Internet Stupidity

[bluethread]

There has been a lot of talk about net neutrality, ie regulating the internet to insure equal time for all views. Rather than the risk that certain views may not be represented, isn't the fact that anyone can post just about anything the greater threat? I really do not think that there is any legislation that can "solve" either problem. However, isn't the fact that any idiot can have blog a bigger problem than the fact that I have to fight to get my views heard? This of course is presuming that I am not just one of those idiots, which is not entirely out of the question.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 1 by bluethread]

Because of the ineffectiveness of labeling some views 'stupid' over others without an exploitation of the label to silence all criticism, there's no justification for claiming that some blogs have less right to be represented than yours or mine. To do otherwise diminishes the communal responsibility to respect freedom of speech, and sets a nasty precedent when the wrong sort of people decide that your opinion has just become 'stupid'.

There's not really an easy answer to the kinds of harassment and cyber bullying that take place in a variety of ways, and the existing rules are mild patchwork quilts compared to the security blankets that certain individuals may need to have a wholesome online experience.

[Divine Insight]

There has been a lot of talk about net neutrality, ie regulating the internet to insure equal time for all views.

For one thing that would be impossible to even implement on a large scale. The only way to implement something like that would be like we already do here on DC&R in Head-to-Head.

If you want to have "equal time" to voice your views just call someone out "Head-to-Head" and you're all set.

There are already facilities in place for having "equal time" in debates.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by bluethread]

For me it's a free will and property rights issue. If I own the computer I should be allowed to control it.

Let the marketplace decide.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by bluethread]

I think the representation of net neutrality in this thread is a representation of bad information

Net neutrality is the idea that ISP's "should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication."

What this means is that you are not giving equal time to individual voices, instead ISP's are not giving preferential treatment to content and censuring others.

Let me give an example that is currently happening. Netflix is paying extra fees to Comcast to guarantee that their bandwidth is not cut or reduced. Comcast has a conflict of interest because Netflix's instant watch competes with Comcast's cable and media outlets. Comcast also has regional monopolies. So what Comcast was doing was cutting bandwidth to Netflix to disrupt the platform and content delivery in some areas. Making the service Netflix provided less appealing to consumers in comparison to Comcast's own services. Netflix fought this and lost, hence the deal they reached with Comcast to insure that their service doesn't get censured.

Now this is a direct threat to our first amendment rights of free speech.

Consider this Comcast has a market share of nearly 44% of ISP's in America. Are we seriously considering letting 1 company regulate 44% of our content?

If netflix a fairly large company is forced to kneel before Comcast what about smaller private businesses? What if a crazed atheist controlled 44% of the internet and charged religious organizations twice as much for bandwidth than non religious organizations?


The issue is much more complex than giving equal time to information. It is about the economies of how we disseminate content within our networks and how that content is regulated. Net neutrality is about keeping regulation out of the internet.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 4 by Wootah]

The problem is there is not much of a market place. Some areas still have a little competition. However, there are significant regional monopolies that are dominated by a select few ISP's This means there is no real market. If Time Warner cable owns hypothetically 60% of the cable lines in North Carolina that means they essentially control the majority of the hardware that would be used to access content. The idea that you would be leaving them to go to another competitor is well laughable. You might not even be lucky enough to be in a region that has that other 40% of cable lines.

On top of that because cities don't want cable lines being strung all over the place they are not likely to grant the permit for competitors to build their own cable lines. This insures the regional monopolies. Hence the reason why Comcast is trying to buy Time Warner Cable because they can't just go in there and build the cable lines.

If Comcast wants access to the Carolinas region they have to buy the existing cable lines.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 1 by bluethread]

One of my main issues with the op is the whole "greater threat" thing. It's a fallacy of relative privation ('there are bigger issues').
Plus, net neutrality is a big deal.

Net neutrality isn't just about 'equal time for all views'.
Net neutrality is about ISPs giving equal access to any and all sites, not preferential treatment. Net neutrality is about stopping "fast lanes" - effectively ISPs allowing people to pay them to slow everyone else down.

I'd recommend a talk by Burnie Burns, the way he phrases the issue is really succinct.
It's about ISPs charging content providers (e.g. websites) for access to you.


Going back to the equal views thing, I think it's brilliant that any idiot can write a blog. If you don't want to read it, you don't have to. I think that can be extended to any number of things. I don't understand what the problem is.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 6 by DanieltheDragon]

Actually the opposite would occur.

Because of net neutrality requirements smaller players would get squashed and everyone would pay more for Internet.

If the residents of a city want to shoot themselves in the foot that's their problem.

[help3434]

Anybody else concerned about the fact that the FCC would be in charge of Net Neutrality?The FCC is probably best known for censoring broadcast television and terrestrial radio. Would they try to censor the internet as well?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 8 by Wootah]

oh please do enlighten us to why this would be the case?