User Controls
Decentralised Internet
-
2017-12-18 at 4:21 AM UTC
Originally posted by Issue313 How exactly is the end of net neutrality, which really was nothing but a monetary subsidy to Google, Netflix and PornHub, going to affect the free dissemination of ideas?
Just the opposite. The end of net neutrality means anyone with enough money (e.g. Google, Netflix, etc) can legally bribe ISPs for preferential network treatment. We've already seen netflix colluding with mobile carriers to discount access to their service (not charging data on netfilx traffic). This gives entrenched market giants the ability to muscle out competitors and pro-censorship elements the ability to affect the effective fire walling of sufficiently unpopular or fringe services. Remember when storefront kept getting their service terminated by their hosts? Same principal here, only there is no competitor to try or off shore servers to rent, most of the US only has one ISP option available to them and if you end up on Comcast's shitlist then your service is effectively dead. I bet you dollars to doughnuts every well known racist website magically ends up in the lowest speed, highest latency, "pay more for reasonable access" category the telecom ogres can think up. -
2017-12-18 at 6:41 AM UTCWith Internet enforcement being taken away from the FCC, with the introduction of so-called Net Neutrality, the ISPs would be forced to provide service to edge providers, such as Facebook, Google, Amazon, Twitter, even if they politically censure and withhold content. The edge providers had a clause placed into the Net Neutrality legislation which conveniently exempts them from the rules of the said legislation, and with the matter out of the hands of the FCC, they could censure at will to their hearts desire and no one would be able to do anything about it; ISPs would still be forced to provide them service. This is why the radical left and Soros want Net Neutrality so bad, because they know they can't win unless they control all the Internet content. They almost pulled it off, too. Now, the best they can do is go suck on a wet rag.
-
2017-12-18 at 7:13 AM UTCHoly shit spectral, you really think the american fucking telecom industry is going to stand up and fight censorship now that they've been deregulated? Are you fucking kidding me?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-12-18 at 7:23 AM UTCEven with the deregulation, ISPs will not provide service to edge providers who clearly violate current FCC rules which prohibit the discrimination of politically censuring Internet content. The last laugh is on Zuckerberg, Dorsey and Soros.
-
2017-12-18 at 8:23 AM UTC
-
2017-12-18 at 8:35 AM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Even with the deregulation, ISPs will not provide service to edge providers who clearly violate current FCC rules which prohibit the discrimination of politically censuring Internet content. The last laugh is on Zuckerberg, Dorsey and Soros.
I just have no idea where to with how wrong this is.
So let's say in six months from now facebook is still accessible at top speed from every major american ISP, and facebook has made not changed in their policy regarding "censorship", will you admit you were 100% dead wrong here? -
2017-12-18 at 8:40 AM UTC
-
2017-12-18 at 11:18 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny The end of net neutrality means anyone with enough money (e.g. Google, Netflix, etc) can legally bribe ISPs for preferential network treatment.
Bribe here refers to paying for data usage.
The problem is that the Internet is being turned into a glorified HD video distribution network. Net Neutrality supposes that on the internet each packet is equal, and so ties network provider's hands when it comes to things like QoS. But of course not every packet is equal.We've already seen netflix colluding with mobile carriers to discount access to their service (not charging data on netfilx traffic).
Irish providers have done similar things. Bandwidth giveaways just degrades everyone else's experience. Video on mobile is kinda DOA anyway. In fact streaming of any sort on mobile is the sort of idea that sounds great but leaves you underwhelmed.This gives entrenched market giants the ability to muscle out competitors and pro-censorship elements the ability to affect the effective fire walling of sufficiently unpopular or fringe services.
Not really seeing how net neutrality helps open up market competition, especially since the problem is huge companies like google, uber, etc holding monopolies in specific areas, while everyone else is forced into the gig economy rat race. People need economic justice more than they need internet packet justice.Remember when storefront kept getting their service terminated by their hosts? Same principal here, only there is no competitor to try or off shore servers to rent, most of the US only has one ISP option available to them and if you end up on Comcast's shitlist then your service is effectively dead.
