Hacker News Reader

Comment by EcommerceFlow | Hacker News Reader

If ISP's are the utility pipes, platforms are the water and control what flows through them.

The whole point of NN is to stop ISPs from "playing favorites" since they hold too much power over what we can access. But if you ignore the fact that a few big tech companies (which hold a MUCH bigger market share compared to comcast/other big ISPs) basically decide what gets seen and what gets hidden, it's the exact same problem in a different disguise.

View on HN

These are categorically different situations. In many places, people literally only have 1 or 2 choices for their ISP - not so for social networks. The degree to which the logic of neutral platforms applies depends on the availability of other options and the cost to switch; in the ISP case, the options are very limited and the cost is monetary and very high, and in the case of social networks the cost is low and purely social and there are many available options.

You can learn the difference by looking at what happened when Musk bought Twitter. Tons of people moved to other services like Threads, BlueSky, or Mastodon because all it takes is typing a different name into your browser.

When Comcast decided to double-charge Netflix, in contrast, what happened? Most people just had to put up with it because they only had one option for broadband or a contract. There’s no fast way to run new fiber or cable, so if your options are two companies with a history of network neutrality violations the best you can do is switch plans to whoever is currently not misusing their position.

ISPs are roads, and websites are businesses and homes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com