3 ms·
That's the thing; while it is discriminatory, it has been (and can be) used for subjectively good reasons, like Wikipedia Zero. There are many who argue that z
by Manishearth 12y ago
That's the thing; while it is discriminatory, it has been (and can be) used for subjectively good reasons, like Wikipedia Zero.
There are many who argue that zero rating is not a part of net neutrality and should be allowed. That's what I meant by saying that it's on both sides. I personally have mixed views, mostly leaning on the zero-rating-is-bad side, though I do feel that it may be possible to come up with a way to restrict what is allowed that helps boost accessibility of internet resources like Wikipedia without giving a competition boost.
Anyway, my point wasn't to argue for or against zero rating. I merely wanted to point out that zero rating was not objectively a part of the net neutrality debate.
- amazon_not 12y agoFair enough on the point about zero rating and net neutrality. However, I have a hard time thinking of a scheme where allowing zero rating does not discriminate. To not put too fine a point on it, what makes Wikipedia so special that only they should get zero rated? There are lots of other useful and educational sites out there that should also be zero rated by any criteria that Wikipedia meets. Sure, you can try to minimize the discrimination, but you can never remove it totally. Zero rating is by definition discriminatory. There is allowed content and here is banned content and the ISP as the gatekeeper gets to decide which is which.