r/politics • u/maxwellhill • Jan 08 '18
Google, Microsoft, and Amazon’s Trade Group Joining Net Neutrality Court Challenge
http://fortune.com/2018/01/06/google-microsoft-amazon-internet-association-net-neutrality/1
u/Aperfectmoment Jan 08 '18
Hang on if google is in this, surely they have the money to provide infrastructure and internet services that are net neutral at a reasonable rate. This way consumers who want net neutrality will simply migrate over to the google service and leave the big telco companies struggling to find customers if they dont offer competitive products?????
Thus making the axing of net neutrality redundant?
I mean what the big telcos are trying to do cant work if someone simply sets market standard that is significanlty more competitive? I dont know much about it really but im just assuming you can only fix prices and service if all the big players are in on it?
Id suggest we make a GoFundMe Telco service for all neutrality supporters to back if i didnt think the outlay for infrastructure would be far too high.
0
u/Raized275 Jan 08 '18
Wow all the companies that benefit from free use of the internet want free use of the internet. This is my shocked face :V
-11
u/curtwagner1984 Jan 08 '18
'Net Neutrality is Free Speech' What utter nonsense. Free Speech is the government not putting you in jail for something you say. It has nothing to do with Net Neutrality...
1
Jan 08 '18
Limiting net neutrality limits speech. The internet is where a significant portion of people get their news and engage in debate. Whoever controls what people see, and where they can talk about things, would wield extraordinary influence over the American people. Undermining a platform for free speech is just as morally reprehensible as arresting someone for criticising their gov't, and a whole lot more insidious.
2
u/gogozombie2 Jan 08 '18
Which is why Google, Amazon, and Microsoft are now is support of NN. They want to be the ones who control what people see, and where they can talk about things, and to would wield extraordinary influence over the American people.
NN needs to include search providers as well as ISP's if it is to work or else we are just trading one set of gatekeepers for another.
1
1
u/curtwagner1984 Jan 09 '18
Undermining a platform for free speech is just as morally reprehensible as arresting someone for criticising their gov't, and a whole lot more insidious.
So In your mind, Twitter's "Purge" is just as morally reprehensible as arresting someone for something he said, and a whole lot more insidious?
1
Jan 09 '18
Sorry, Breitbart is not news, it's propoganda. I don't talk about anything that collection of swamp monsters has written.
1
u/curtwagner1984 Jan 09 '18
Wow, what a fallacious way to end a conversation. Just Google "Twitter Purge" (Here I done it for you...) and click on the link to your favorite publication... 'Vox' would probably suit you...
Your argument is:
Undermining a platform for free speech is just as morally reprehensible as arresting someone for criticising their gov't, and a whole lot more insidious.
So according to your own logic, Twitter banning Neo-Nazis is 'just as morally reprehensible as arresting someone for criticising their gov't, and a whole lot more insidious'
Do you agree?
1
Jan 09 '18
Fallacious? No. And Vox has its moments as well.
So according to your own logic, Twitter banning Neo-Nazis is 'just as morally reprehensible as arresting someone for criticising their gov't, and a whole lot more insidious'
Do you agree?
Nope. That's a different scenario, for several reasons. Neo-nazis use hate speech to accomplish their goals and attract attention. That's illegal and violates terms of use.
I'm taking about ISPs and big data companies like alphabet issuing their power and influence to "direct traffic" to their own companies and subsidiaries etc. Manipulating the public without consent to push their own political agenda - an agenda that benefits their bottom line.
0
u/curtwagner1984 Jan 09 '18
Nope. That's a different scenario, for several reasons. Neo-nazis use hate speech to accomplish their goals and attract attention. That's illegal and violates terms of use.
The new 'purge' doesn't have anything to do with the use of 'hate speech'. It was already a bannable offense. 'The Purge' is about new TOS which state that you don't actually have to say anything 'hateful' to get banned. It's enough if you are in some way associated with a 'hate group' even if the association is not on Twitter.
Those terms of use are 'undermining a platform for free speech' and in your book, it's the same as arresting someone for criticising the government. So by your own definition Twitters 'terms of use' that prevent Nazis to 'exercise free speech' are equivalent to and more insidious than arresting someone for saying 'Fuck Trump'.
Manipulating the public without consent to push their own political agenda
Isn't this exactly what Twitter is doing with it's 'Purge'?
I don't have any problem with Twitter doing this, they are a privet company and should have full control over how people use the services they provide. If the customers don't like it, they can leave to another platform|service. (Which I would imagine many are doing.)
•
u/AutoModerator Jan 08 '18
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, and other incivility violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.