how is not having net neutrality different from google and co censoring the internet on whim.
Seems like the same set of people cheering google for censorship are afraid of censorship form ISPs.
Seems like the same set of people cheering google for censorship are afraid of censorship form ISPs.
I suppose technically that'll never happen; you could fall back to a dial-up ISP. After all, the phone company is not allowed to decide that you can't call their competitors. One tiny part of the Title 2 regulations that cover telecommunications forces them to allow all telephone subscribers to call all other telephone subscribers. It's telephone neutrality. Look up the whole MCI thing from a few decades ago.
Can I just say this then,
If you can't access your website on ISP choose another ISP.
Whats different about this argument? Also, thank you for answering instead of downvoting.
Also, Philosophically you won't really care about net neutrality if you have ISP choice. correct?
And they're still technically not monopolies, because even if they're the only place you can get 100MBps service, you might still be able to get 2Mbps service from the phone company (or dial-up service if you're more than a couple of miles from the POP), and internet service is internet service.
The phone companies also have regional monopolies, but because they have to share their network with everyone there are lots of options. I can buy my DSL from a dozen companies, but the circuit will be provisioned by AT&T. This means that none of these companies are likely to act in bad faith; their customers can switch easily, and the FCC is generally watching.
Having more options is indeed another way out; the cable companies have actually gotten a lot better in the last few years, if you're in a market where there are other choices. In some cities you can get Google Fiber, and cable there has suddenly started competing. In SF you can get Sonic.net's fiber service, etc.
You are correct in that the root of this problem is that our anti-monopoly laws aren't being enacted here because there's too much money being made by those on top. We should fix that problem as well.
However, I'm not convinced that "just get a different ISP" would work in the US like it does elsewhere. Service companies here are very good at hiding details and the US generally ends up with a small handful of choices that are all terrible. See also: Phones, Healthcare, Transportation
in addition to that, "but what about google" is no defence for what last mile ISPs are doing. If google ever becomes too ubiquitous as a gatekeeper (it's already at that point according to the EU antitrust commission) they'll also need to be regulated.
>How many ISPs can you choose from where you live ?
Let me ask you this. How many search engines can you choose form, really? How many phone OS's can you choose from?
Phone OS? 3, one of which is literally open source and used by a bunch of other competitors. Cost of switching is about $150 and a day.
ISP in the US I have actually no choice. I'm crossing my fingers that CenturyLink or municipal fiber will become a thing, but I ain't optimistic about it. Cost of switching if there was a second one would be around $200+ for modem, installation fees, etc, and last time I did cus I moved it took like a week.
I don't think I could switch an ISP in 10 days, let alone seconds.
So effectively I have no choice, unless I want to stop all video watching, downloading games regularly (not gonna soak 18 hours of 100% of my bandwidth to download a new title), etc.
google.com
bing.com
baidu.com
Other less popular but in many cases still excellent options include:
yandex.com
gigablast.com
lycos.com
askjeeves.com
duckduckgo.com
qwant.com
And the list goes on and on and on... these are just the "similar to google" search engines. There are also search engines for particular topics, search engines that take a different paradigm ("semantic search"), and with beer money you can even buy search engine+crawler software packages and build your own search engine for the portion of the web you care about.
And major sites like Wikipedia and Amazon and all the social sites have their own search features so you don't even need a third party search engine within most of the big silos.
If you're using google it's because either a) you want to use google; or b) you're monumentally lazy. Not because there aren't other options.
You can also write your own crawler and search engine. In fact, as literally all of these options demonstrate, with a surprisingly small amount of VC cash you could build your own "more than good enough" search engine. The same amount of cash probably wouldn't be nearly enough to build out a Verizon or Comcast competitor in even one city.
Conversely, I have exactly 3 options for ISPs in my area. One of them is the local equivalent of "build your own search engine" (and about similar quality). So actually 2 options -- Comcast and Verizon. There is no long tail of other providers, and what's more, there almost certainly never will be because acquiring the land rights would be enormously expensive. Oh and BTW I live in a major city; outside of cities you're even more screwed.
And even if we just limit ourselves to the "big best in class" search engines -- google, bing, baidu, duckduckgo -- that's still twice the number of options that most people have for ISP in the US.
There are thousands upon thousands of webpage hosts on the internet.
In many areas of the US, however, you may have only one option for ISP. You either take it, or you go without internet.
The recent case of GoDaddy, Google, and Cloudflare is much closer to political censorship; there's no technical reason behind it.
I feel like I'm not parsing your sentence correctly.
Also, doing business with Nazis (and I'm not throwing that term around lightly; the Daily Stormer identifies themselves as such) is, especially given recent events, considered bad for business. So I would say they have a business reason there too.
Doing business is a way of living in the modern society. Stopping doing business (including firing an employee over non-business reasons, a very popular measure in liberal circles) threatens your well-being and even life. If everyone stops doing business with a person, the person is very likely to die. This is very close to lynching and is a total opposite of justice.
I disagree that choosing not to do business with the Daily Stormer is unethical. It's no worse than any other reason to not choose to do business with someone, of which GoDaddy does chose not to do business with several other entities.
I disagree that GoDaddy not doing business with the Daily Stormer threatened anyone's well being or life. If anything, not amplifying their signal has likely saved lives, because hopefully fewer people will know that the site exists, and will then become radicalized because of it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-t...
It's about a woman with that tweet about white and AIDS and how the mob response to it ruined her life. The punishment turned out to be completely out of proportion with the crime. Punishments carried out by mobs tend to. Imagine that she were tried by a court for her tweet, given a defender and all the due process; do you think the court would order her to be punished to that extent? So yes, this is very close to lynching; it's social lynching done by well-educated progressive people who think they're humane and are doing the right thing. Projected to its logical conclusion it's meant to deprive the victims of their lives.
Actually, much more people became aware of Daily Stormer; I, for one, I've never heard of them before. I wish I could see what it was about, I prefer to trust my own judgement in such matters, but I cannot. All I can see is a small excerpt in a search engine: "We here at the Daily Stormer are opposed to violence. We seek revolution through the education of the masses. When the information is available to the people, ..." Well, that's all; the information is not available. But it's ironic, isn't it? I'd say this credo is an opposite of that of their antifa opponents who claim it's good to use violence against Nazis and boldly declare that at the pages of New Your Times and whatnot.
that the definition I am using. What does it have to do with freedom of speech?
Yes they surpassed it on their platform. Censorship doesn't mean "make inaccessible to everyone on any platform". If you censor something on your own platform its still called censorship. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Indian govt censors kissing on movie screens but you can still go watch it on youtube. That doesn't mean what they are doing is not censorship, the govt entity that's responsible for it is actually called "censor board".
And I still don't believe what they did was censorship. That was them exercising their right to free speech. I do not believe that it is possible for an expression of free speech to be censorship.
I was just using that as an example. So according to you only govt can do censorship?
Thats a definition you made up, not the definition in dictionary. I quoted the dictionary definition from the dictionary and it perfectly matches what google did. Can you tell me how am wrong precisely?
Definitions don't depend on one particular person's beliefs .
But in terms of technical effort and economics, these are not the same. It's much easier to write html and find someone to host it for you than it is to trench in municipalities and lay fiber across the country. Net neutrality restricts ISPs from having a competitive advantage in the content space.