16 ms·

I violated Responsible Reading Of The Internet Rule #1 and accidentally looked at the comments. I am having a hard time reconciling the vehement anti-net-neutr

by evanb 12y ago

I violated Responsible Reading Of The Internet Rule #1 and accidentally looked at the comments. I am having a hard time reconciling the vehement anti-net-neutrality anti-government hair-on-fire screaming there with the reasoned discussion and general attitude here---I would have thought the majority of readers of Wired would be of similar mind to HN readers.

innguest 12y ago
You thought Wired readers were as naive and as communist as you and you're disappointed they are smarter and more cynical. Boo. Hoo. There's no reasoned discussion in HN as discussions get downvoted. There's only a huge circle back-patting which your comment is a part of.
- remarkEon 12y ago
  So did you have a thoughtful, reasoned argument against this proposal or what?
  - wnevets 12y ago
    "government bad, me sad"
  - ikeboy 12y ago
    I'm against net neutrality. To me it looks like more regulation for not enough gain. I don't see why we should stop the free market; if one internet provider is doing things you don't like, another one will open and the consumer can change to that one if they care. I also feel that companies should have a right to provide some websites at higher speeds. There will always be a trade off; perhaps you could get cheaper internet if you only care about the top few sites. If they charge the same as internet providers that do have net neutrality, then they will quickly lose market share, and I believe that should be the market's choice, not the government. Imagine if all those people who signed the petition for new regulations instead signed a petition promising not to use any provider that throttled some websites. That would make a strong market incentive not to throttle sites. And if the consumers can't do that, why should the government step in to save us? If you argue that it's very hard to open a new cable internet company (which is the argument I got last time I brought this up), my answer is that enough rich people would be interested enough to open a competitor if there was demand.
    - orthecreedence 12y ago
      This would work great! Except that there aren't 20 providers to choose from, there's usually one, maybe two. And the two providers you generally expect to have do not care anything for consumer experience. They also lobby for other companies (or even townships) to not be able to set up their own fiber/cable connections. The lack of regulation you want already exists, and it's starting to strangle free and open communication as we know it. Also, not sure if this is clear, but net neutrality doesn't regulate prices. Companies can charge whatever they want for their service. The only thing that's regulated is how they treat data...all data must be treated the same. Other than that restriction, companies can do whatever they want. I don't really see how this could be viewed badly. Yes, people seem to really like the "regulation is bad" argument lately, but it doesn't really apply here, nor does it work as a blanket statement.
      - ikeboy 12y ago
        I know in my area there's more than one. >And the two providers you generally expect to have do not care anything for consumer experience. In a free market, this fact means that people don't care enough about their experience. If they cared enough, they would choose based on that, instead of on price. >They also lobby for other companies (or even townships) to not be able to set up their own fiber/cable connections. I would support strongly any attempt to make it easier for companies to open up new internet providers. Again, the reason there aren't so many options is because of regulations. >The lack of regulation you want already exists, and it's starting to strangle free and open communication as we know it. Give an example of a free market that doesn't have any net neutrality options, but has consumers that want it. >Also, not sure if this is clear, but net neutrality doesn't regulate prices. Companies can charge whatever they want for their service. The only thing that's regulated is how they treat data...all data must be treated the same. Other than that restriction, companies can do whatever they want. I don't really see how this could be viewed badly. Yes, people seem to really like the "regulation is bad" argument lately, but it doesn't really apply here, nor does it work as a blanket statement. I know what net neutrality is regulating, and I don't think that choice should be taken away from companies. I'm against government doing something that can be done by the consumer. Why doesn't the regulation is bad argument work here? As a consumer, I can see instances where I'd prefer to have cheaper service rather than pay more for net neutrality. What about wikipedia and other sites that can be accessed for free in some countries, but wouldn't if nn was implemented? Have you seen http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25... or http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-access-to-wikipedia-and-facebook/ http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-jus... There are plenty of use cases for not-nn. And again, if the consumer decided they really want it, then choose a provider that offers it.
- evanb 12y ago
  Well that's the first time I've been called a communist!
  - throwawayornot 12y ago
    I think he meant "Comment-est?"
- orthecreedence 12y ago
