3 ms·

> I understand your point, but I just don't see the ethical implications. Net neutrality, may be important, but it is a legal directive. Not supporting, or acti

by atmosx 13y ago

> I understand your point, but I just don't see the ethical implications. Net neutrality, may be important, but it is a legal directive. Not supporting, or actively working to abolish net neutrality, isn't unethical. So, according to you allowing a light weight to fight a heavy weight is ethical? In my view, it is not. Big corporations enjoy already great advantages that come from their size. If we let this go, we'll turn an oligopoly into a monopoly. So imagine now if some ISP will have to BUY access to Netflix, Google, etc. So say 5 years from now, 1 carrier gives you Bing, Yahoo and Twitter while the other one gives you only Google. If you take the former you'll have to buy a proxy into Google because Google didn't pay the carrier and the carrier doesn't want free rides on his network. This could deteriorate faster then we might dare to think.

macspoofing 13y ago
>So, according to you allowing a light weight to fight a heavy weight is ethical? It's neither ethical nor unethical, that's all I'm saying. It's like saying "tax-cuts are unethical because of one thing or another". You can try to argue that, sure, but I think it'd be irrational. By the way, I do support Net Neutrality because it's a good policy that makes everyone better off.
- ganeumann 13y ago
  >By the way, I do support Net Neutrality because it's a good policy that makes everyone better off. In some philosophical traditions making everyone better off is the actual definition of ethical.
  - macspoofing 13y ago
    >In some philosophical traditions making everyone better off is the actual definition of ethical. Everyone except telecoms (and possibly the big guys who could afford the telecom toll).
    - wwweston 13y ago
      Arguably the telecoms too. They benefit from an increased requirement for their services, but that only happens as new and compelling services are created and catch on. Under what conditions are these services most likely to come about? Well, we've been able to compare networks where content and carrier have ties, and neutral networks. Think AOL versus the web. We have some idea which one does better. Introducing extra data fees isn't necessarily the walled garden, I suppose, but depending on the structure, it walks us back some degree on the spectrum between the web and AOL.

by atmosx 13y ago

macspoofing 13y ago

>So, according to you allowing a light weight to fight a heavy weight is ethical? It's neither ethical nor unethical, that's all I'm saying. It's like saying "tax-cuts are unethical because of one thing or another". You can try to argue that, sure, but I think it'd be irrational. By the way, I do support Net Neutrality because it's a good policy that makes everyone better off.

ganeumann 13y ago
>By the way, I do support Net Neutrality because it's a good policy that makes everyone better off. In some philosophical traditions making everyone better off is the actual definition of ethical.
- macspoofing 13y ago
  >In some philosophical traditions making everyone better off is the actual definition of ethical. Everyone except telecoms (and possibly the big guys who could afford the telecom toll).
  - wwweston 13y ago
    Arguably the telecoms too. They benefit from an increased requirement for their services, but that only happens as new and compelling services are created and catch on. Under what conditions are these services most likely to come about? Well, we've been able to compare networks where content and carrier have ties, and neutral networks. Think AOL versus the web. We have some idea which one does better. Introducing extra data fees isn't necessarily the walled garden, I suppose, but depending on the structure, it walks us back some degree on the spectrum between the web and AOL.