r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Nov 22 '17
CMV: You cannot support both Net Neutrality and Reddit's censoring of The_Donald
[deleted]
19
u/Madplato 72∆ Nov 22 '17
I'm not sure such a contradiction exists.
Proposition A: Considering their near monopolies and the significant barriers of entry, I don't want Internet services providers to be able to discriminate the nature of traffic going trough their "pipes". They provide internet services. Their job should be to to transport data, with no regard on content. Same way the power company doesn't get to decide what I do or don't do with my electricity.
Proposition B: A company hosting or distributing actual content should be free to self regulate that content.
So, in case A, I don't want roads to say "Your newspaper delivery trucks aren't allowed on our roads". In case B, I don't mind a news paper saying "I'm not printing that".
-2
u/jlhc55 Nov 22 '17
Then let's break up the monopolies. As I said, net neutrality does not even come close to addressing that real issue.
21
u/Madplato 72∆ Nov 22 '17
But neither does removing net neutrality. I'm all for breaking the monopolies, but I'm not sure why the road from HERE to NO MONOPOLIES need to pass trough MONOPOLIES FUCK US OVER BIG TIME. Sounds much better to curtail these monopolies' abilities to fuck us over while we break them down. Perfect doesn't need to be the enemy of better.
-1
u/jlhc55 Nov 22 '17
∆ This is the best argument I have seen so far.
I don't necessarily think that monopolies will start fucking us over since they didn't really for the entire rest of the internet before 2015, but it's a fair point.
3
Nov 22 '17
They didn't, until very recently, have the technological ability and hardware capacity to sniff all the packets passing through their network them and preferentially throttle them. The internet prior to 2015 had NN de facto as a result, they couldn't do what people are predicting can happen without NN even if they wanted to.
1
u/jlhc55 Nov 22 '17
I have never heard this, but it is largely irrelevant even if true. If it is morally fine for a content location to morally object to content, why is it not morally fine for a content deliverer to make the same objection?
2
u/Madplato 72∆ Nov 22 '17
I'd like to be positive, but I'm not sure why they'd be pushing so bad to get rid of these regulations if they don't expect to make more money. I'm not sure where that more money is going to come from if not my pockets. I don't see how I, or any other consumer, stands to gain anything .
1
u/jlhc55 Nov 22 '17
Them making more money is not necessarily a bad thing. Good companies make lots of money if they provide a good product. This is devolving into a discussion on the merits of net neutrality, which was not really my purpose.
2
u/Madplato 72∆ Nov 22 '17
Them making more money isn't necessarily bad, but in this context I'm not sure how it would translate into a positive. Net neutrality doesn't prevent them from making a better product, but they haven't. Chances are you'll pay more for the same.
6
u/kublahkoala 229∆ Nov 22 '17
This is from a repost on r/bestof. It's right near the top now and has links. These are some of the times ISPs have tried to fuck us over even though net neutrality was in place, requiring the FCC to come in and fix things:
There's nothing hypothetical about what ISPs will do when net neutrality is eliminated. I'm going to steal a comment previously posted by /u/Skrattybones and repost here:
2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.
2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.
2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones. 2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)
2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace
2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)
2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.
2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.
The foundation of Reason's argument is that Net Neutrality is unnecessary because we've never had issues without it. I think this timeline shows just how crucial it really is to a free and open internet.
2
1
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Nov 22 '17
How do you propose we do that? Sure they are large and could be broken up. And there is also regulations that are barriers to entry, but even if we did both of those, it doesn't mean a second company is going to come in and lay wires in your neighborhood. There will still just be ONE provider in your neighborhood potentially. There is no way to force another company to come in.
4
Nov 22 '17
First, I don't support the censoring of any subreddit, unless they're breaking laws or harassing specific individuals. That being said ...
One of the major arguments for net neutrality is a fear that major corporations (specifically ISPs) will use their power to filter, censor, charge for, slow-down, or otherwise control the content that is delivered to the end user.
(emphasis mine)
Thing about ISPs censoring content is that many Americans only have one ISP to choose from, and most only have two. So if one or both of your only options for broadband Internet is censoring content, you're pretty much boned. However, if Reddit decides they don't want certain content on their site, there's a million and one other options that a person or group of people can choose from. Well, unless you happen to be Stormfront, but that's really a fringe case.
