Hacker News Reader

Comment by JoshMnem | Hacker News Reader

That is not what I'm arguing. :)

Are you arguing against Net Neutrality?

Governments do have a duty to protect people from predatory companies. When private companies inhibit the freedom of a population, would you argue that governments shouldn't intervene to protect the freedom of the people?

View on HN

So, if FB wants to subsidize an internet plan that is exclusively for FB services, would you say that the government should allow that or prevent it?

There's the rub. If the government made a neutral internet a human right, or increased competition by breaking up monopolies, the idiots who think they can get away with offering just Facebook would get royally shafted because consumers would realise that they can get a lot more for the same price by moving to the competition. This would lead to a glorious future where internet would be used properly for what it was intended to do: let anyone share anything with anyone else.

To add, how about Wikipedia doing the same?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero

It seems like a bad idea from a first glance. It looks like there are also Twitter Zero, Google Free Zone, and possibly others.

Other countries have the right to develop their Internet with the same freedom that we currently have. (I'm in the US.)

People who are concerned with "freedom" should be looking at the long-term effects of those policies on consumers and smaller entrepreneurs too -- not just the effects on larger companies.

Wikipedia Zero isn't about making the internet exclusively for Wikipedia. It's about putting the site into the ISP's no data charge area. Yes, it does mean that you end up with a two-tier pricing scheme ('free' and 'not free'), but to classify it as 'subsidising an internet plan to make it exclusive for wikipedia' is a gross mischaracterisation.

You didn't answer my question. :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com