• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Expanding Net Neutrality

Should Net Nuetrality be Expanded to providers and hosts?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 41.7%

  • No

    Votes: 7 58.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    12
Harry Guerrilla

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Government controlled internet would be required to uphold the 1st Amendment?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Given these stories and the near monopoly of some tech companies.

Should Net Neutrality be expanded to cover content providers and hosting, in terms of legal content?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevl...al-media-controls-what-we-see/2/#32430ef12845

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/youtube-is-censoring

https://www.wired.com/story/cloudflare-daily-stormer/

GoDaddy pulls support for neo-Nazi site The Daily Stormer over Heather Heyer post
Click to expand...

Generally domains and private companies have a lot more pull on what is able to go on their sites and servers than do ISPs. They are not involved in the removal of websites. It's one of the most misunderstood aspects of the entire NN argument. That's free market not NN.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Given these stories and the near monopoly of some tech companies.

Should Net Neutrality be expanded to cover content providers and hosting, in terms of legal content?
Click to expand...
I’m not convinced it should be treated under the same banner, not least because the whole concept of Net Neutrality is already confused with its own layers of political and financial bias, adding in something else with a whole load more would just create a single big mess that wouldn’t benefit anyone.

I question the concept of there being “near monopolies” here. There are certainly companies and platforms who have established large market shares but if anything this is a field where competitors can be relatively easily established and, with effort, luck and the right offering, succeed. After all, that’s exactly what Facebook and YouTube did.

Hosting is very much not a monopoly, it just seems that none of the mainstream hosting companies wanted their business. I don’t think there is much government or the law can do about that. On that side though, it wouldn’t be restrictively difficult for an organisation to self-host their own material and thus be free of any third-party influence.

In general, I’d suggest “extreme” minority views have inevitably always struggled to find a mainstream voice. The internet doesn’t real change that other than making it much more widely visible when it happens.
 
Let them decide what content they want to host. Either people will go to a different hosting service, or they will move onto the deep web. Either way, entities like Google can't actually remove something from the entire internet, and doing what they can to accomplish that only gives their competitors like DuckDuckGo more traffic.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Given these stories and the near monopoly of some tech companies.

Should Net Neutrality be expanded to cover content providers and hosting, in terms of legal content?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevl...al-media-controls-what-we-see/2/#32430ef12845

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/youtube-is-censoring

https://www.wired.com/story/cloudflare-daily-stormer/

GoDaddy pulls support for neo-Nazi site The Daily Stormer over Heather Heyer post
Click to expand...

I would like more clarification of your question. On the face of it, I'm not sure how individual platforms, domain registries and hosting companies censoring websites and individual users falls in the realm of net neutrality.
 
Cardinal said:
I would like more clarification of your question. On the face of it, I'm not sure how individual platforms, domain registries and hosting companies censoring websites and individual users falls in the realm of net neutrality.
Click to expand...

It's about expanding net neutrality.
Rather than stop just internet providers from being "blind" to traffic and not charging more.

Should it be expanded to cover services further down, to be blind to legal traffic (Youtube, Facebook, etc.).
There are claims (some that are true) that services like Youtube, et all are censoring content that they don't like.
In that context, should these content servicers, hosts, registrars, etc, be mandated to carry traffic regardless of lean, belief, ideas, etc, as long as it is legal.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's about expanding net neutrality.
Rather than stop just internet providers from being "blind" to traffic and not charging more.

Should it be expanded to cover services further down, to be blind to legal traffic (Youtube, Facebook, etc.).
There are claims (some that are true) that services like Youtube, et all are censoring content that they don't like.
In that context, should these content servicers, hosts, registrars, etc, be mandated to carry traffic regardless of lean, belief, ideas, etc, as long as it is legal.
Click to expand...

This website censors members here every day. Should net neutrality be "expanded" to include legal behavior here that violates their TOS? For the record, I'm not being combative here, I'm just still uncertain of the scope of your question.
 
Cardinal said:
This website censors members here every day. Should net neutrality be "expanded" to include legal behavior here that violates their TOS? For the record, I'm not being combative here, I'm just still uncertain of the scope of your question.
Click to expand...

An real life example, Gab.ai a competitor to twitter, was banned from both the Apple Ap store and the Google Play store.
Both stores essentially have a duopoly on the ap market, even though there are other minor competitors, which makes them gate keepers to content.

Another example is YouTube, which dominates video hosting (I'd argue that it's a near monopoly or monopoly).
It has put some videos in a limited state, where the comments are deleted, not suggested in related content, etc.

Another is the situation with internet registrars, whether or not you like Stormfront, their content isn't illegal, just immoral.
If all the internet registrars refused service, they'd lose their ability to present their content.

These kinds of things, with businesses that have significant or monopolistic power over a specific market place.
 
I'd like to see all online companies that provide service to the general public be required to follow free speech laws for all legal speech. You shouldn't be able to pick and choose who gets to speak and who does not.
 
Cardinal said:
This website censors members here every day. Should net neutrality be "expanded" to include legal behavior here that violates their TOS? For the record, I'm not being combative here, I'm just still uncertain of the scope of your question.
Click to expand...

With YouTube, they're now censoring things that don't even violate their TOS, they just don't like it. There is a clear ideological purge going on.
 
Cephus said:
I'd like to see all online companies that provide service to the general public be required to follow free speech laws for all legal speech. You shouldn't be able to pick and choose who gets to speak and who does not.
Click to expand...