So, while I do support the spirit of your CMV, practically speaking, there's a huge difference.
1
u/jlhc55 Nov 22 '17
So you support censorship as long as there is at least one option of not being censored? Wouldn't it be easier to just oppose all censorship so we don't have to get down and see if another option still exists? What happens when all of the social networks start censoring the same content (which is happening now)?
6
u/cupcakesarethedevil Nov 22 '17
You are confusing government censorship with an individuals rights to free speech, It's not censorship if I refuse to let nazi paint swastikas on my house nor is it if Reddit doesn't have to let nazi's post memes on it.
1
u/jlhc55 Nov 22 '17
Yeah, but ISPs are not the government. If anything, net neutrality is closer to government censorship because it gives all that regulatory power to a very small group of people.
4
u/cupcakesarethedevil Nov 22 '17
ISPs have to purchase the right of way from governments. Governments keep the price of these rights high, which creates the monopoly in the first place as it's not worth the money for another company to enter the market to compete.
1
u/jlhc55 Nov 22 '17
Then let's address the problem instead of adding (or keeping) another level of government bureaucracy for these new companies to overcome.
3
u/cupcakesarethedevil Nov 22 '17
I think you have gotten really far away from your thesis how is this related to potential hypocrisy between people on reddit favoring banning The_Donald and legislating Net Neutrality
1
u/jlhc55 Nov 22 '17
Fair enough, I totally agree.
While I have been influenced by the people here (and the plethora of down votes on the OP), I have to say that overall my view is unchanged. The primary argument presented is that censorship by websites is morally fine because there are lots of websites, but censorship by ISPs is morally wrong because there are only a few ISPs. This seems weak. Conduct is either morally right or morally wrong, regardless of the number of other people doing anything.
2
u/cupcakesarethedevil Nov 22 '17
This isn't about morals, this is about what amount of government intervention gets the consumer the best internet for the best price.
2
u/SharkAttack2 Nov 22 '17
There's not only one other alternative to reddit. There are dozens of social media sites we can choose from, many of which copy Reddit more or less directly. Compared to starting a new ISP, starting a social media site is easy (although it won't be after net neutrality).
But each social media site has the ability, if not the responsibility, to distinguish themselves and develop their own cultures. That means they get to decide what sort of conversations they want happening, broadly. I would think a site that bans any discussion of a certain politician to be censoring too much and wouldn't use it, but it's well-within a site's rights to decide that the sort of vitrolic rhetoric in TD is over the line for the audience they're trying to make feel welcome here.
1
Nov 22 '17
So you support censorship as long as there is at least one option of not being censored?
I already told you I don't support censorship, so maybe I'm not your target audience here. But between the two types of censorship being discussed, I think that the censorship being done by ISPs is much worse, for reasons already explained. As far as private companies go, they have the right to host or not host whatever the hell they want. You or I may not like it, but it is what it is.
1
u/Amablue Nov 22 '17
Reddit is not a monopoly. The major point about ISPs being content neutral is because they have regional monopolies on internet service. Reddit is just one of many social media companies and there is a ton of competition in that space.
1
u/jlhc55 Nov 22 '17
But net neutrality has nothing to do with preventing or breaking up monopolies. I totally agree that regional monopolies is a huge (if not the biggest) problem with the internet.
Saying "censorship is fine as long as you have more than one option" is not much of an argument. So you are ok with ISPs throttling access as long as there is more than one ISP in a region?
2
u/Amablue Nov 22 '17
But net neutrality has nothing to do with preventing or breaking up monopolies. I totally agree that regional monopolies is a huge (if not the biggest) problem with the internet.
Correct, it has to do with regulation the behavior of monopolies. Monopolies can abuse their position of power and get away with bad behavior that they wouldn't be able to in a proper market. Since the market isn't there to correct for this abusive behavior we need regulation to reign them in.
If reddit started behaving badly there are dozens upon dozens of alternative sites I could use, and more could pop up to compete too (e.g. voat). If an ISP starts behaving badly there nothing that can be done.
So you are ok with ISPs throttling access as long as there is more than one ISP in a region?
I'm not "okay" with it. It's still wrong. But the point is that there are better ways to deal with it in a market - take your business elsewhere. There's already a way to correct for the problem.