I don't really get why Stormfront getting shaohed matters, although obviously I am opposed to any shutdowns. The US needs to break up its tech monopolies big time, but I'm not aware of Comcast doing things like banning people from their platform for life due to polite ideological disagreements the way Twitter and Facebook do every day.I bet you dollars to doughnuts every well known racist website magically ends up in the lowest speed, highest latency, "pay more for reasonable access" category the telecom ogres can think up.
I think it's unlikely they'd bother picking out the likes of DailyStormer, which use negligible bandwidth, even if it was technically feasible (https makes that difficult, though I'm sure they'd find a way). However if they do manage it, like when Trump is replaced by the next Obama or whatever, trying to suppress someone's freedom of speech in a noisy and stupid manner only helps them. It makes them appear edgy and legitimate.
If you want to destroy someone make them comfortable. Comfortable people become stupid and unbearable. That's what happened to Western Liberalism.
There's a lot of dumbass political sportsballing around this issue. I bet if Bush had implemented Net Neutrality rules and Obama had repealed them half you guys would be of completely different opinions. -
2017-12-18 at 12:30 PM UTCAs long as I can listen to youtube, post on here and order massive amounts of drugs from the dn I am good.
-
2017-12-18 at 2:32 PM UTC
-
2017-12-18 at 3:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by Issue313 But of course not every packet is equal.
What are you talking about, you retard? How is the stream of 1s and 0s any different than the flow of water, LNG or electricity, in principle? Why should anyone give a fuck what I'm using my water for, as long as I'm paying for it? Unless there is a serious water scarcity at play (there is no internet scarcity, and if there were then I would kill your faggot ass for suggesting it's the fault of the businesses using the internet rather than the telcos who embezzled straight $500 billion that was given to them to expand and improve infrastructure across the country), it shouldn't matter if I put it in my pool or in my food. -
2017-12-18 at 5:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon What are you talking about, you retard? How is the stream of 1s and 0s any different than the flow of water, LNG or electricity, in principle?
The wholesale pricing of all those things is really complex. For instance I priced electricity for a shopping centre a while ago, and they/we looked at the daily use profile, the seasonal profile, the transformer, the length of contract and the expected future price movements of natural gas.
No one would suggest that massive electricity users like shopping centres or factories should have to pay the same price as domestic users, as the transmission losses and fixed cost profile are just completely different.
Also when electricity becomes scarce who gets it and who doesn't is political. Electricity rationing is still a thing.
Same with all those things. Neutrality/nondiscrimination clauses are usually a cost and a pain in the ass for businesses to deal with.Why should anyone give a fuck what I'm using my water for, as long as I'm paying for it?
The big cost in providing water is the fixed cost to build dams, reservoirs and pipes. Therefore if you are far away and use less water you should have to pay more. Also there are social concerns, such as encouraging agriculture (the major water user in dry climates) and preventing perceived waste (which is why nonsense like hose pipe bans occur, or those little cuck toilets that don't flush properly, they achieve nothing, but please the sort of people who become activists).Unless there is a serious water scarcity at play (there is no internet scarcity, and if there were then I would kill your faggot ass for suggesting it's the fault of the businesses using the internet rather than the telcos who embezzled straight $500 billion that was given to them to expand and improve infrastructure across the country), it shouldn't matter if I put it in my pool or in my food.
There is no such thing as a water scarcity, there are just cases of there not being enough water in the right place at the right time. Same thing with data. -
2017-12-18 at 6:17 PM UTC
-
2017-12-18 at 6:29 PM UTCi remember someone asked no too long ago why hes still being able to watch youtube despite him having ran out of his allocated data usage already.
who was that ??? -
2017-12-18 at 6:39 PM UTC
-
2017-12-18 at 6:57 PM UTC
Originally posted by Issue313 Bribe here refers to paying for data usage.
*pay for data usage again. You realize customers already pay for data? End of net neutrality just means hosts can be shafted for it a second time.Irish providers have done similar things. Bandwidth giveaways just degrades everyone else's experience. Video on mobile is kinda DOA anyway. In fact streaming of any sort on mobile is the sort of idea that sounds great but leaves you underwhelmed.
...right. These kind of "bandwidth giveaways" are what net neutrality is designed to prevent, it's the repeal that makes subsidization of access like this possible.Not really seeing how net neutrality helps open up market competition, especially since the problem is huge companies like google, uber, etc holding monopolies in specific areas, while everyone else is forced into the gig economy rat race.
