net neutrality and Nazi websites

[karinothing]

Is it hypocritical to support net neutrality but he okay with Nazi websites being blackballed?

[jigsy]

Is it the ISP's blocking the Nazis? I thought it was the independent hosting sites refusing to host the Nazis, in which casem i don't care because free market.

[karinothing]

Aug 23, 2017 18:12:32 GMT -5 jigsy said:

Is it the ISP's blocking the Nazis? I thought it was the independent hosting sites refusing to host the Nazis, in which casem i don't care because free market.

It is hosting sites, but I mean the effect is the same right? why is an isp banning a site worse than all companies refusing to host them? Either way consumer doesn't get access to the website. Why would a host blocking them be free market but an Isp not? because thr website has to pay the host vs the isp? Is the isp considered more of a utility?

i honestly don't know how I feel, someone asked on FB and I have just been thinking about it.

[sarahsays]

Aug 23, 2017 18:28:45 GMT -5 karinothing said:

Aug 23, 2017 18:12:32 GMT -5 jigsy said:

Is it the ISP's blocking the Nazis? I thought it was the independent hosting sites refusing to host the Nazis, in which casem i don't care because free market.

It is hosting sites, but I mean the effect is the same right? why is an isp banning a site worse than all companies refusing to host them? Either way consumer doesn't get access to the website. Why would a host blocking them be free market but an Isp not? because thr website has to pay the host vs the isp? Is the isp considered more of a utility?

i honestly don't know how I feel, someone asked on FB and I have just been thinking about it.

It's not the same because the Hate site could host their own server. End users are not actually being prevented from accessing a site due to money.

Without net neutrality Comcast could force me to use Bing because Microsoft pays them to block Google. It goes against the founding principle of the internet which was to disseminate unfiltered information.

[bears]

They were talking about this on NPR this morning and I caught the second half: www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/08/23/545320833/unlikely-allies-join-fight-to-protect-free-speech-on-the-internet

I realize now that the first half features an interview with Richard Spencer...

[karinothing]

Aug 23, 2017 19:40:23 GMT -5 sarahsays said:

Aug 23, 2017 18:28:45 GMT -5 karinothing said:

It is hosting sites, but I mean the effect is the same right? why is an isp banning a site worse than all companies refusing to host them? Either way consumer doesn't get access to the website. Why would a host blocking them be free market but an Isp not? because thr website has to pay the host vs the isp? Is the isp considered more of a utility?

i honestly don't know how I feel, someone asked on FB and I have just been thinking about it.

It's not the same because the Hate site could host their own server. End users are not actually being prevented from accessing a site due to money.

Without net neutrality Comcast could force me to use Bing because Microsoft pays them to block Google. It goes against the founding principle of the internet which was to disseminate unfiltered information.

thx that makes sense.

[karinothing]

Aug 23, 2017 20:44:16 GMT -5 BirdGirl said:

The problem with abandoning net neutrality in the ISP space is that consumers only have one ISP, such as Comcast. If Comcast can only carry certain content then you the consumer have to subscribe to another ISP (or not if you only have one ISP like we do) to get the other content. The argument against net neutrality is "free market," but really it just screws the consumer who doesn't have control.

In theory, a person denied one hosting site can just go to another. If they all say no, then they can't. But there are far more hosting sites than ISPs. It's also different in that the person affected (primarily), is the website operator. Not the end consumer. Website operator can change its behavior and have access to the service. The same isn't true in the ISP/net neutrality context.

But what about when it is not ju at the host site but you tube, pay pal, Twitter, facebook, Google and Yahoo? You are talking about the vast majority of the market share censoring content for consumers. It seems the spirit of net neutrality should still stand?

[karinothing]

Yeah, I get it is not a net neutrality concern per se, just that the effect seems the same. I mean sure they could host themselves but when they are blackballed from every other corner of the internet and if we agree we are concerned with consumers getting censored content, then it still seems similar to me. But again, I get that it is not net neutrality. Like if google and yahoo refuses to let hate groups be searchable in their algorithms, that is a lot of material that the public isn't going to be able to get. With hate groups it is easy for me to say "well who cares, that information is so horrible that it shouldn't be findable" but what if the tide changes for some reason and it became these organizations banning religion or information about homosexuality.

I guess I just wonder if it is a slippery slope. I hope it is not coming off that I am an advocate for hate speech or that I am not really happy that these companies are doing it, I am just internally conflicted about advocating for a free uncensored internet while also having these feelings.

[sushi]

It is not a slippery slope (logical fallacy argument aside). Isp is a utility, server is not.

Net neutrality is more about corporations being able to buy and force end users. Hosting is about a provider deciding what content they allow. Completely different situations.

[sonrisa]

No hypocrisy.

Just like I can support the first amendment right to peaceably assemble and not support a rally intended to cause intimidation, fear and violence.

[y4m]

I see your logic. If an ISP is a form of utility and needs to operate for the public good and be neutral, shouldn't hosting?

For me the difference is that the pipes themselves were government sponsored (state and local) to start. The hosting companies were not.

Anyone can make a conservative oriented Go Daddy if they want (and I think net neutrality would apply to the whole of their content then). But not anyone can make another Comcast.