. It's the inferences and assumptions that the author made between the quotes that suggest that. His arguments are only valid if I the reader already believes that Google's definition of "any type of Server" is consistent with the wikipedia definition of "any type of Server". The author provides no proof that this is the case. The article even points out that google employees are assuring customers that gaming servers and other non-commercial servers are NOT banned. My very non-hypocritical argument is that google used vague language in their ToS, as most ISPs do, in order to give differentiation between personal and business class service. The author decided to interpret the ToS with a specific wikipedia definition of "Server", despite lack of any indication from Google that this is what was intended, and specific cited and official instances that indicate that this is NOT what is intended. Despite lack of positive evidence for this interpretation and even citing negative evidence, the author asserts that Google is now against Net Neutrality.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > My very non-hypocritical argument is that google used vague language in their ToS, as most ISPs do, in order to give differentiation between personal and business class service. The author decided to interpret the ToS with a specific wikipedia definition of "Server", despite lack of any indication from Google that this is what was intended, and specific cited and official instances that indicate that this is NOT what is intended. Despite lack of positive evidence for this interpretation and even citing negative evidence, the author asserts that Google is now against Net Neutrality. As a defense of Google's position as not conflicting with the Open Internet Report and Order that they lobbied for, that seems to fail on the grounds that using "vague language" about what is prohibited in the Terms of Service seems to be directly in conflict with the transparency provisions of the Report and Order (and, also, with the transparency principle which is part of the standard for evaluating whether practices limiting use of lawful applications, devices, and services are valid as "reasonable network management practices" under the neutrality provisions of the order.) So, this argument, rather than contradicting the charges against Google, actually supports them.