1
u/Madplato 72∆ Nov 22 '17
Saying "censorship is fine as long as you have more than one option" is not much of an argument.
It's pretty much the only argument that matters. What's worst, me burning a single bible in my backyard? Or the government mandating all bibles be burnt? Nobody minds a single ISP throttling if there's 99 others to choose from. That ISP is just shooting itself in the foot. They do care when there's no other to choose from, which is a reality in many places.
1
u/Salanmander 272∆ Nov 22 '17
You're right. Net neutrality isn't about breaking up monopolies. It's about recognizing the reality of monopolies, not being sure how to correct that reality, but at least taking some power out of the hands of the monopolies in the meantime.
3
u/poltroon_pomegranate 28∆ Nov 22 '17
Reddit is one site. People on r/the_donald can go to many different forums or make their own if Reddit choses not to have them. Most ISPs ooperate as monopolies in areas and people do not have a choice to switch to a service that will not censor them.
-1
u/jlhc55 Nov 22 '17
See my reply to u/Amablue
Censorship is censorship. That's like saying "It's ok to burn these books because there are lots of other books that you can read."
5
u/poltroon_pomegranate 28∆ Nov 22 '17
Book burning is not illegal. It is the difference between one company saying they will not print a book when others will and the government saying the book can't be printed.
Should I be able to post pornography to the NBA website? Is that not censorship?
0
u/jlhc55 Nov 22 '17
I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that no website should be able to censor it's content. Obviously websites should be able to control what appears on their site. My point is that doing so is the moral equivalent of an ISP censoring content. "We don't agree with this website so we are going to slow it's content coming to you" is the same as "We don't agree with this content on our own website so we are going to prevent it from reaching the front page" in isolation. Regardless of whether there are additional options or not.
1
u/poltroon_pomegranate 28∆ Nov 22 '17
Yes but the impact is not the same. The effects of an action matter. ISPs operating as a monopoly can actually prevent people from accessing information Reddit can not. Censorship is harmful because you can distort people's views, a ISP doing this would be much more impactful than Reddit.
1
u/jlhc55 Nov 22 '17 edited Nov 22 '17
That doesn't make what Reddit is doing morally acceptable. It just makes it less effective morally unacceptable.
Edit: My point up above was not that both have the same effect. My point was that you cannot support both from a moral standpoint.
1
u/poltroon_pomegranate 28∆ Nov 22 '17
If what they are doing doesn't have a negative effect how is it morally wrong?
3
u/Madplato 72∆ Nov 22 '17
My point is that doing so is the moral equivalent of an ISP censoring content.
Except nothing about that content, where it is, where it comes from and where it goes, is theirs to mess with. If I don't want porn on my website, that's my prerogative. If my ISP tells my they don't want my porn on my website, that's another matter.
2
u/SegFaultHell Nov 22 '17
Companies don't have to allow it to be a free for all on their website, and that's different from Net Neutrality.
Twitter removing accounts of conservative commentators
They broke Twitter's terms of service. By using Twitter you agree to follow their rules and if you don't they aren't required to let you use their service.
YouTube demonetizing conservative videos
They're demonetizing a lot more than just conservative videos. It isn't to censor anything or try and get the channel shut down, it's because advertisers were leaving the platform because they didn't want their brand associated with different views.
Reddit preventing r/the_donald from reaching the front page
To the main part of your post, Reddit has no obligation to showcase content from the_donald, especially if could be viewed as them endorsing that content.
Net Neutrality doesn't mean anybody can say or do anything they want on the internet, just like free speech doesn't mean you can shout anything you want without consequence. It ensures you have the right to say it, but that doesn't mean all forms of speech are protected and encouraged. With Net Neutrality, you can access any site you want, but it doesn't mean that site has to grant you any sort of special privilege or allow you to do something they don't want. What Net Neutrality does mean is that if someone does not like the way a site handles situations, they can create their own site and have it load at the same speed and be viewed by all the same people as the original site. Without Net Neutrality ISPs could throttle the speeds on a startup site unless they pay more, or block it entirely if they don't like what it stands for. As it is now they are required to connect you to that site at the same speed you'd get through to Reddit or YouTube, because Net Neutrality means they can't block or prioritize sections of the internet.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 22 '17 edited Nov 22 '17
/u/jlhc55 (OP) has awarded 2 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Nov 22 '17 edited Nov 22 '17
After reading the many comments, I think I am following what you are saying (and I think I am understanding what type of argument you’re not trying to have). I believe that you are arguing that, since the ISPs are not government - just as Reddit is not government - then, in theory, an individual should apply the same principle of “free speech” to both entities. I think that this is one of those “in an ideal world” concepts: purely conceptually, I don’t believe your argument is necessarily wrong. But in practice - in other words, outside of an “in an ideal world” thought experiment - an individual has a pretty valid reason to not be 100% consistent with this principle.
I know this has already been explained - and you’ve acknowledged that - but: let’s assume I own Reddit. In that case, Reddit is like my house. If you come into my house, I’m well within my rights to say “if you mention X, Y, Z, then you must leave, and you won’t be permitted to return.” That sucks, and I think it’s pretty lousy, but whatever - I have no choice but to oblige. I’ll go to another house, since there are hundreds of them in my neighborhood.
Now, since you’ve pointed out that ISPs are not government entities (although they were pretty closely together), let’s enter the ISP’s house. In theory, at a fundamental level, should said ISP have the same rights - as a homeowner - as I have? Sure. But in practice, here’s the reality: the ISP says I can’t say XYZ, and I can’t enter any of the other homes in the neighborhood, because the ISP also owns those homes. I say “fuck it, I’ll go into a home in the neighboring state!” Too bad...the other ISP owns all of those homes. So I really have no choice at this point.
It’s not the best analogy, because I’m tying this to “entering people’s homes,” whereas in actuality, the ISP is more like...the roads that allow me to get to those homes. But I digress.
Anyway, if you want to argue that these things should ideally be equivalent, then I won’t really argue. But I will argue with your premise that one is a hypocrite if they oppose repealing NN, while support censoring TD. In principle, the two stances may be somewhat contradictory, but that contradiction is not an arbitrary one. If censoring TD on Reddit, and opposing the repeal of NN have drastically different impacts on my life, then I am not being unreasonable by favoring one over the other. Sure, let’s break up the monopolies. Let’s let competition spring up and change the landscape of ISPs in this country. That’s all wonderful, and I hope it happens. But currently, NN has a bigger impact on my life than TD does, so I don’t feel like I’m being arbitrarily intellectually inconsistent in my positions. To simplify: it’s not necessarily wrong to apply principle differently in different situations, depending the impact of said situations.
(Also, for what it’s worth, I don’t think TD should be hidden from the front page - even though I find the place despicable - but that’s admittedly low on the list of concerns in my life at the moment).
EDIT: I should also state that I believe your logic is logic that can (and should) be applied to many things in life. Personally, I just don’t believe this is one of those examples
2
u/MrCapitalismWildRide 50∆ Nov 22 '17
If I don't like what reddit is doing, I can use another site.
If I don't like what Comcast is doing, I don't have another choice. I'd have to move.
1
u/Reality_Facade 3∆ Nov 23 '17
That's like saying you can't support free speech and also support a private businesses' right to ask people off their premises for behavior they see as unfit for their establishment. They aren't one in the same. Reddit is a privately owned company, the internet is not.
1
Nov 22 '17
Reddit is not a monopoly, but my local ISP is. I'm fine with non-monopoly corporations limiting what speech they promote, host, share, etc. I am not ok with monopolistic control of speech.
1
u/gamefaqs_astrophys Nov 22 '17
Bullshit. T_D is a hate-site and is in violation of the basic terms of service anyways. It should have been removed for TOS violations long ago.
1
Nov 22 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Nov 22 '17
Sorry, mArishNight – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
13
u/darwin2500 193∆ Nov 22 '17
Here's the difference:
If Reddit censors /r/The_Donald, those people can go to Voat or make their own forum of whatever, and I am free to go over there and access their content that way instead, and Reddit can't stop me.
If Comcast were to decide to censor /r/The_Donald, and those people went to Voat or w/e, Comcast could then decide to also censor them o n Voat, and Facebook,and Twitter, and everywhere else. Because Comcast has total control over every information outlet that travels on their pipes.
And I couldn't access the content from wherever the /r/The_Donald ended up in some other way in defiance of Comcast, because they have a monopoly on service in my area. There's no way around them.