Because it is bad for us, as a people.
 
Cephus said:
With YouTube, they're now censoring things that don't even violate their TOS, they just don't like it. There is a clear ideological purge going on.
Click to expand...

Under the theory that the little people can be driven to UTOPIA by controlling the conversations, by power deciding what ideas are kosher enough that people can be allowed to explore them.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Because it is bad for us, as a people.
Click to expand...

Free speech is a cornerstone of America. The idea that any one group ought to be able to stop it for political reasons is absurd. The only way to combat free speech you don't like is with more free speech, not with censorship. Someone needs to explain that to the left.
 
There is a new groundswell for the idea that places like Google and Facebook need to be regulated as regulate monopolies such as utilities....I am pretty well sold.
 
Cephus said:
Free speech is a cornerstone of America. The idea that any one group ought to be able to stop it for political reasons is absurd. The only way to combat free speech you don't like is with more free speech, not with censorship. Someone needs to explain that to the left.
Click to expand...

We seem to be in the minority these days, because people have gotten stupid.

EDIT: I rarely have seen the right supporting free speech, they long ago became cucks to Victim Culture, which argues that speech must be controlled to save the victims.
 
Cephus said:
Free speech is a cornerstone of America. The idea that any one group ought to be able to stop it for political reasons is absurd. The only way to combat free speech you don't like is with more free speech, not with censorship. Someone needs to explain that to the left.
Click to expand...

Facebook, Youtube are not restricting anyone's right to free speech. The ability for every group in the US to spread their speech is the same as it was 30 years ago. They can make printed news letter, and put them in mailboxes, stand on a street corner and say what they want. They could not go to CBS or the NYT and demand that either provide that group an opportunity to spread their message. No more than any group has the right to force Youtube or Facebook to allow their message on their website. If groups are prevented from putting their message on Facebook, they can create their own version of it, if Youtube is stopping their videos from being hosted on Youtubes website create their own. If the hosting company is no long hosting their server, create their own. Private business are under no obligation to provide a medium for any group in the US to spread their message.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Facebook, Youtube are not restricting anyone's right to free speech. The ability for every group in the US to spread their speech is the same as it was 30 years ago. They can make printed news letter, and put them in mailboxes, stand on a street corner and say what they want. They could not go to CBS or the NYT and demand that either provide that group an opportunity to spread their message. No more than any group has the right to force Youtube or Facebook to allow their message on their website. If groups are prevented from putting their message on Facebook, they can create their own version of it, if Youtube is stopping their videos from being hosted on Youtubes website create their own. If the hosting company is no long hosting their server, create their own. Private business are under no obligation to provide a medium for any group in the US to spread their message.
Click to expand...

We can surely make them obligated if we so choose, and if we need it to be a better people then we should, it is all about us, not them.
 
Cephus said:
I'd like to see all online companies that provide service to the general public be required to follow free speech laws for all legal speech. You shouldn't be able to pick and choose who gets to speak and who does not.
Click to expand...

Do you believe DP should do away with their rules regulating free speech on this forum?
 
Cephus said:
Free speech is a cornerstone of America. The idea that any one group ought to be able to stop it for political reasons is absurd. The only way to combat free speech you don't like is with more free speech, not with censorship. Someone needs to explain that to the left.
Click to expand...

Is google preventing any group from creating a newsletter and handing them out door to door?

Is Facebook preventing any group from standing on a street corner with pamphlets as a way to spread their message?

Someone needs to explain to the right, that private business is under no obligation to provide a medium for other groups to spread their message.

I can not get Fox to show my home movies, am I being censored, is my right to free speech being infringed.
I can not get the NYT to publish any of my opinions in their paper, is my right to free speech being infringed.

In both cases of course not, I have the vast traditional ways of getting my message to the public. I could go door to door and drop DVD's at each house, I could go to a street corner and hand out newsletters to everyone.

The right needs to stop being victims (or as Hawkeye states cucks) and understand private business is under no obligation to provide a medium for their speech. Everyone has a multitude of ways to spread what every they want. Facebook is not the only way to spread things
 
Hawkeye10 said:
We can surely make them obligated if we so choose, and if we need it to be a better people then we should, it is all about us, not them.
Click to expand...

So you want the elites in government to decide what speech private business will spread? I thought you did not trust or like the governmental elite
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's about expanding net neutrality.
Rather than stop just internet providers from being "blind" to traffic and not charging more.

Should it be expanded to cover services further down, to be blind to legal traffic (Youtube, Facebook, etc.).
There are claims (some that are true) that services like Youtube, et all are censoring content that they don't like.
In that context, should these content servicers, hosts, registrars, etc, be mandated to carry traffic regardless of lean, belief, ideas, etc, as long as it is legal.
Click to expand...

Wasn't there a court case that decided whether a gay person could put an add on the dating site Christian Mingle? If so, would that not apply to your question?

I agree with the notion of net neutrality as normally presented, but I don't support the idea that companies should be required to host or provide access to content that content that defies their stated TOS. You seem to be suggesting that all providing/hosting entities use a TOS written by a court that exists to arbitrate what defines "legal" content. I don't agree with that, if that's what you are indeed suggesting.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
We can surely make them obligated if we so choose, and if we need it to be a better people then we should, it is all about us, not them.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Hawkeye10. :2wave:

Wow, that's a radical thought! *sarcasm intended*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom