[davnicwil]

The former provide infrastructure that the latter services run on. They are therefore in fundamentally different categories and so different regulations apply. That's why there isn't consistency between them, because they are different things.

[wang_li]

The latter largely do not produce their own content and thus are not fundamentally different than what a carrier provides. Why would you say that it's ok for Google to ban Alex Jones from youtube, but not ok for level-3 to do the same?

It's a convenient kind of bullshit to draw a line below layer 4 of the ISO stack and say "everything below this line has to be fully neutral, everything above this line can be fully biased and curated". A company that provides their own content, such as Netflix, is very different than providing a platform for other people's content, i.e. Youtube/Twitter/Facebook.

[asdkhadsj]

Because internet is more important than binge watching Netflix. To many of us, we're thinking of it on par with water, electricity, etc.

With that said, I would agree that some other services such as information seekers ought to be regulated somehow. Ie, Google/Facebook can do massive harm these days, and their reign of independence is failing here.

Another point is that, many companies have previously ran into issues of anti-competitive behavior. This in recent years has become very very lax, too lax I feel. Windows should be providing an equal platform for everyone to run on. They shouldn't be blocking competitors applications (a hypothetical). Same goes for ISPs. My ISP shouldn't block Netflix because the ISP prefers their own media site.

To be honest, your objection really confuses me. You seem to argue that ISPs can do whatever they want, because we're inconsistent with other sites/etc. So rather than enforcing other sites, you want to give free reign to ISPs? How does that make sense? I agree consistency is important. Lets fix all abusers, not just ISPs. That should satisfy your argument, no?

[wang_li]

> To be honest, your objection really confuses me. You seem to argue that ISPs can do whatever they want, because we're inconsistent with other sites/etc.

I don't have an objection against net neutrality. I have an objection to net neutrality policies that concentrate control with a small number of companies while stripping such autonomy from other companies. It's absurd to say that backbone providers are required to carry any traffic, but microblogging sites, video streaming sites, etc. can curate and have any bias they choose.

If it were me we'd have net neutrality, but the net neutrality policies would be conditional on whether a company wants to claim safe harbor under the DMCA or not. Anyone who wants to hide behind the DMCA has to be neutral on their platform. Anyone who is willing to take responsibility for the content they distribute can have any bias or opinion they want.

I'd also extend the DMCA safe harbor provisions to require that the customer be identifiable and within the legal jurisdiction of the United States.

> Lets fix all abusers, not just ISPs. That should satisfy your argument, no?

It would make me feel that we're being consistent and actually taking the internet closer to fairness and equity.

[monocasa]

> I don't have an objection against net neutrality. I have an objection to net neutrality policies that concentrate control with a small number of companies while stripping such autonomy from other companies. It's absurd to say that backbone providers are required to carry any traffic, but microblogging sites, video streaming sites, etc. can curate and have any bias they choose.

Why? Going back to the common carrier regulations pre-Internet, it's like you're saying that just because mail carriers have to carry anything (as long as it's safe), then magazines delivered by mail carriers would have to allow anyone to write articles.

There's just a fundamental difference between forum and transport.

[wang_li]

> Why? Going back to the common carrier regulations pre-Internet, it's like you're saying that just because mail carriers have to carry anything (as long as it's safe), then magazines delivered by mail carriers would have to allow anyone to write articles.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that an entity that wants common carrier protections has to act like a common carrier. If they want to be a publisher with full editorial control of the content they publish content, then they don't get common carrier protections. If Facebook and Youtube/Google want to say "you can't say that here", then they can take responsibility for what they do allow to be distributed on their platform. I feel the exact same way about Comcast or Level 3.

[monocasa]

Facebook/YoutTube/Google don't want to be common carriers though. They're DMCA safe harbors, but that's totally different.

Do you think newspapers shouldn't be allowed to have opinion articles that are prefaced with "not the opinion of the paper"?

[corerius]

"Lets fix all abusers, not just ISPs. That should satisfy your argument, no?"

Yes.

Of course, people want to build an internet that suits them personally, so there are a million answers.

[corerius]

Exactly.

The vast majority of media websites that make their money by delivering other peoples' content have an interesting problem. They skirt the line between curating and merely providing a form of storage for everyone. The minute you curate, you fall down an interesting rabbit hole.

That's not even to mention the business model of youtube which is largely based on copyright violation.

In any case, the difference between ISP and major media website is insignificant to the average user. It's one big blob.