• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Does anyone here actually oppose Network Neutrality?

Francesca R said:
What?

Why does the claim that ISPs don't want more competition feature as a reason (with you) to not argue for more competition?

Why?
Click to expand...

Are we trying for anti-trust suits? How can the government force competition between large companies that intentionally do not compete?
 
bobtaftfan said:
Network Neutrality = Government control of the Internet

The free market is a much better regulator of the Internet than the government.
Click to expand...

I don't think that these statements can be objected to nearly enough by mere allowable speech. The net is what it is because it's been open and neutral. To mess with that is to break everything that has been built for the benefit of all over past decades.

To mess with net neutrality is idiotic, antisocial, and destructive.
 
Francesca R said:
Never mind. You are confused and not following your own posts.
Click to expand...

ISPs want to end net neutrality. They don't want to end their collusion. You think we can solve the problem of the local monopolies by making them compete. How do we get them to compete when they put so much effort into not competing?
 
luchog said:
I keep hearing this, but I don't see it; and I'm not strictly sure how it's a bad thing.

But that aside, the Internet has been a boon to small and cottage businesses, who can reach far more people online than they ever could when restricted to small local communities. Those that can't make the move are simply no longer relevant, because of the change in technology; they can adapt or fade away. It's like complaining about horseless carriages putting manufacturers of buggy whips out of business.
Click to expand...

Sure Internet shopping is a convenient thing. You can go shopping 24/7, you can get whatever you could imagine from the comfort of your home, you can even do all your shopping in the buff if you were so inclined. But, here's the thing. You can't try anything on, can't check the quality of anything you buy, and your identity stands a significant chance of being stolen every time you shop online. Just to point out a few problems.

luchog said:
Really? So, you're in favour of censorship for things you disagree with?
Click to expand...

Were conspiracy theories, creationism, and other forms of snake oil woo censored before the Internet? No, they were not. But before the Internet there was a limit to how many people they could get their message accross to, now they can reach millions. I could even make the argument that a significant number of problems on the national level can be traced to the Internet providing this unique breeding ground for highly vocal losers.
 
I, For One, Welcome Our New Corporate Overlords.

Imagine how much better the air would be if private parties could own it and redistribute it. Competition would keep prices low and money collected could be used to remove toxins. Everyone would pay a utility fee to breath. Much like drinking water.
 
Mudcat said:
Sure Internet shopping is a convenient thing. You can go shopping 24/7, you can get whatever you could imagine from the comfort of your home, you can even do all your shopping in the buff if you were so inclined. But, here's the thing. You can't try anything on, can't check the quality of anything you buy, and your identity stands a significant chance of being stolen every time you shop online. Just to point out a few problems.
Click to expand...
If all you're getting out of that is shopping; you really need to actually look at what the Internet does.

Of course, it's not like disabled people deserve the ease and convenience of the Internet; not if it's going to bring about the downfall of western civilization. They're just part of the problem, right?

Oh, and last time I checked, a whole lot of Internet shops let you try and clothes and return them if they don't fit. Really, you should do your homework. I recommend using the Internet, it's got a lot of info on that sort of thing.

Were conspiracy theories, creationism, and other forms of snake oil woo censored before the Internet? No, they were not. But before the Internet there was a limit to how many people they could get their message accross to, now they can reach millions.
Click to expand...
Yup, the Internet has destroyed a golden age of rationality and happy shiny people. It' the death of the culture and sanity. Just like television was. Just like mass-market publishing was. Just like non-religious public education was, and so on. Yeesh, talk about conspiracy theories.

This is nothing but ignorant technophobic nonsense. The Church of Scientology had no problem reaching millions before the Internet. Urban legends spread to millions of people via word of mouth long before you or I were ever born. Last I checked, there are a whole lot of religions with millions of irrational and fanatical adherents. Guess they couldn't have existed without the Internet either?

And I noticed that you didn't actually answer my question. Or that you haven't defined what you meant by stupid people and losers. Do you mean anyone who doesn't believe what you believe, and act like you? Not as successful as you?

