Net Neutrality

From a Washington Post article:

What's the leftist take on this? I've seen libertarians attacking net neutrality on the usual anti-regulation grounds. How should the internet be managed?

It certainly shouldn't be managed by porky, free speech should most definitely be enforced.

1.) The current internet (for those who can access it) is literally a manifestation of anarchy. The end of net neutrality only serves to divide the internet into a patchwork of fiefdoms for private gain.

1a.) However, the commercial topography of the internet is incredibly byzantine and would likely prove a tremendous pain to manage. Most likely, tier-1 ISPs will charge higher prices for higher speeds, which will give tier-2 ISPs only a fraction of their current speed, a process that will be repeated with lower-level networks all the way down to the consumer.

2.) In a socialist society, internet access ought to be provided for everyone.

underrated post

By πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§George SorosπŸ‡¬πŸ‡§πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§. Prove me wrong.

just read Bordiga lmao

Google Bookchin

The fact that the nascent computer industry in America decided to leave computer specifications open instead of making everything an Apple-like abomination is nothing short of a miracle, as is the libertarian informational structure of the internet. Porky really screwed the pooch in these two occasions.

This will create a huge opportunity for us to build dual power. We need a decentralized and distributed internet that no one can fully own and that everyone can access.

The reason the internet is so neutral is because porky realizes they can't put propaganda behind a paywall.

there is literally no need for it to be managed, we have the tech on earth right now for everyone in pretty much every populated area to have internet absolutely free and it wouldn't even be that huge a project

this is honestly the dankest single line i've seen here in a good long time

Thanks, fam.

There are libertarians who like it, too -

The thing about it is it's not a "regulation vs. deregulation" thing. The "regulation" in question basically prevents a form of for-profit "regulation" of information from occurring. The principle of net neutrality also prevents corporate ISPs from being able to legally censor on behalf of the government - and companies like this already work with the government in other ares (spying, for instance, as bolstered by the Patriot Act), so we know that this would occur eventually.

Net Neutrality, as a concept, was passed on from techies. Not the nowadays corporate techies - they tend to support it, but they didn't create the concept - but people who, early on, were familiar with how the internet worked and the potential of such a database. I agree with them.

At its core, in my eyes, net neutrality is against the question of "how the internet should be managed." This is why it is applied to connection to the internet. It does not regulate the data itself, it only demands that the data should not be censored or paywalled or slowed by people who don't own said data. There's a very fine libertarian argument against such dubious practices by ISPs that often gets ignored - what they are doing is tantamount to fraud, which most libertarians seemingly agree to be criminal.

It kinda gave me an extra ping of joy when Al Franken got busted like a week after openly completely misunderstanding the concept. It demonstrates just how fucking tech retarded the people who are running things are, and he was clearly not the worst when against the wishes of the public it appears that it's about to be butchered.

The irony is this technology was publicly funded. The ISPs didn't make it, but they get to kill it.


Well I'll be damned.

How about this one: the only reason capitalists ended slavery is because they realized that keeping someone sheltered, fed and healthy was way more expensive than paying a free man minimum wage.

Dunno who came up with that one tho.

pic related

Ending net neutrality is a terrible fucking thing. There is no way around it. At least while it was under the control of the government there was some semblance of freedom, even if you were being tracked by the NSA or FBI. Now, you will be tracked by the NSA and FBI, all the while various porkies will have complete control over what websites you visit, and can make you pay more to visit ones not on their list. Its an added layer of bullshit, and they can manipulate what you see (such as flood you with pro capitalist bullshit, and block anti-capitalist information).

that's gonna be illegal soon

mfw i can possibly be party vanned for trying to read bordiga

Yeah but is there any way to access the interest without an ISP? With them we are kinda fucked and thus we are beholden to porky.

Is there anything you American lads can actaully do to stop it? The only thing site that I've seen people actually linking to just directs you to phone congress or some shit. Are you just beholden to whether porky decides to spare you for a bit longer?

I mean, I'm not advocating this but I think it's an interesting thought: Does anyone think the death of net neutrality could actually be a good thing for internet "culture"?
Split internet communities between their service providers and you might revitalise things since instead of a nightmarish monolithic thing like Reddit, you're basically hopping back to compuserve type BBS services. Hell, you could even perhaps see the appeal in a free local BBS type network done over wireless if you get absolutely scammed to access stuff provided by the big companies. As I say, I don't advocate this (mostly because I know in practice it will probably just translate into significantly higher access costs rather than a genuine "walled garden") but sometimes I wonder.

A tertiary and far more incendiary hope would be that Holla Forums american children are essentially walled off from the real internet forever, leaving the rest of the world to take the lead.

Calling is pretty much the best legal thing we can do. And urgent. IE, people should still call congress.

I've been wanting to start up an alternative ISP for years. If I had the funds I would, though it'd have to be small-scale and at-a-loss. Comcast and the like are notoriously hostile to the point of sabotaging the lines of smaller companies - not kidding, large corporations who provide notoriously shitty service and purposefully damage the property of smaller companies are buying policy so they can extend the sabotage-based profit model to the internet itself.

Well, it's pure fantasy. But that's basically all. The 'monolithic things' are more a result of a greater corporatization as well as possibly state involvement - mutual interests in the 'security' state and corporate monopolies coming together to divert traffic to certain places. This development actually encourages that sort of thing and the continued dishonest consumerization (and phone-postinization) of the internet.

IE - the opposite of what you're suggesting would be the outcome with the added bonus of gradually increasing censorship.

Seeing Holla Forums unironically support the end of net neutrality is too fucking hilarious. Can't wait until Comcast throttles their connection to Breitbart.

its unnerving to think all it took to win their hearts was shitposting and memes. its almost as ridiculous to think that 20 years ago they would have had drumpf playing with a yoyo while skateboarding or scratching records on a turntable.

They'll just blame it on the ghost of Internet Social Justice.

problematic problematic