  Weird, I didn't know protecting free speech was considered communist now. It's almost like I need a personal "American Culture Consultant" to stay on top of all these shifting rules.
revscat 12y ago
For what it's worth, it was linked to from Drudge.
- jgrowl 12y ago
  This is the real reason. You can go to any article that is linked on drudge and you will see the exact same kind of comments.
jonathanpglick 12y ago
Yeah, I was shocked at comments, people completely missing the point.
colinbartlett 12y ago
I highly recommend this Chrome extension: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/shut-up/oklfoejikkmejobodofaimigojomlfim?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/shut-up/oklfoejikk... Basically hides the comments on every site unless you enable them. It's a little aggressive and sometimes if you notice something weird on a site you just need to disable it for that site. But it honestly improves the entire internet experience exponentially.
- el_benhameen 12y ago
  I added this line: 127.0.0.1 disqus.com to /etc/hosts and have actually noticed a measurable increase in my happiness, especially when it comes to reading and discussing news.
RKoutnik 12y ago
Most Wired readers, certainly. Most Wired readers are also smart enough to stay out of the maelstrom of politically-charged vitriol such comments sections become. Like you said, Rule #1. I suppose the Wired readers savvy enough to have an interesting voice on this issue are also smart enough to not voice it there.
mathattack 12y ago
I think there is a large strain of the population who thinks, "If Obama is behind it, it must be part of a Muslim Socialist plot." They listen to radio and TV that feeds this narrow worldview. For context, I'm neither for nor against Obama - I just think people who take a position of "It's an idea from the other political party so I don't like it" cause more harm than good. (See belief in vaccination, evolution, and global warming as other examples)
- coldpie 12y ago
  You may notice which party represents the "wrong side" of each of those issues. If they're clearly wrong on so many issues, what are the odds they're right on any given issue?
  - mathattack 12y ago
    They're wrong on every issue if you assume that Obama is right no every issue. My sense is that Obama is right on some, wrong on some. On most of the issues that he's wrong on, the Republicans are right purely for allowing him to set the agenda.
    - coldpie 12y ago
      > They're wrong on every issue if you assume that Obama is right no every issue. I was speaking specifically about the issues mentioned in the parent post. Namely vaccination[1], evolution, and climate change. The Republican positions are objectively wrong on these issues. Projecting from there, it's not unreasonable to assume they're wrong on other issues that I know less about. To be more explicit, I was disagreeing with this: > I just think people who take a position of "It's an idea from the other political party so I don't like it" cause more harm than good. If one party is consistently wrong on many, many obvious issues, I don't see much of an issue with dismissing their views on more nuanced issues. If you can't figure out something relatively simple like evolution, I don't have much faith in you figuring out national economics. [1] See Christie and Rand Paul's recent statements
ep103 12y ago
large news websites are targeted by marketing firms with shell accounts in an effort to slant a story. Hacker News is still very much under the radar, and doesn't warrant that level of manipulation (as much) yet.
- mrschwabe 12y ago
  It's not just marketing firms. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipula... Perhaps we should take a more subjective look at comments on Hacker News and ask ourselves if a genuine 'hacker' (by PG definition or otherwise) would applaud new regulations for the internet.
skizm 12y ago
I like the guy who commented: > I see the telecoms have sent their minions to the comment sections.
netinstructions 12y ago
Okay, I'm going to go against the grain here and ask why there's so many people avoiding the comments section, or even suggesting installing comment-hiding browser extensions. Do you folks always avoid the comments section? Obviously not, because you're here :) and the idea that this is such a generalized "Internet Rule" is contradictory to being here. If you're disgusted by other people's abrasive comments (on Wired or wherever else you're avoiding the comments section), can you offer your own respectable perspectives and steer the conversation that way? Or have you completely given up? A reasonable (but unfortunate) situation. I dislike the hair-on-fire knee-jerk screaming too. I hope we can change that. I wrote more about this[1] after thinking a while about Jeff Atwood's piece[2]. [1] http://www.netinstructions.com/please-read-the-comments-section/ http://www.netinstructions.com/please-read-the-comments-sect... [2] http://blog.codinghorror.com/please-read-the-comments/ http://blog.codinghorror.com/please-read-the-comments/
- pavel_lishin 12y ago
  HN is a community. A wired article is a google result. As such, those comments are liable to attract a wider variety of people, some of whom are crazy, some of whom are trolling, some of whom are trying to push some arbitrary agenda. Here, there are rules and a culture that (it seems to me) rewards interesting conversations. Plus, most random commenters are anonymous, whereas most people on HN are pseudonymous. I consider what I write here much more strongly than what I write on reddit, or 4chan.