I could even make the argument that a significant number of problems on the national level can be traced to the Internet providing this unique breeding ground for highly vocal losers.
Click to expand...
You could make that argument; but not in any way that wouldn't be fundamentally stupid.

But it's too easy to just run around screaming "STUPID PEOPLES IN THE INTERNETS IS DESTROYING THE WORLDS!!1!11!!ONE!"
 
Last edited:
People have been claiming that the younger generation are destroying society for so long that we have a quote from 20 BCE that appears to satirize that trope.

Our sires' age was worse than our grandsires'.
We their sons are more worthless than they:
so in our turn we shall give the world a progeny yet more corrupt.
-- Quintus Horatius Flaccus (Horace)
Click to expand...
 
luchog said:
If all you're getting out of that is shopping; you really need to actually look at what the Internet does.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm well aware that the Internet allows for more than just shopping. That was just one example, though.

luvhog said:
Of course, it's not like disabled people deserve the ease and convenience of the Internet; not if it's going to bring about the downfall of western civilization. They're just part of the problem, right?
Click to expand...

Wheelchair ramps. Automatic doors. Your argument is invalid.

luchog said:
Oh, and last time I checked, a whole lot of Internet shops let you try and clothes and return them if they don't fit. Really, you should do your homework. I recommend using the Internet, it's got a lot of info on that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

Name me one Internet store where you can try clothes on before you buy them. That's right, there is no such thing.

luchog said:
Yup, the Internet has destroyed a golden age of rationality and happy shiny people. It' the death of the culture and sanity. Just like television was. Just like mass-market publishing was. Just like non-religious public education was, and so on.
Click to expand...

Did I say any such thing?

luvhog said:
This is nothing but ignorant technophobic nonsense. The Church of Scientology had no problem reaching millions before the Internet. Urban legends spread to millions of people via word of mouth long before you or I were ever born. Last I checked, there are a whole lot of religions with millions of irrational and fanatical adherents. Guess they couldn't have existed without the Internet either?
Click to expand...

There's a vast difference between what you're talking about and what I'm talking about. Religions had a threat of eternal damnation and promise of salvation to go with it, which is what allowed it to flourish and survive. Conspiracy theories and homeopathy don't exactly have such a thing and was the stuff of weird little people that existed on the fringes of society.

All of a sudden along comes the Internet which allowed these people to get together and spread their message in ways they couldn't before to people who might never have been exposed to them before. In what way is this good?

luchog said:
And I noticed that you didn't actually answer my question. Or that you haven't defined what you meant by stupid people and losers. Do you mean anyone who doesn't believe what you believe, and act like you? Not as successful as you?
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm not a particularly successful man, and I'm not likely to ever be a scholar. And while I don't always agree with other people's beliefs about anything, I don't consider most of them to be stupid. But geocentricism, alchemy, flat earth, young earth creationism, homeopathy, Trutherisms, et cetera?

You have to draw the line somewhere and not allow these people the floor, as it were. It's a waste of time and resources to allow it.
 
Mudcat said:
There's a vast difference between what you're talking about and what I'm talking about. Religions had a threat of eternal damnation and promise of salvation to go with it, which is what allowed it to flourish and survive. Conspiracy theories and homeopathy don't exactly have such a thing and was the stuff of weird little people that existed on the fringes of society.

All of a sudden along comes the Internet which allowed these people to get together and spread their message in ways they couldn't before to people who might never have been exposed to them before. In what way is this good?
Click to expand...

Yes, information is dangerous. We need right-thinking people like you to control it.

Or you might consider that freedom means others will have thoughts and ideas that you don't agree with, and that you don't have the right to censor them no matter how stupid they are.

An open, neutral internet is the only acceptable choice.
 
Last edited:
eerok said:
Or you might consider that freedom means others will have thoughts and ideas that you don't agree with, and that you don't have the right to censor them no matter how stupid they are.
Click to expand...

