Net Neutrality ELI5!
Oh boy, this net neutrality shilling shit is really becoming ridiculous, it's going viral on Reddit. Let me explain like you were a 5 old, why this Net Neutrality concept is wrong, or perhaps the current implementation of it is.
So as you know I am personally not in favor of Net Neutrality regulation. I am not per se opposed to Neutrality itself, but I think the regulation itself is not giving people Neutrality, it only bring tyranny. So I personally oppose NN regulation, or any regulation for that matter. I oppose any kind of State intervention into the economy or society.
Is the Net Neutrality regulation good?
- Tactically: I don’t know, perhaps, it might bring corporations a little bit of restriction.
- Strategically: Certainly not. It only grows State power, plus long term regulatory capture would make it useless against big corporations anyway, but it would certainly filter out the small guys.
So Net Neutrality regulation is a clear way towards Totalitarian Stalinism, it’s literally Stalinism for the internet.
In fact the big censorship currently is not coming from the ISP’s but from Google and Facebook and other near-monopolists. Google literally has a near-monopoly, it’s only viable alternative is DuckDuckGo, but that is not that much used, although you should use it if you want privacy. We have Steemit as an alternative to FB, but yeah, tell that to the 2 billion active Facebook users. So these are near-monopolies if not monopolies.
There is nothing stopping people from voluntarily quitting those services, as long as the competitor can sustain itself financially.
Now if Net Neutrality regulation would remain, that would ensure that small ISP’s would not be able to compete due to regulatory costs, so it would further monopolize the market.
So if you dislike the Social Media/Search Engine near-monopoly, then you should definitely hate the ISP monopoly. Plus it further grows State power, which is very evil.
What will happen if Net Neutrality regulation is abolished?
- Short Term: I don’t know, we are not fortune tellers, it might result in ISP’s getting greedy. Although a lot of the fearmongering is exaggerated. The internet worked fine before 2015 so it should work fine after it, and many countries don’t have NN regulation, and the internet works just fine. So even if there will be some bad things, it will be definitely smaller than what the fearmongers tells us.
- Long Term: Well it blocks the growth of the State. The State that is trying to grow and grow and grow endlessly until it implodes under it’s own tyrannical weight. Coercion is reduced, by eliminating a command that is backed by violence.
You see the State always figures out new ways to introduce coercion and violence into society, it is the manifestation of the primitive violent desires of humans. Restricting that is only good for the peace of the human race.
And further increases in coercion, especially in the Internet that has been pretty virgin for quite some time, is a clear direction towards Stalinism, in fact worse, since the technology is more advanced now.
It will be pretty much like Orwell’s 1984, where the Party will control people through totalitarian propaganda. If you let the Government into the Internet that is definitely what will happen. At first the ISP’s get attacked, then they will start attacking the content that comes through the ISP’s.
You can say goodbye then to online discussions platforms, it will be turned back into a “consume only” commodity, like the TV and you will be unable to communicate through it.
Yes you will have an e-mail, tied to your ID card number, and some video sharing platforms where only the licensed TV stations could air their programs.
Say goodbye to free speech then. It won’t be the corporations, it will be the government regulation.
You see people are already complaining that Youtube is cutting off ad revenue, and you can already see the mainstream TV programs being on front page of Youtube. But that is nothing.
People haven’t tasted Stalinism yet. Just wait until the Government gets it’s hands on those platforms. It will be permit based content only, like they did to TV or Radio Stations, that will happen to the internet too.
They have fucked up the TV and the Radio didn't they? And they were just as empowering inventions initially as the internet. You can only operate a Radio channel with permit. Expect the same thing for the Internet too.
The empowering effect of the internet will be rolled back and it will be turned into an enslaving effect.
If you want tyranny, you will get it. If you support coercion, then you will get it. All coercive political positions that you support will come back to you!
You might think that supporting NN only hurts ISP’s, but eventually it will come back to you. Just wait until they introduce mandatory ID card based internet logins. Say goodbye to your privacy and freedom then!
Sources:
https://pixabay.com
Thanks for post.
I can see good and bad in either option.
I wonder about selling off control of the DNS stuff.
The Twatter control stuff on 18th Dec will cause a meltdown IMHO
the FB censor ship is bad
The "flagging" on steem sucks...(if you don't 'like' something, just move on IMHO - 'censorship' is not the domain of dominant whales IMHO)
I definitely don't want gov or big business running MY / OUR internet.
I'm interested to see where this goes:
https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/933303549269856256
Might be good timing.
You know coercion is not a long term winning strategy. You know it leads to nukes and nuclear war and that sort of things, which is not exactly the most rosy things.
So you can kind of understand why I don't support anything coercive. The rest is self-explanatory.
As much as people hate big corporations, the government is a much bigger monopoly.
So anyone who is against monopolies should look at the coercive regulations that the government imposes.
As I said, I'm not sure re the net.
It needs to be self regulated IMHO.
I don't like the google / FB / twitter "management" styles (and they maybe CIA anyhow)
I also don't like governments either - I have yet to find one that represents the people rather than themselves. Maybe I'm cynical? or just old?
Hence I'm interested in what Kim is planning.
It might get us back to a net concept that I remember from 80's....when http was just being developed
good post
I think you might have a good argument about startup ISPs not being able to compete due to regulation, but is the net neutrality regulation on its own really a big obstacle to that? How much regulation are we talking about (I heard something about 300+ pages)?
Now that so much infrastructure is built though, isn't that more the problem for startup ISPs? How many times can you dig up the streets and put more cables in? I can get the argument that the infrastructure is now more like a public utility.
I agree with the general view that governments regulating things tends to stifle innovation and competition, but I'm not sure if this argument applies in this case. In fact I think the opposite argument that a level playing field for traffic is more likely to allow competition in the website arena at least.
I am not sure what side of the debate I'm on yet, I am simply trying to understand the issues at the moment. Whatever happens the govt. must not be allowed to censor the internet, but I don't see how the net neutrality rules could enable the govt. to do that.
I don't see how the question of Google, Facebook, Twitter currently monopolizing their areas is relevant to net neutrality. What seems very odd to me is that they support net neutrality when surely having access to faster network speeds would help them as established big players with big turnover. Surely it would help them consolidate their position even further? In light of their own tendencies towards blocking competitors they surely can't be trying to occupy the moral high ground? I am much confused by this whole debate so far.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/7eyh8h/commies/
Net Neutrality is bull. Nothing ever happened. It's just more legislation which they can use to screw us over. The Free Market is not regulated. Right now, ISPs compete wildly for our business. The less legislation the better.
And from the horse's mouth:
It's a Globalist scam.
The only "pay for content" providers out there were the mobile internet providers, who were unregulated and provided limited bandwidth per month for mobile access from around 2007 to 2016, but with the 5G network they are now making it unlimited that too.
The PC ISP's would never resort to such ludicrious things as what the liberals are claiming, it's just not in their business strategy.
Now ISP monopoly is bad, but that is a separate issue.
But the Net Neutrality thing as it is was just a Globalist scam to introduce Chinese style internet censorship.
Wireless providers were trying to prioritize certain types of traffic to improve the quality of streaming video on their networks. Wireless has much lower speeds, and the connections aren't as stable. The technology that was necessary to compress videos wasn't accessible to all providers, and some were complaining they were being left out. It's a matter of technology limitations not censorship.
But hey, never was a crisis right? And if you don't have one... create one! Has always worked in the past!