8 ms·

Even Eric Schmidt told Obama it was a bad idea. IBM, Intel, and Cisco are against it. My posts were shadow banned on HN for being against these regulations. It'

Even Eric Schmidt told Obama it was a bad idea. IBM, Intel, and Cisco are against it. My posts were shadow banned on HN for being against these regulations. It's odd that people like you can't fathom that there are two sides to this issue.

Selfcommit 12y ago
Your account was created 15 min ago and has 6 Karma - Can you back up who you are at all?
- CzechsMix 12y ago
  That's a little Ad hom for my taste. If he's making bad points, attack and refute those. Not him.
  - wpietri 12y ago
    As another brand new account, I could see why you'd say that. But in practice, our understanding of what people say is rooted in who they are. If somebody wants to write a book making a formal, evidence backed argument on something, I'm less concerned with who they are. But when somebody jumps into a discussion with a few sentences, asking who they are and what their motivations are is much more reasonable. Especially on a topic where, as with this one, billions of dollars are on the line. There are now plenty of people whose whole job is to argue a party line that may have no relation to the truth or to what the speaker believes. There's literally no point in having a serious discussion with, say, a tobacco company PR rep, because they are paid to mislead people forever, to never be convinced, and to distort the dialog as long as possible. With somebody like that, treating them like an honest interlocutor is not only a waste of time, but I believe it actively harms the discussion.
    - CzechsMix 12y ago
      I just feel like if he's so trivially wrong, and you're so obviously right, wouldn't it be better just to explain that? Instead of sinking so low on the debate pyramid as to only be one step above the bottom?
      - wpietri 12y ago
        If you are not a serious interlocutor, then there is no point in explaining anything to you. It's like trying to get to know a bot. And getting off in the 101 stuff for the zillionth time is a distraction from having a more interesting and substantive discussion. And given that you're apparently mainly here to throw shade on people discussing this in ways you don't approve of, I have no reason to think you're a serious participant who's actually after a useful discussion.
        CzechsMix 12y ago
        it's actually kind of odd, I spoke out against the ad hom precisely because I wanted a useful discussion. Notice how when it was revealed that my account is several days old, not several minutes, a second factor, karma had to be brought in to dismiss my opinion. Sorry for the confusion that was caused by the fact that elsewhere in the thread, it was revealed that I was anti-NN. Also sorry for getting back to you, thanks to the heaping spoonfuls of negative karma I got, I wasn't allowed to post until recently.
    - baddox 12y ago
      > But when somebody jumps into a discussion with a few sentences, asking who they are and what their motivations are is much more reasonable. Not really. You're not taking the idea of ad hominem far enough. When somebody jumps into a discussion with a few sentence and no citations or evidence, you ought to reject the validity of that argument regardless of who is presenting the argument. That argument is unsubstantiated, period, whether it's posted by a brand new throwaway account or a renowned expert in the area of discussion.
  - stellar678 12y ago
    Given the accusation that this thread is full of astroturfing, the account karma and age of posters seem like very relevant information.
    - CzechsMix 12y ago
      My what a wonderful ivory tower you must live in. I just think it's weak. If being anti-NN is so incredibly stupid, shouldn't refuting the points they make be trivial? why not just do it, and safe yourself the trouble of being accused of sitting one-step up on the debate pyramid from "Name-calling"?
      - dang 12y ago
        > My what a wonderful ivory tower you must live in. Accusations of astroturfing without evidence are not ok, but personal attacks such as this are not allowed on Hacker News either. Please review the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
    - meragrin 12y ago
      How is it relevant information that a certain topic brought in a new person? I could understand it if the person had been around a few years and only commented on that topic, but a new person could be just a recently inspired person.
      - unethical_ban 12y ago
        This is a politically charged topic with powerful, malicious actors. The thread an unusually large number of green members posting mostly against what HN has been mostly for. It's an odd pattern, and the parent above saying it's "vile" to call it what it looks like is overblowing it.