Because it means an market leader legally can't collude to have favorable network access with respect to competitors. Let's say I wanted to open a major search engine tomorrow. Under NN I would have equal network access, without it I'm essentially in a bidding war with Google to get comparable access to my market (who's already paying for access btw). Categorically upstart outfits can't buy off ISPs in the same way market incumbents can.I don't really get why Stormfront getting shaohed matters, although obviously I am opposed to any shutdowns. The US needs to break up its tech monopolies big time, but I'm not aware of Comcast doing things like banning people from their platform for life due to polite ideological disagreements the way Twitter and Facebook do every day.
It matters because it demonstrates the sort of censorship this repeal enables. Comcast could not legally block their subscribers from accessing stormfront under net neutrality, now they can. And just like godaddy and a string of other hosts quickly caved under popular pressure to ban the weekly boogeyman from their service, so too is Comcast going to can anyone they think it's in their best interest to.I think it's unlikely they'd bother picking out the likes of DailyStormer, which use negligible bandwidth, even if it was technically feasible (https makes that difficult, though I'm sure they'd find a way).
Why did godaddy decide to pick out the likes of DailyStormer, which uses negligible bandwidth?However if they do manage it, like when Trump is replaced by the next Obama or whatever, trying to suppress someone's freedom of speech in a noisy and stupid manner only helps them. It makes them appear edgy and legitimate.
If you want to destroy someone make them comfortable. Comfortable people become stupid and unbearable. That's what happened to Western Liberalism.
Is "censorship is OK because it actually gets the message out!" really your argument here? Like do you really think this line of thinking makes ISP level censorship a non-issue or did you just want to throw in some edge opinions for flavor?
Originally posted by Fox Paws So what you’re saying is this site is doomed
Yeah, I mean nothing good is going to come out of the NN repeal for this site. We're already on the shitlist of enough site classification schemes that this site can't be accessed from schools or behind corp. firewalls. I don't expect ISPs to make a more favorable judgement. -
2017-12-18 at 6:59 PM UTC
-
2017-12-18 at 7:02 PM UTCWow congratulations you fucking moron, you utterly and completely failed to address any point I raised
Originally posted by Issue313 No one would suggest that massive electricity users like shopping centres or factories should have to pay the same price as domestic users, as the transmission losses and fixed cost profile are just completely different.
Nobody is arguing that the prices for internet service should be uniform for everyone. Do you think Amazon Web Services has a Cox Unlimited plan and is running their business off a domestic internet connection? No of course not. That's not even remotely related to what I said. If I turn my tap on, I don't give a fuck if the water comes from a reservoir, a stream or my asshole, I pay a flat rate and whatever I use it for past the point where it is metered. You don't gauge what I use my water for, you gauge how much water I use.Also when electricity becomes scarce who gets it and who doesn't is political. Electricity rationing is still a thing.
Ok, not really relevant whatsoever to what I said, which is that if there is a problem with energy or water scarcity, then I can see regulating whether or not you can fill your swimming pool or run your in-house discotheque. But that's not really a problem with internet service.Same with all those things. Neutrality/nondiscrimination clauses are usually a cost and a pain in the ass for businesses to deal with.
Neutrality takes no work to implement: you just simply don't care about the packets going through your part of the series of tubes. It just does not allow you to ass rape customers and businesses, so I guess it's a "cost' in that you aren't allowed to make more money by fiddling with everyone's shit.The big cost in providing water is the fixed cost to build dams, reservoirs and pipes.
Yes, and in the case of the telecoms infrastructure in America, it's been almost entirely paid for by the taxpayers (shame that the telcos embezzled it though).Therefore if you are far away and use less water you should have to pay more.
Again, irrelevant. It's fine to charge different areas different amounts for water. But we still don't tell them what they can use their water for, or charge them differently if this drop comes from a lake or that drop comes from a stream.There is no such thing as a water scarcity, there are just cases of there not being enough water in the right place at the right time. Same thing with data.
Not really though, or there's not really a good reason for there to be scarcity with regards to data. One the pipes are laid, a water main needs water but once the infrastructure is set, data doesn't need magical data molecules, what's flowing is the information itself. -
2017-12-18 at 9:12 PM UTCThe only people who would need such a service are criminals and terrorists.
-
2017-12-19 at 2:16 AM UTC
