Hacker News Reader

Comment by ProAm | Hacker News Reader

In the end, especially on HN, it comes down to a discussion regarding money and who is allowed to make it and who is not. You'll find startups opposed because it hinders their opportunity to disrupt an established business, and you'll find entrenched business opposed to not making money as they see fit. There is nothing political about this discussion, it's just about money and which side of the coin you are trying to make it on.

View on HN

What is not political about using public policy to control who gets to make money?

I meant the discussion on HN wont be. This is absolutely a political maneuver bought by lobbyist. People on HN will be upset that it will be more difficult to 'disrupt' and 'hack' on the established.

Being upset on the internet is itself a political maneuver that seeks to build support for your cause by spreading outrage. Deciding which links get shared and discussed is likewise a political act.

Except in this case all of the entrenched, large internet businesses (Google, Facebook, etc) are against ending net neutrality. You would think that since they have the deep pockets to pay ISPs, they would be the beneficiaries. So are they protesting this action simply out of principal? Or is there some other benefit they get from net neutrality that I'm not seeing?

They would have to pay the ISPs? It may well benefit them in the long run by increasing the size of their moats, but it will immediately affect their bottom lines.

Imagine you were selling your rent controlled apartment on Airbnb and all the sudden the landlord wanted a fat cut. You'd be pissed...

> So are they protesting this action simply out of principal?

No they are protesting to protect their wallet as well. If suddenly ISP's feel you should have to pay extra to use Google, that will have an immediately and direct affect on Google's revenue. That is why they are protesting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com