by evanb 12y ago

innguest 12y ago

You thought Wired readers were as naive and as communist as you and you're disappointed they are smarter and more cynical. Boo. Hoo. There's no reasoned discussion in HN as discussions get downvoted. There's only a huge circle back-patting which your comment is a part of.

remarkEon 12y ago
So did you have a thoughtful, reasoned argument against this proposal or what?
- wnevets 12y ago
  "government bad, me sad"
- ikeboy 12y ago
  I'm against net neutrality. To me it looks like more regulation for not enough gain. I don't see why we should stop the free market; if one internet provider is doing things you don't like, another one will open and the consumer can change to that one if they care. I also feel that companies should have a right to provide some websites at higher speeds. There will always be a trade off; perhaps you could get cheaper internet if you only care about the top few sites. If they charge the same as internet providers that do have net neutrality, then they will quickly lose market share, and I believe that should be the market's choice, not the government. Imagine if all those people who signed the petition for new regulations instead signed a petition promising not to use any provider that throttled some websites. That would make a strong market incentive not to throttle sites. And if the consumers can't do that, why should the government step in to save us? If you argue that it's very hard to open a new cable internet company (which is the argument I got last time I brought this up), my answer is that enough rich people would be interested enough to open a competitor if there was demand.
  - orthecreedence 12y ago
    This would work great! Except that there aren't 20 providers to choose from, there's usually one, maybe two. And the two providers you generally expect to have do not care anything for consumer experience. They also lobby for other companies (or even townships) to not be able to set up their own fiber/cable connections. The lack of regulation you want already exists, and it's starting to strangle free and open communication as we know it. Also, not sure if this is clear, but net neutrality doesn't regulate prices. Companies can charge whatever they want for their service. The only thing that's regulated is how they treat data...all data must be treated the same. Other than that restriction, companies can do whatever they want. I don't really see how this could be viewed badly. Yes, people seem to really like the "regulation is bad" argument lately, but it doesn't really apply here, nor does it work as a blanket statement.
    - ikeboy 12y ago
      I know in my area there's more than one. >And the two providers you generally expect to have do not care anything for consumer experience. In a free market, this fact means that people don't care enough about their experience. If they cared enough, they would choose based on that, instead of on price. >They also lobby for other companies (or even townships) to not be able to set up their own fiber/cable connections. I would support strongly any attempt to make it easier for companies to open up new internet providers. Again, the reason there aren't so many options is because of regulations. >The lack of regulation you want already exists, and it's starting to strangle free and open communication as we know it. Give an example of a free market that doesn't have any net neutrality options, but has consumers that want it. >Also, not sure if this is clear, but net neutrality doesn't regulate prices. Companies can charge whatever they want for their service. The only thing that's regulated is how they treat data...all data must be treated the same. Other than that restriction, companies can do whatever they want. I don't really see how this could be viewed badly. Yes, people seem to really like the "regulation is bad" argument lately, but it doesn't really apply here, nor does it work as a blanket statement. I know what net neutrality is regulating, and I don't think that choice should be taken away from companies. I'm against government doing something that can be done by the consumer. Why doesn't the regulation is bad argument work here? As a consumer, I can see instances where I'd prefer to have cheaper service rather than pay more for net neutrality. What about wikipedia and other sites that can be accessed for free in some countries, but wouldn't if nn was implemented? Have you seen http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25... or http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-access-to-wikipedia-and-facebook/ http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-jus... There are plenty of use cases for not-nn. And again, if the consumer decided they really want it, then choose a provider that offers it.
evanb 12y ago
Well that's the first time I've been called a communist!
- throwawayornot 12y ago
  I think he meant "Comment-est?"
orthecreedence 12y ago
Weird, I didn't know protecting free speech was considered communist now. It's almost like I need a personal "American Culture Consultant" to stay on top of all these shifting rules.

revscat 12y ago

For what it's worth, it was linked to from Drudge.

jgrowl 12y ago
This is the real reason. You can go to any article that is linked on drudge and you will see the exact same kind of comments.

jonathanpglick 12y ago

Yeah, I was shocked at comments, people completely missing the point.

colinbartlett 12y ago

I highly recommend this Chrome extension: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/shut-up/oklfoejikkmejobodofaimigojomlfim?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/shut-up/oklfoejikk... Basically hides the comments on every site unless you enable them. It's a little aggressive and sometimes if you notice something weird on a site you just need to disable it for that site. But it honestly improves the entire internet experience exponentially.

el_benhameen 12y ago
I added this line: 127.0.0.1 disqus.com to /etc/hosts and have actually noticed a measurable increase in my happiness, especially when it comes to reading and discussing news.