        meragrin 12y ago
        I'm not seeing that pattern. I've seen a total of 7 green members on this topic. That to me isn't all that unusual. The vast majority of green I saw was for NN. Are you saying HN is against NN? I thought HN was for NN.
  - eropple 12y ago
    Not for nothing, but: user: CzechsMix created: 11 days ago karma: 0 People wouldn't be going "hmm, there's a lot of green names and they're all conveniently anti-NN" if there weren't. Like, y'know...you, yourself, elsewhere in this thread.
    - CzechsMix 12y ago
      Yes, I happen to be anti-NN, no, I do not think that the way things currently are works. No I do not think the cable companies operate fairly in a free market. Sorry, I'm anti-NN, sorry I joined only 11 days ago. I can assure you. the two are not related. Again, if elsewhere in this thread, I'm making points you disagree with. attack and refute the points themselves. How else can anyone ever think you have the slightest idea you know what you're talking about, if all you can do is spout people's account age and karma ratings? if being anti-NN is so trivially stupid, shouldn't you be able to point this out quite simply?
      - wpietri 12y ago
        The way I know that eropple knows what he's talking about is that I've been reading his comments for years, and so have a sense of his competence, interest, and manner of thinking. They reason I suspect you don't is that you've turned up with a brand new account and an apparent partisan interest. If you would like not to be suspected like that, you could, as I and eropple have, connect you account to your full identity rather than concealing it while lashing out at others.
        TeMPOraL 12y ago
        Indeed. The one thing I love about HN is that it's small enough that after time, you simply get to know other commenters and you learn their areas of competence.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  That's a pretty good karma rate! I think my account was probably weeks old before I got to 6.
mudil 12y ago
Precisely. Also, now as a utility, internet can be regulated for content, be it decency standards or political speech. Maybe not now, not next year, but what about in 5-10 years? Content is content, all bits are equal, all bits are over the same utilities. And internet as a utility is now regulated.
- copsarebastards 12y ago
  > Also, now as a utility, internet can be regulated for content, be it decency standards or political speech. To be frank, this isn't something I particularly fear. You're referencing TV regulation, but the main limiters on TV content are corporations owning the airwaves and people's fear of sex. The internet is not limited in space the way frequency bands are, and good luck trying to enforce pornography laws. Pornography laws are a limitation I worry about a bit, but so far I don't see any evidence that anyone is pushing for using utility regulation to limit pornography, and we can cross that bridge when (if?) we come to it.
  - tsax 12y ago
    If content regulations happen, they'll come in with the new flavor of the month, i.e. 'social justice.' There will be vague statutes against 'harassment' I'm guessing, and anyone decrying their vagueness or broadness will be decried a racist, sexist shitlord. You won't get 80's style 'Christian moralism' language in 2020.
    - copsarebastards 12y ago
      > Are you suggesting it's some kind of conspiracy? Despite the Tumblr feminist movement, I don't think most people are in favor of this sort of regulation, and there isn't sufficient monetary motivation that I can see for such regulation to happen. However, I do agree that this kind of regulation would also be bad. But again: we can cross that bridge when (if?) we come to it.
      - tsax 12y ago
copsarebastards 12y ago
Frankly, I don't give a shit what corporations were for or against. Unless you have actual criticisms of the bill itself, I can only conclude that there are, in fact, not two sides to this issue.
- strictnein 12y ago
  What bill?
- travie7273 12y ago
  Wait, you're telling me to criticize a "bill" that hasn't been published yet? Are you kidding? You do know that this "bill" with its 70+ regulations was passed in private, right?
  - copsarebastards 12y ago
    > Wait, you're telling me to criticize a "bill" that hasn't been published yet? Are you kidding? You do know that this "bill" with its 70+ regulations was passed in private, right? Which kind of begs what exactly you think you're criticizing. All the statements by the FCC leading up to this bill have been ones I would consider positive. So until I actually see the bill, I'm not criticizing it. Also: user: travie7273 created: 30 minutes ago Astroturf potential: high.
    - serge2k 12y ago
      Great argument, next time call him 12 years old.
  - ForHackernews 12y ago
    It's not a "bill", it's FCC regulations, and this has already been explained in about 10 comments throughout this thread. Are you a real user, or a paid astroturfer?
- tertius 12y ago
  * The FCC cannot pass bills, they're generally referred to as rules/regulations.
smtddr 12y ago
http://www.wsj.com/articles/jostling-begins-as-fccs-net-neutrality-vote-nears-1424819532 http://www.wsj.com/articles/jostling-begins-as-fccs-net-neut... """Google has grown. And strong net neutrality rules are now no longer a top company priority. They could even be a hindrance. Officially, Google hasn’t taken a formal position on the president’s net neutrality proposal.""" I fail to understand how this could hurt Google. If ISPs start modifying speed and/or access to certain domains I can only see that as damaging for Google. The only thing I can think of is the typical pattern of a company becoming hugely successful then begin seeking to change the laws that allowed them to grow so nobody else can follow the path. Kinda like cutting the bridge after you've crossed it. I hope that's not what E.Schmidt is thinking...
- unprepare 12y ago
  I think you are on the right track If you are google with billions in the bank, what does it matter to you if Comcast wants to charge you a little bit more? The real effect is that entrenched powers get further entrenched because of less access to alternatives. Lets say Comcast wanted to charge search providers 500million dollars. Thats not a lot of money from Googles search engine profits. But how much is 500 million of Bings budget? Yahoos? DuckDuckGo? I would be surprised if every search provider was willing and able to pay fees like this.
badsock 12y ago
Intel, Cisco, and IBM all sell deep packet inspection products. They have a material interest in not seeing NN go through.
- rayiner 12y ago
  And all of the web-tech companies who support Net Neutrality rely utterly on other peoples' wires to deliver content to their users. They have a huge interest in regulating telcos into "dumb pipes." There's huge monetary incentives on both sides of this debate.
  - algorias 12y ago
    Yes, they rely on other people's wires, namely the ones rented (i.e. paid for) by the consumers of their products. How do you justify double dipping in this case?
    - rayiner 12y ago
      Apple charges me for my iPhone, then takes 30% when someone sells me an app for it. Sony charges me for a PS3, then charges publishers a fee for every copy of every game they release. When your property facilitates a transaction between two parties, it's not "double dipping" to charge a fee to both.
      - throwaway150219 12y ago
        I see, I didn't realize consumer ISPs were providing free internet access to Google and Amazon.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
  - venomsnake 12y ago
    And I think dumb pipes open for everyone is best. After all ... it would be inconvenient if your utility company told you what can you use your electricity for.
copsarebastards 12y ago
user: travie7273 created: 27 minutes ago
- bmelton 12y ago
  This really isn't helpful. If you'd read his comment, it would be clear that his last account was banned, which would all but necessitate that any new accounts would be, y'know, new. Further, it shouldn't need to be pointed out, but the insightfulness of one's posts should not be judged against how long they've been members of a website.
  - copsarebastards 12y ago
    As someone else pointed out, a lot of new accounts were posting ISP talking points, which looks a whole lot like astroturfing. Obviously the insightfulness of comments shouldn't be judged by how long someone has been a member of a website, but how long they've been a member of a website may be a good indicator of their motivations.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Even Eric Schmidt told Obama it was a bad idea. If you are referring to Google's concerns voiced after early outlines of the Title II approach, they objected to something that was discussed earlier as part of the approach -- identifying a "service" provided to edge providers by ISPs distinct from that provided to retail customers, and classifying that newly-identified service under Title II -- because it might create a basis for ISP to edge provider charges. This provision, from subsequent outlines provided, is not part of the final package, which only addresses retail broadband service as a Title II service and addresses ISP to edge provider relations in terms of the impact they have on retail customers.
dang 12y ago
> My posts were shadow banned on HN for being against these regulations HN accounts get banned for breaking the HN guidelines, not for being against regulations. For example, a jab such as "people like you" in a comment breaks the HN guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

