So the article focus on complaining when the , human rights watch ( a leftist globalist organization) ,washington post, WSJ, porn and gambling, and same-sex dating sites get blocked but tries to dismiss the censorship against right wingers in america by monopolizing big tech companies, and internet providers as not really a big deal? i smell a lot of BS here. (also achieve this : https://archive.is/YRPjw)
Though they also mention net neutrality... i dont know too much about that one to comment on it.
Well according to what i looked up , net neutrality is supposed to be the concept that "individuals should be free to access all content and applications equally, regardless of the source, without Internet Service Providers discriminating against specific online services or websites(like slowing it down or banning it). In other words, it is the principle that the company that connects you to the internet does not get to control what you do on the internet". (Please correct me if this is the wrong definition of net neutrality. )
Wouldn't this be more preferable for us if we wanted smaller sites to survive and not be treated unfairly?
That's the overarching concept, the actual bill language doesn't do that. Its like the Patriot Act stopping terrorism and the affordable care act making health insurance cheaper. None of those things happened, in fact the opposite happened.
Also note the massive campaigns in favor of net neutrality when it was being proposed: Google, Comcast, Facebook, etc. Now ask yourself: Are these corporations known to look out for consumer rights?
Id be all for a bill that protects freedom of information and access to it but somehow I doubt any effort to pass that would be supported by the supporters of net neutrality.
i do understand it seems weird those who support net neutrality and usually i would not trust it, , but i just can't see how something that is supposed to stop internet providers from discriminating against sites as they choose and slowing down or banning them, can possibly be a bad thing . If there is a catch somewhere that im not seeing id like to know.
It is a bit more complicated than that when it comes to implementation as with all things that don't assume spherical cows. In many case, it is not the ISP deliberately slowing down traffic, but the use of CDNs (Content Delivery Networks) that appear to make certain sites faster and others slower.
Watching Netflix for example, the video would be from a location that is physically closest to the audience to reduce network load across the internet backbone. That CDN may not actually be peered with the ISP and may load the ISP's links, which in turn causes other sites to feel sluggish. You could deprioritize Netflix traffic to make other websites appear to be unaffected, but at this point you're already playing favorites.
Net Neutrality is often confused the way communists see equality. Unfortunately not all websites/application take the same amount of bandwidth, nor do they have the same network load patterns, nothing can change that except upgrading networks and building more CDN peers (which smaller websites can ill afford).
You can explore and look up how your ISP is peered with other networks at https://bgp.he.net/. ISPs are charged by the traffic load coming through their peers, CDNs subvert this by having a local server under the ISP's own network. Series of tubes guy was more right than what was let on.
Possibly. Of course, the smaller the site the less you can extort and the quicker diminishing returns catch up with your administrative costs.
Not saying the ISPs are clean - hell, a lot of us live in monopoly or duopoly territory - I'm just annoyed that so many people have swallowed Google's angle without even questioning it.
So the article focus on complaining when the , human rights watch ( a leftist globalist organization) ,washington post, WSJ, porn and gambling, and same-sex dating sites get blocked but tries to dismiss the censorship against right wingers in america by monopolizing big tech companies, and internet providers as not really a big deal? i smell a lot of BS here. (also achieve this : https://archive.is/YRPjw)
Though they also mention net neutrality... i dont know too much about that one to comment on it.
HRW are funded by Soros, unsurprisingly.
They're seriously whining about 'net neutrality'?
ISPs are much less of a threat than these tech robber barons.
oh no they're gonna make amazon slower so you can't buy from the multibillion dollar megacorp without amazon paying them a cut
oh no they're gonna make netflix slower so your cuties experience is negatively impacted
but couldn't they technically also make small websites they dont like slower as well? in fact wouldnt that be a more likely scenario?
Problem is net neutrality does nothing to stop that.
Well according to what i looked up , net neutrality is supposed to be the concept that "individuals should be free to access all content and applications equally, regardless of the source, without Internet Service Providers discriminating against specific online services or websites(like slowing it down or banning it). In other words, it is the principle that the company that connects you to the internet does not get to control what you do on the internet". (Please correct me if this is the wrong definition of net neutrality. )
Wouldn't this be more preferable for us if we wanted smaller sites to survive and not be treated unfairly?
That's the overarching concept, the actual bill language doesn't do that. Its like the Patriot Act stopping terrorism and the affordable care act making health insurance cheaper. None of those things happened, in fact the opposite happened.
Also note the massive campaigns in favor of net neutrality when it was being proposed: Google, Comcast, Facebook, etc. Now ask yourself: Are these corporations known to look out for consumer rights?
Id be all for a bill that protects freedom of information and access to it but somehow I doubt any effort to pass that would be supported by the supporters of net neutrality.
i do understand it seems weird those who support net neutrality and usually i would not trust it, , but i just can't see how something that is supposed to stop internet providers from discriminating against sites as they choose and slowing down or banning them, can possibly be a bad thing . If there is a catch somewhere that im not seeing id like to know.
Best I can find is this: https://reason.com/search/Net%20neutrality/
Left leaning site but has decent articles. If classic liberals are questioning it, something is up.
It is a bit more complicated than that when it comes to implementation as with all things that don't assume spherical cows. In many case, it is not the ISP deliberately slowing down traffic, but the use of CDNs (Content Delivery Networks) that appear to make certain sites faster and others slower.
Watching Netflix for example, the video would be from a location that is physically closest to the audience to reduce network load across the internet backbone. That CDN may not actually be peered with the ISP and may load the ISP's links, which in turn causes other sites to feel sluggish. You could deprioritize Netflix traffic to make other websites appear to be unaffected, but at this point you're already playing favorites.
Net Neutrality is often confused the way communists see equality. Unfortunately not all websites/application take the same amount of bandwidth, nor do they have the same network load patterns, nothing can change that except upgrading networks and building more CDN peers (which smaller websites can ill afford).
You can explore and look up how your ISP is peered with other networks at https://bgp.he.net/. ISPs are charged by the traffic load coming through their peers, CDNs subvert this by having a local server under the ISP's own network. Series of tubes guy was more right than what was let on.
Yeah, everyone knows that it's not your ISP's job to destroy small websites - it's Google's.
Possibly. Of course, the smaller the site the less you can extort and the quicker diminishing returns catch up with your administrative costs.
Not saying the ISPs are clean - hell, a lot of us live in monopoly or duopoly territory - I'm just annoyed that so many people have swallowed Google's angle without even questioning it.