RKoutnik 12y ago

Most Wired readers, certainly. Most Wired readers are also smart enough to stay out of the maelstrom of politically-charged vitriol such comments sections become. Like you said, Rule #1. I suppose the Wired readers savvy enough to have an interesting voice on this issue are also smart enough to not voice it there.

mathattack 12y ago

I think there is a large strain of the population who thinks, "If Obama is behind it, it must be part of a Muslim Socialist plot." They listen to radio and TV that feeds this narrow worldview. For context, I'm neither for nor against Obama - I just think people who take a position of "It's an idea from the other political party so I don't like it" cause more harm than good. (See belief in vaccination, evolution, and global warming as other examples)

coldpie 12y ago
You may notice which party represents the "wrong side" of each of those issues. If they're clearly wrong on so many issues, what are the odds they're right on any given issue?
- mathattack 12y ago
  They're wrong on every issue if you assume that Obama is right no every issue. My sense is that Obama is right on some, wrong on some. On most of the issues that he's wrong on, the Republicans are right purely for allowing him to set the agenda.
  - coldpie 12y ago
    > They're wrong on every issue if you assume that Obama is right no every issue. I was speaking specifically about the issues mentioned in the parent post. Namely vaccination[1], evolution, and climate change. The Republican positions are objectively wrong on these issues. Projecting from there, it's not unreasonable to assume they're wrong on other issues that I know less about. To be more explicit, I was disagreeing with this: > I just think people who take a position of "It's an idea from the other political party so I don't like it" cause more harm than good. If one party is consistently wrong on many, many obvious issues, I don't see much of an issue with dismissing their views on more nuanced issues. If you can't figure out something relatively simple like evolution, I don't have much faith in you figuring out national economics. [1] See Christie and Rand Paul's recent statements

ep103 12y ago

large news websites are targeted by marketing firms with shell accounts in an effort to slant a story. Hacker News is still very much under the radar, and doesn't warrant that level of manipulation (as much) yet.

mrschwabe 12y ago
It's not just marketing firms. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipula... Perhaps we should take a more subjective look at comments on Hacker News and ask ourselves if a genuine 'hacker' (by PG definition or otherwise) would applaud new regulations for the internet.

skizm 12y ago

I like the guy who commented: > I see the telecoms have sent their minions to the comment sections.

netinstructions 12y ago

Okay, I'm going to go against the grain here and ask why there's so many people avoiding the comments section, or even suggesting installing comment-hiding browser extensions. Do you folks always avoid the comments section? Obviously not, because you're here :) and the idea that this is such a generalized "Internet Rule" is contradictory to being here. If you're disgusted by other people's abrasive comments (on Wired or wherever else you're avoiding the comments section), can you offer your own respectable perspectives and steer the conversation that way? Or have you completely given up? A reasonable (but unfortunate) situation. I dislike the hair-on-fire knee-jerk screaming too. I hope we can change that. I wrote more about this[1] after thinking a while about Jeff Atwood's piece[2]. [1] http://www.netinstructions.com/please-read-the-comments-section/ http://www.netinstructions.com/please-read-the-comments-sect... [2] http://blog.codinghorror.com/please-read-the-comments/ http://blog.codinghorror.com/please-read-the-comments/

pavel_lishin 12y ago
HN is a community. A wired article is a google result. As such, those comments are liable to attract a wider variety of people, some of whom are crazy, some of whom are trolling, some of whom are trying to push some arbitrary agenda. Here, there are rules and a culture that (it seems to me) rewards interesting conversations. Plus, most random commenters are anonymous, whereas most people on HN are pseudonymous. I consider what I write here much more strongly than what I write on reddit, or 4chan.