[rayiner]

You're using very biased language ("bribe"). Its not bribery for a for-profit company to demand payment for other company's who want to reach its users. That the basic premise of Facebook's or LinkedIn's business model after all.

You've clearly picked a side, but why should we? I understand that people on here have an interest in startups succeeding against big companies, but why does that rise to the level of public interest? These are just all for-profit companies hoping to make a bunch of money off consumers.

It should also be noted that content creators naturally have a lot of leverage, because their products are non-fungible. Its content aggregators and distributors that would see the biggest hits to their profit margins.

[bandushrew]

It is successful content creators who have a lot of leverage. Aspiring content creators (and distributors) have none.

"These are just all for-profit companies hoping to make a bunch of money off consumers."

Unfortunately you have completely ignored all discussion of The Internet being a communications platform, and not merely a commercial platform.

Ignoring that point entirely has allowed you to continue making your own point, which is to refute the idea that we should care what happens to a bunch of for profit internet companies.

I agree with your point, FWIW, once once a company reaches the size of a Facebook, or Netflix I don't care what happens to it.

I do care desperately that individuals are able to easily create and distribute content to each other, of any kind.

The Internet as a communications platform that is available to everyone, for everyone, is what is endangered by the proposed anti-NN measures.

[rayiner]

> Unfortunately you have completely ignored all discussion of The Internet being a communications platform, and not merely a commercial platform.

I'm not ignoring this point, I just don't buy it. The internet is mostly just a bunch of privately owned networks, operated for profit. I think it has public-interest value as a communications platform for certain non-profit enterprises like Wikipedia, etc, and maybe we need legislative protection of those functions. But I don't think ensuring that some new for-profit startup can function without paying the people that own the wires rises to the level of "public interest" even if they aren't the size of a Netflix or Facebook. I think this is primarily where we disagree: once you're for-profit, you're on your own.

[selmnoo]

> I think it has public-interest value as a communications platform for certain non-profit enterprises like Wikipedia, etc, and maybe we need legislative protection of those functions.

I think at some point the line between non-profit and for-profit gets very hard to draw. E.g., NFL is a non-profit organization, yet intuitively you would think that they should pay for their streaming services that are very much like Netflix. There are also a lot for-profits which are less entertainment oriented and more education oriented, and vice versa. Heck, I actually use Netflix almost exclusively for watching 'How it's made' and the documentaries it has. If everyone used Netflix like me, would it fall it fall under the provision of being protected againt anti-NN? What about loads of other services which really are like this, but are for-profit?

So, it seems to be a compromise either way, if you view it as a commercial platform or a communications platform. Personally, I'd rather err on it being the latter.

[bandushrew]

This is the first time you have responded to it. You were ignoring it.

honestly, that is not where we disagree. We disagree entirely on the primary function of the internet.

You apparently see it, already, as just a series of walled gardens.

Unfortunately your lack of awareness around what it does, is driving your uninformed opinions around what kinds of protection it needs.

For the sake of my own sanity, I am gonna assume that you are simply playing devils advocate.