If we were talking this on a public stage in a university somewhere it wouldn't be censorship to refuse some JFK assassination nutter time to speak or to escort someone out if they start ranting about Chemtrails at the top of their voices violently. Security would even be called in the latter example.
 
Mudcat said:
If we were talking this on a public stage in a university somewhere it wouldn't be censorship to refuse some JFK assassination nutter time to speak or to escort someone out if they start ranting about Chemtrails at the top of their voices violently. Security would even be called in the latter example.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but your analogy seems to bear no relevance to the subject, which is the internet.

Though perhaps you could admit that even ranting 1+1=2 at the top of your voice violently would get security called. Perhaps you have a clearer way to illustrate your point.

Are you actually advocating censorship?
 
ehcks said:
ISPs want to end net neutrality. They don't want to end their collusion. You think we can solve the problem of the local monopolies by making them compete. How do we get them to compete when they put so much effort into not competing?
Click to expand...
I said if there is almost no competition between ISPs then the first thing I would want to do is fix that. Your response was that ISPs don't want competition. That is irrelevant of course.
 
Mudcat said:
Name me one Internet store where you can try clothes on before you buy them. That's right, there is no such thing.
Click to expand...
I get my clothes online. It's not all that hard actually. If I'm uncertain how something will fit I order two different sizes. Any and everything can be returned. Most everything I order is free two day delivery. I will say that I'm not at all vain and that many people are more difficult to please when it comes to their wardrobe.

There is still a solution. I don't use them but there are upscale venues where you can have your body scanned and once your avatar is in the computer you can try clothes on virtually.

Virtual Bodyscanner, Virtual Fit/Sizing and Virtual 2D/3D Try-On and Virtual Closet List

Virtual fitting rooms changing the clothes shopping experience
 
Francesca R said:
I said if there is almost no competition between ISPs then the first thing I would want to do is fix that. Your response was that ISPs don't want competition. That is irrelevant of course.
Click to expand...

There's no competition because the ISPs work to prevent competing. How do you "fix that"?
 
I've been having connection issues for a week that I can't figure out. But this got me wondering about this topic...

I'm curious about Net Neutrality and how things exist right now, with regards to advertising. Because it seems to me that paid content is in fact already given preferential treatment.

I can't be the only one who's noticed how even when there are problems and things are bogged down bad, and you are trying to watch video at say Youtube or whatever.. and the videos are slow loading, buffering like crazy, and generally awful. But the ad's that come first? Perfectly flawless. Of course.

Ad's never skip or stutter or buffer. They always play flawlessly, even when everything else you try to watch is bogged down and buffering and stuttering.

They are clearly given preferential treatment in terms of bandwidth and importance. Should it be like that? Has anyone EVER seen an ad stutter, buffer or fail to load fully? I sure never have.
 
Whiplash said:
I've been having connection issues for a week that I can't figure out. But this got me wondering about this topic...

I'm curious about Net Neutrality and how things exist right now, with regards to advertising. Because it seems to me that paid content is in fact already given preferential treatment.

I can't be the only one who's noticed how even when there are problems and things are bogged down bad, and you are trying to watch video at say Youtube or whatever.. and the videos are slow loading, buffering like crazy, and generally awful. But the ad's that come first? Perfectly flawless. Of course.

Ad's never skip or stutter or buffer. They always play flawlessly, even when everything else you try to watch is bogged down and buffering and stuttering.

They are clearly given preferential treatment in terms of bandwidth and importance.
Click to expand...

I disagree that it's clear. Personally, I've never experienced what you describe. And even if I did, it's not clear that it's being prioritized from the view point of net-neutrality.

YouTube itself may be prioritizing within its own content within its own network, which is generally OK from a net-neutrality perspective.

Another (and more likely) possibility is that advertisements live on a different set of servers from content, and seeing as how advertisements will have less traffic than the actual content (not all content has advertisements, advertisements are short), it's likely that YouTube just has an easier time serving up the advertisements. It might even purposely be set up so that the advertisement servers never get too busy - but that isn't prioritization.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom