net neutrality is bad

[かうぼーい]

ive seen josh and others talk about it and why we need goverment laws to keep the internet free which is BS net neutrality, has effected nothing if your isp blocks kiwifarms switch that simple you have choice but josh and others insist this will lead to the internets doom wrong the only site to ever be slowed down was the pirate bay by film companys using goverment laws to pressure ISPs so josh is wrong and i thought a libertarian would get it but josh is wrong debate me bro

 

[Judex Meus]

You must be 18 to post here.

 

[かうぼーい]

You must be 18 to post here.

you really dumb merican

 

[Jeff Q. Anime]

A libertarian would understand that the government's definition of "net neutrality" in law is not the ideal that should be strived for in practice.

 

[FlipTopBox]

lurk moar newfag

 

[Big Al's Famous Pork]

I have spent most of my life espousing libertarian views.
I'm not sure they actually work.
Many events in the past few years have shown that they don't.
Nobody IRL gives a flying fuck about iibertarian ideas and its pretty clear the internet doesn't either.
Take your concern trolling and shove it up your ass

 

[TayandYou]

Inb4 Pink Triangle

 

[Wormy]

Ajit? Dat you? How did you find Kiwi farms you rascally poo in the loo?

 

[Illuminati Order Official]

i thought a libertarian would get it but josh is wrong debate me bro

How is Null a libertarian? I thought he hates pedophiles.

 

[Quindoll]

Mate, there are a few services where you want it mandated by the government that people serve you. You know, for the good of the community.

Imagine the police or the firefighters pissing on you, because for any reason. Maybe they read your net neutrality take and thought. "Lol, fuck that Nigger." Wouldn't be a nice thing to happen right? The same is true for other services.

You do not want people to easily shut down websites. The internet is an integral part on how opinions are formed on how information are gathered and how we come up with conclusions to all kinds of problems. Blending out opinions is retarded. Making the opinions easily disappear is even more retarded. You want an antifragile internet, because the clock of time can always swing against the very ideas you seem important.

I dislike a good chunk of A&H. The culture war and how they mindlessly have the same eye rolling takes concerning climate change. Yet they should be allowed to have a voice.

“Freedom is always the freedom of the dissenter" ― Rosa Luxemburg

 

[Wormy]

Mate, there are a few services where you want it mandated by the government that people serve you. You know, for the good of the community.

Imagine the police or the firefighters pissing on you, because for any reason. Maybe they read your net neutrality take and thought. "Lol, fuck that Nigger." Wouldn't be a nice thing to happen right? The same is true for other services.

You do not want people to easily shut down websites. The internet is an integral part on how opinions are formed on how information are gathered and how we come up with conclusions to all kinds of problems. Blending out opinions is retarded. Making the opinions easily disappear is even more retarded. You want an antifragile internet, because the clock of time can always swing against the very ideas you seem important.

I dislike a good chunk of A&H. The culture war and how they mindlessly have the same eye rolling takes concerning climate change. Yet they should be allowed to have a voice.

“Freedom is always the freedom of the dissenter" ― Rosa Luxemburg

This.

The people that keep advocating for it don't even know that they're polishing the knife that's going into their back.

 

[TheBigZee]

Uncompetitive markets for vital services can deprive you of fundamental rights as effectively as the government.

Individual speech now has unprecedented reach. Allowing corporations on the transit side of the internet to determine what is and isn't acceptable limits that reach. They should not be allowed to conspire to create a situation where some enjoy more rights than others.

We learned this before - railroad consolidation in the late 1800s created a situation where your competitors could pay to curtail your ability to conduct interstate commerce. Now it's information.

Activitsts have conspired with old media and social media to create a monopoly on information. They want libs of tik tok shut down because people can see for themselves that TRAs and Queer empowerment people are liars. Look at the union head that came out against book banning and is lying through omission that they believe the book gender queer should be in school libraries.

The people and social media that kiwifarms collects would make 80% of people who blindly support trans rights think long and hard. The Daily Show had Rhys on it - they never would have done that if they'd read their thread. This is one of the few places you can see the results of genital lobotomies for yourself.

 

[かうぼーい]

Mate, there are a few services where you want it mandated by the government that people serve you. You know, for the good of the community.

Imagine the police or the firefighters pissing on you, because for any reason. Maybe they read your net neutrality take and thought. "Lol, fuck that Nigger." Wouldn't be a nice thing to happen right? The same is true for other services.

You do not want people to easily shut down websites. The internet is an integral part on how opinions are formed on how information are gathered and how we come up with conclusions to all kinds of problems. Blending out opinions is retarded. Making the opinions easily disappear is even more retarded. You want an antifragile internet, because the clock of time can always swing against the very ideas you seem important.

I dislike a good chunk of A&H. The culture war and how they mindlessly have the same eye rolling takes concerning climate change. Yet they should be allowed to have a voice.

“Freedom is always the freedom of the dissenter" ― Rosa Luxemburg

no a firefighter would not do that because firefighters would be private if one turns you down get another one they would not destory their rep like that also rosa is a brit gay

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

no a firefighter would not do that because firefighters would be private if one turns you down get another one they would not destory their rep like that also rosa is a brit gay

In areas with private fire departments, if you don't pay the fire department fee (it's part of the property tax), the firefighters do nothing but make sure the fire doesn't burn down the forest or your (paying) neighbor's house, but mostly they just stand around and watch your house burn down. This actually happens every few years.

 

[かうぼーい]

In areas with private fire departments, if you don't pay the fire department fee (it's part of the property tax), the firefighters do nothing but make sure the fire doesn't burn down the forest or your (paying) neighbor's house, but mostly they just stand around and watch your house burn down. This actually happens every few years.

loli profile picture take disregarded

 

[Schwarzwald]

With all due respect, I believe that you fundamentally misunderstand how the internet actually works. You're focusing on ISP's and changing ISP's if you're not happy, but it's truly not that simple. The issue isn't at the ISP level, but rather at a higher level with Tier-1 networks.