Selfcommit 12y ago

Your account was created 15 min ago and has 6 Karma - Can you back up who you are at all?

CzechsMix 12y ago
That's a little Ad hom for my taste. If he's making bad points, attack and refute those. Not him.
- wpietri 12y ago
  As another brand new account, I could see why you'd say that. But in practice, our understanding of what people say is rooted in who they are. If somebody wants to write a book making a formal, evidence backed argument on something, I'm less concerned with who they are. But when somebody jumps into a discussion with a few sentences, asking who they are and what their motivations are is much more reasonable. Especially on a topic where, as with this one, billions of dollars are on the line. There are now plenty of people whose whole job is to argue a party line that may have no relation to the truth or to what the speaker believes. There's literally no point in having a serious discussion with, say, a tobacco company PR rep, because they are paid to mislead people forever, to never be convinced, and to distort the dialog as long as possible. With somebody like that, treating them like an honest interlocutor is not only a waste of time, but I believe it actively harms the discussion.
  - CzechsMix 12y ago
    I just feel like if he's so trivially wrong, and you're so obviously right, wouldn't it be better just to explain that? Instead of sinking so low on the debate pyramid as to only be one step above the bottom?
    - wpietri 12y ago
      If you are not a serious interlocutor, then there is no point in explaining anything to you. It's like trying to get to know a bot. And getting off in the 101 stuff for the zillionth time is a distraction from having a more interesting and substantive discussion. And given that you're apparently mainly here to throw shade on people discussing this in ways you don't approve of, I have no reason to think you're a serious participant who's actually after a useful discussion.
      - CzechsMix 12y ago
        it's actually kind of odd, I spoke out against the ad hom precisely because I wanted a useful discussion. Notice how when it was revealed that my account is several days old, not several minutes, a second factor, karma had to be brought in to dismiss my opinion. Sorry for the confusion that was caused by the fact that elsewhere in the thread, it was revealed that I was anti-NN. Also sorry for getting back to you, thanks to the heaping spoonfuls of negative karma I got, I wasn't allowed to post until recently.
  - baddox 12y ago
    > But when somebody jumps into a discussion with a few sentences, asking who they are and what their motivations are is much more reasonable. Not really. You're not taking the idea of ad hominem far enough. When somebody jumps into a discussion with a few sentence and no citations or evidence, you ought to reject the validity of that argument regardless of who is presenting the argument. That argument is unsubstantiated, period, whether it's posted by a brand new throwaway account or a renowned expert in the area of discussion.
- stellar678 12y ago
  Given the accusation that this thread is full of astroturfing, the account karma and age of posters seem like very relevant information.
  - CzechsMix 12y ago
    My what a wonderful ivory tower you must live in. I just think it's weak. If being anti-NN is so incredibly stupid, shouldn't refuting the points they make be trivial? why not just do it, and safe yourself the trouble of being accused of sitting one-step up on the debate pyramid from "Name-calling"?
    - dang 12y ago
      > My what a wonderful ivory tower you must live in. Accusations of astroturfing without evidence are not ok, but personal attacks such as this are not allowed on Hacker News either. Please review the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
  - meragrin 12y ago
    How is it relevant information that a certain topic brought in a new person? I could understand it if the person had been around a few years and only commented on that topic, but a new person could be just a recently inspired person.
    - unethical_ban 12y ago
      This is a politically charged topic with powerful, malicious actors. The thread an unusually large number of green members posting mostly against what HN has been mostly for. It's an odd pattern, and the parent above saying it's "vile" to call it what it looks like is overblowing it.
      - meragrin 12y ago
        I'm not seeing that pattern. I've seen a total of 7 green members on this topic. That to me isn't all that unusual. The vast majority of green I saw was for NN. Are you saying HN is against NN? I thought HN was for NN.
- eropple 12y ago
  Not for nothing, but: user: CzechsMix created: 11 days ago karma: 0 People wouldn't be going "hmm, there's a lot of green names and they're all conveniently anti-NN" if there weren't. Like, y'know...you, yourself, elsewhere in this thread.
  - CzechsMix 12y ago
    Yes, I happen to be anti-NN, no, I do not think that the way things currently are works. No I do not think the cable companies operate fairly in a free market. Sorry, I'm anti-NN, sorry I joined only 11 days ago. I can assure you. the two are not related. Again, if elsewhere in this thread, I'm making points you disagree with. attack and refute the points themselves. How else can anyone ever think you have the slightest idea you know what you're talking about, if all you can do is spout people's account age and karma ratings? if being anti-NN is so trivially stupid, shouldn't you be able to point this out quite simply?
    - wpietri 12y ago
      The way I know that eropple knows what he's talking about is that I've been reading his comments for years, and so have a sense of his competence, interest, and manner of thinking. They reason I suspect you don't is that you've turned up with a brand new account and an apparent partisan interest. If you would like not to be suspected like that, you could, as I and eropple have, connect you account to your full identity rather than concealing it while lashing out at others.
      - TeMPOraL 12y ago
        Indeed. The one thing I love about HN is that it's small enough that after time, you simply get to know other commenters and you learn their areas of competence.
jessaustin 12y ago
That's a pretty good karma rate! I think my account was probably weeks old before I got to 6.

