Hacker News Reader

> wants a "thoughtful discussion" is lying to us

You've obviously broken HN's civility rule here. That's not ok. HN is a big place and the things that seem completely obvious to you may well be quite unclear to someone else. This is one of many reasons why the site guidelines ask everyone to assume good faith. Threads occasionally getting derailed isn't great, of course, but that's a lesser concern than people attacking each other.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Then feel free to email the mods, explain my no-good-nick ways and ask for a remedy of some sort to whatever harm you believe me to have done rather than talking trash about me in public.

There was plenty of flaming going on before I asked for nonflaming explanations of the issue. And it looks to have not dropped off the front page. So I don't see the harm you are imagining.

Re your edits: There is nothing wrong with noting that noob questions get asked routinely about x subject and that it is problematic when large numbers of people jump on answering such questions. The problem with your comment is in injecting ugly characterizations of the asker and assuming I knew this would get a lot of replies. I didn't. I frequently ask or post things that are utterly ignored.

Holding me responsible for the decisions other people made to reply en masse is ridiculous. Why not hold them responsible for choosing to be the umpteenth person who felt compelled to reply?

> TL;DR: Someone, at this point, who claims they have never "understood" net neutrality and wants a "thoughtful discussion" is lying to us in an attempt to derail discussions.

This is not a charitable opinion. Reading old threads on NANOG¹ has convinced me that net neutrality is more nuanced and technical than the "people vs big-ISP" narrative advanced by campaigns such as the OP. If anything, the reddit and battleforthenet bandwagons have created a hostile environment for actual debate.

¹ AFAICT, the majority NANOG opinion on net neutrality is that it doesn't actually address the underlying issue that prevents natural competition in the ISP market.

The other point to keep in mind is that this is a USA issue.

I will add that anyone who ever wonders why women/blacks/whomever may not feel comfortable here, this * type comment would be one reason why. It presumes malice for asking an honest question and then talks trash about the asker. If you don't already know what "insiders"/the majority here know and think what they think, god help you for trying to find out.

There are plenty of ways to comment on the concern of the discussion being derailed by noob questions that don't involve personal attacks, assumptions of malice aforethought, etc.

* I mean the GP: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15910790

> lying to us in an attempt to derail discussions

I think it's not necessarily a malicious act. Seems like an honest tactic to start a debate.

I think the bigger problem is the unending "It will be just like cable" meme, complete with infographics and blah blah blah.

It turns an issue with many serious consequences into one that ISP companies can "solve" by just not doing that. Are they blocking torrents, banning VPNs unless you get a business enabled account, extorting fees from companies, engaging in zero rating deals, etc... absolutely.

But you can access pretty much whatever site you want. So obviously everything is okay because what reddit said was wrong and we can trust the ISPs.

You are acknowledging the tactic used as alluded to by the parent.

Also, you have a very new account.

But, I will feed you as I cross the bridge.

You've posted more than one borderline personal attack in this thread, which is not cool. We ban accounts that do that. Please don't do that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> [EDIT] No, this is not a charitable view of someone's potentially pure motivations. But after a few dozen iterations of the same thing again and again, you stop being charitable. Sorry.

falcolas, I was going to ask something similar to Doreen had she not posted first. While I can understand why you might assume that these posts are intended to derail and deceive, I think it's more parsimonious to believe that these HN posters are genuinely looking for discussion and enlightenment.

None of the posts you provided seem sinister. The only thing shared between them is that the posters are hesitant to throw in their support without a detailed argument befitting a complicated issue like net neutrality. An explanation like the following (battleforthenet.com):

    What is net neutrality? Why does it matter?

    Net neutrality is the principle that Internet providers like
    Comcast & Verizon should not control what we see and do online.

is insufficient to someone looking for something more comprehensive. If anything, the FUD and tribalism¹ surrounding this issue are clear signals that the underlying truth is probably quite complicated.

¹ From battleforthenet.com:

    We are Team Internet. We support net neutrality, freedom of speech.

    They are Team Cable. They want to end net neutrality, to control & tax the Internet.

Are you saying that Doreen has only existed since Nov 16?