AmIFirstToThink

15 ms·

61.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
Internet traffic changes hands between ISPs and backbone carriers before reaching destination. What if every carrier of traffic that your traffic rides on has different prioritization agreements? If someone from Malaysia accesses your site,
62.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
Root of the problem was the creation of this power center, FCC, to begin with. Once created, it was given that it was going to be abused. The powers that are enforcing ISP monopolies, and are against municipal broadband, are part of the pro
63.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
>Without net neutrality, you might not have an audience in the first place. DNS can be, and was, taken away without any due legal process. That was my wake up call. Google cloud is registering domains and has that control over it. When i
64.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
And Comcast will make their ability to slow down or speed up packets a part of their terms of service. done. Glad you agree that Comcast has that right, just like Google. NN doesn't matter if Google can pay God with paying customers, w
65.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
Thanks. I will adjust my understanding of this point.
66.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
> But you can just host your videos yourself instead of with Google, which may be difficult to do without Net Neutrality. The problem is not hosting, the problem is not slow speed, the problem is your audience being pulled from you witho
67.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
Is any criticism of Islam or the prophet a fair game as per your interpretation of those positions?
68.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
Google has monopoly in terms of YouTube. Instead of Comcast, I can use Verizon 4G. Comcast, Verizon, may slow me down but YouTube just simply bans people for saying things that they don't like.
69.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
I don't want Comcast looking inside my packets. I don't want Google looking inside my videos. Deal?
70.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
File a complaint? With whom do you suggest? For me, Free Speech is the forest, NN is a group of trees in a corner.
71.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
Living, breathing, People deserve respect. Ideas don't. I have seen many cases of criticism of religion equated with criticism of every person who happen to be tagged as person of that religion, and used as a reason to stifle speech. I
72.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
>You're just being stubborn now. I hear you. :) Do I want Net Neutrality? Yes Is Free Speech more important to me? Yes Is pointing out hypocrisy of YouTube at this point important for me? Yes Will I vouch for a guy who gave me finge
73.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
Why not let Comcast decide if the video being uploaded to YouTube has a reference to an terrorist organization and then stop the upload? Why is Google a better judge of what is terrorist content than Comcast? >I'm thinking the probl
74.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
Thanks. I mean it. >Take action I am, by speaking up here.
75.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
>You can be an activist for more than one cause at a time. I agree. But scale does matter. You are not going to be worried about if the person giving you CPR has cooties or not, if you are suffering through an heart attack. >their evi
76.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
>If you'd like to change that, there are two ways, one is regulation and legislation which is outside of the scope of NN, Is NN not a regulation? Is it voluntary? My point is that NN is not as high a priority, given what corporate a
77.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
>Regulation is required when competition is not possible, does not happen, or when the potential for harm is so high that we cannot simply trust to competition, as in the medical field. I contend that social media platforms of YouTube&#x
78.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
Google is not a private entity, it is a public corporation with share holders. We hold government with highest demands for equality, we hold private individuals and fully owned businesses with most freedom to discriminate. We hold public co
79.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15133942 The person said that she/he was a Diplomat who negotiated this law. >negotiating laws and charging corporations are very different things. I agree. UN is toothless in en
80.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
>private entities that own their platforms and can enforce rules there. There are private entities, public corporations and government. We hold government to highest standard of equality, we give private entities most freedom to discrimi
81.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
>Private entities can do what they want. The baker should be able to deny baking a cake to gay couple? A pharmacist should be able to deny knowing options about birth control based on religious rights? A hospital should be able to deny r
82.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
>If so, how do you propose that privilege be fulfilled in rural communities that currently don't have internet access? By not letting monopolistic ISPs stop municipal networks. Nationalizing everything is not going to work. Most wat
83.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
Coming from a place where public ownership of firearms is banned, I can tell you that criminals can do what they want with just the might of their clinched fists.
84.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/25/non-english-speak... http://www.inquisitr.com/3428608/london-mayor-sadiq-khan-to-... That's what effective method rational has result
85.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
No, but there is bigger fish to fry. Censorship of speech is much much bigger issue for me than Net Neutrality. I can't stand with multi-billion corporations claiming victimhood on subject of Net Neutrality, while at the same time play
86.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are multi-billion people platforms. Platforms that grew because of participation of the people. Platforms that were open to speech. Nobody stopped Twitter because there were things being said against Egypt&#x27
87.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
People? They are many who would be OK with what I have to say. The problem is the platform owners want full fairness when they talk (TCP/IP, the platform they use) but want full God powers when their platform is concerned (Social Media
88.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
What about private corporation that provide platforms for modern day public discourse enforcing their own blasphemy laws?
89.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
How do you reconcile Freedom of Speech allowed and “defamation of religion” not being allowed?
90.
by AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
I don't want speech beholden to advertisers and business partners. Net Neutrality has been a non-issue at best, or hypocritical at worse, for the content providers, in light of blatant censorship and political agenda carried out.

More ›