mudil 12y ago

Precisely. Also, now as a utility, internet can be regulated for content, be it decency standards or political speech. Maybe not now, not next year, but what about in 5-10 years? Content is content, all bits are equal, all bits are over the same utilities. And internet as a utility is now regulated.

copsarebastards 12y ago
> Also, now as a utility, internet can be regulated for content, be it decency standards or political speech. To be frank, this isn't something I particularly fear. You're referencing TV regulation, but the main limiters on TV content are corporations owning the airwaves and people's fear of sex. The internet is not limited in space the way frequency bands are, and good luck trying to enforce pornography laws. Pornography laws are a limitation I worry about a bit, but so far I don't see any evidence that anyone is pushing for using utility regulation to limit pornography, and we can cross that bridge when (if?) we come to it.
- tsax 12y ago
  If content regulations happen, they'll come in with the new flavor of the month, i.e. 'social justice.' There will be vague statutes against 'harassment' I'm guessing, and anyone decrying their vagueness or broadness will be decried a racist, sexist shitlord. You won't get 80's style 'Christian moralism' language in 2020.
  - copsarebastards 12y ago
    > Are you suggesting it's some kind of conspiracy? Despite the Tumblr feminist movement, I don't think most people are in favor of this sort of regulation, and there isn't sufficient monetary motivation that I can see for such regulation to happen. However, I do agree that this kind of regulation would also be bad. But again: we can cross that bridge when (if?) we come to it.
    - tsax 12y ago

copsarebastards 12y ago

Frankly, I don't give a shit what corporations were for or against. Unless you have actual criticisms of the bill itself, I can only conclude that there are, in fact, not two sides to this issue.

strictnein 12y ago
What bill?
travie7273 12y ago
Wait, you're telling me to criticize a "bill" that hasn't been published yet? Are you kidding? You do know that this "bill" with its 70+ regulations was passed in private, right?
- copsarebastards 12y ago
  > Wait, you're telling me to criticize a "bill" that hasn't been published yet? Are you kidding? You do know that this "bill" with its 70+ regulations was passed in private, right? Which kind of begs what exactly you think you're criticizing. All the statements by the FCC leading up to this bill have been ones I would consider positive. So until I actually see the bill, I'm not criticizing it. Also: user: travie7273 created: 30 minutes ago Astroturf potential: high.
  - serge2k 12y ago
    Great argument, next time call him 12 years old.
- ForHackernews 12y ago
  It's not a "bill", it's FCC regulations, and this has already been explained in about 10 comments throughout this thread. Are you a real user, or a paid astroturfer?
tertius 12y ago
* The FCC cannot pass bills, they're generally referred to as rules/regulations.