Tier-1 networks are the backbone of the internet through which ISP's make use of their infrastructure. Underwater cables connecting the world. ISP's contract through Tier-1 networks and utilize that infrastructure.

ISP's are able to make decisions on their own traffic, yes. However, they themselves are the one beholden to any decisions made by Tier-1 networks that they're contracted to.

An ISP is powerless if a Tier-1 network that they're with decides to censor or blackhole a website, and most likely aren't even aware of it. Changing ISP's does nothing if they're also contracted to the same Tier-1 network.

As consumers, we're customers (us) of customers (our ISP's) of a Tier-1 Network. We have no direct business relationship with the Tier-1 Network, yet due to Net Neutrality no longer being on the books, they are free to make arbitrary censorship decisions. If Net Neutrality were still around, the Tier-1 Networks would be legally required to not censor arbitrarily as they're currently doing. We, then, are reliant on our ISP's to either complain to the Tier-1 on our behalf, as the customers themselves, or actually follow through on switching their Tier-1 Network contract, which is no small undertaking and might not even be possible depending on circumstances. The former isn't guaranteed to happen, let alone to work, and the latter is a ridiculous ask that may as well be written off it's so improbable.

Your argument might apply if the issue were at the ISP level, but it's not. It's at a level above them. It's not as though Cox or Comcast is the one we're having the issue with. In addition to that, many areas in the US (and probably worldwide) are subject to strict locational restrictions in terms of internet service providers. If you live in a Comcast-serviced area, you better believe that you're going to be stuck with a Comcast internet provider, with very few alternatives. It's not as simple as "switching" when you're geographically bound to them and literally have no other options.

 

[Black Spruce]

There is a fundamental misunderstanding that the internet is a free market and that all the problems that have come about are organic and a result of free association. It isn't. The internet infrastructure industry has extremely anti-competitive regulations getting in the way of, or sometimes outright banning setting up competing infrastructure. For tier 1 level, there is already a massive cost associated with laying cables themselves, but an even bigger cost at acquiring licensing to be able to lay these cables and connect them around the world. At ISP level, there are franchise deals which basically make it illegal to set up competing ISPs. The excuse you'll often hear for this is that it's too hard and cost prohibitive to set these things up. But ultimately the violence of the government is the primary obstacle.

The government is quite content with how the internet is currently running, and they have absolutely no incentive to use their violence to change it for the better. Remember. They don't represent you, they don't care about you, they don't want you to be free, you are nothing but cattle to them. Do what they say, or they send men with guns to do violence to you. That is the relationship between state and citizen. Every day, they pass hundreds of pages of new regulations, often without even reading them, and you are expected to abide by all of them. They expand their own power and influence regardless of the cost to you and yours. So why does anyone believe that giving the government the power to decide what internet infrastructure can and can't be is anywhere even remotely close to a good idea?

 

[Wormy]

So why does anyone believe that giving the government the power to decide what internet infrastructure can and can't be is anywhere even remotely close to a good idea?

Then who should get to decide?

 

[Black Spruce]

Then who should get to decide?

Well clearly the way it currently works it's the people who the government either hand picked or were rich enough to buy the government's permission through licensing. Same thing with payment processing, really. It's basically already under loose government control as it stands. Always from the top down. Not an open market whatsoever. A potential solution would be eliminating government regulation of this sector of industry entirely. But that could only be accomplished by reducing the size, scope, funding, and power of the government, which is something that no viable political party is pursuing or will ever pursue. Or eliminating the government in it's entirety, and that's something that very few people would consider.

Are we fucked? No I don't think so. But the way the internet currently functions makes it fucked. New developments for means of connecting are necessary.

 

[SilentDuck]

Well clearly the way it currently works it's the people who the government either hand picked or were rich enough to buy the government's permission through licensing. Same thing with payment processing, really. It's basically already under loose government control as it stands. Always from the top down. Not an open market whatsoever. A potential solution would be eliminating government regulation of this sector of industry entirely. But that could only be accomplished by reducing the size, scope, funding, and power of the government, which is something that no viable political party is pursuing or will ever pursue. Or eliminating the government in it's entirety, and that's something that very few people would consider.

Are we fucked? No I don't think so. But the way the internet currently functions makes it fucked. New developments for means of connecting are necessary.

Depending on your country and locale its possible the government was involved in bringing high speed internet connectivity to your home.

Speaking as an oldfag, I can remember when there was zero appetite for even DSL from telco due to the equipment upgrades and improvements that would need to be made. "Consumer internet is a fad", and 14.4k-56k modems worked just fine and if you don't like it you should remove your left testicle to rent a 128k ISDN line from them, was their assessment of the situation.

What changed locally was multiple levels of government mandating high speed and subsidizing (ie, giving) telcos free money to build the infrastructure out which they now own and use to reap enormous profits with. Once DSL became available cable co. brought out their highspeed coax internet. Both had terrible service but put every other ISP under in short order.

All of these corporate monoliths who built or corporate welfared their way into infrastructure ownership now want totalitarian control over what you can do, say and see and whom you can buy what from. Unfortunately a side effect of this precipice is well-connected bestiary being able to disable destinations that feature unpopular or unwanted opinions.

I suppose the point is the version of net neutrality from 20+ years ago avoided the quagmire of who owns/owned what in which country and who is going to shut whom off over what and kept governments out of it. I like to bear in mind that the corporate locusts and *opolies would all goto war with eachother and have 80%-90% of the internet shut off from the other if they could and have you surfing the information highway at 2400 baud without a government to say otherwise.