smtddr 12y ago

http://www.wsj.com/articles/jostling-begins-as-fccs-net-neutrality-vote-nears-1424819532 http://www.wsj.com/articles/jostling-begins-as-fccs-net-neut... """Google has grown. And strong net neutrality rules are now no longer a top company priority. They could even be a hindrance. Officially, Google hasn’t taken a formal position on the president’s net neutrality proposal.""" I fail to understand how this could hurt Google. If ISPs start modifying speed and/or access to certain domains I can only see that as damaging for Google. The only thing I can think of is the typical pattern of a company becoming hugely successful then begin seeking to change the laws that allowed them to grow so nobody else can follow the path. Kinda like cutting the bridge after you've crossed it. I hope that's not what E.Schmidt is thinking...

unprepare 12y ago
I think you are on the right track If you are google with billions in the bank, what does it matter to you if Comcast wants to charge you a little bit more? The real effect is that entrenched powers get further entrenched because of less access to alternatives. Lets say Comcast wanted to charge search providers 500million dollars. Thats not a lot of money from Googles search engine profits. But how much is 500 million of Bings budget? Yahoos? DuckDuckGo? I would be surprised if every search provider was willing and able to pay fees like this.

badsock 12y ago

Intel, Cisco, and IBM all sell deep packet inspection products. They have a material interest in not seeing NN go through.

rayiner 12y ago
And all of the web-tech companies who support Net Neutrality rely utterly on other peoples' wires to deliver content to their users. They have a huge interest in regulating telcos into "dumb pipes." There's huge monetary incentives on both sides of this debate.
- algorias 12y ago
  Yes, they rely on other people's wires, namely the ones rented (i.e. paid for) by the consumers of their products. How do you justify double dipping in this case?
  - rayiner 12y ago
    Apple charges me for my iPhone, then takes 30% when someone sells me an app for it. Sony charges me for a PS3, then charges publishers a fee for every copy of every game they release. When your property facilitates a transaction between two parties, it's not "double dipping" to charge a fee to both.
    - throwaway150219 12y ago
      I see, I didn't realize consumer ISPs were providing free internet access to Google and Amazon.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- venomsnake 12y ago
  And I think dumb pipes open for everyone is best. After all ... it would be inconvenient if your utility company told you what can you use your electricity for.

copsarebastards 12y ago

user: travie7273 created: 27 minutes ago

bmelton 12y ago
This really isn't helpful. If you'd read his comment, it would be clear that his last account was banned, which would all but necessitate that any new accounts would be, y'know, new. Further, it shouldn't need to be pointed out, but the insightfulness of one's posts should not be judged against how long they've been members of a website.
- copsarebastards 12y ago
  As someone else pointed out, a lot of new accounts were posting ISP talking points, which looks a whole lot like astroturfing. Obviously the insightfulness of comments shouldn't be judged by how long someone has been a member of a website, but how long they've been a member of a website may be a good indicator of their motivations.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> Even Eric Schmidt told Obama it was a bad idea. If you are referring to Google's concerns voiced after early outlines of the Title II approach, they objected to something that was discussed earlier as part of the approach -- identifying a "service" provided to edge providers by ISPs distinct from that provided to retail customers, and classifying that newly-identified service under Title II -- because it might create a basis for ISP to edge provider charges. This provision, from subsequent outlines provided, is not part of the final package, which only addresses retail broadband service as a Title II service and addresses ISP to edge provider relations in terms of the impact they have on retail customers.

dang 12y ago

> My posts were shadow banned on HN for being against these regulations HN accounts get banned for breaking the HN guidelines, not for being against regulations. For example, a jab such as "people like you" in a comment breaks the HN guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html