Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "Top 3 Doomsday Net Neutrality Predictions From FCC Chair (Pt. 1)| Ajit Pai | POLITICS | Rubin Report" video.

  1. Dave Rubin has gone full shill. Ajit Pai is blatantly dishonest. He doesn't look at the evidence.... since despite there maybe not having been any strict rules preventing it, the Internet has de-facto been a neutral carrier service. So, pointing to history and claiming it's evidence for allowing NOT being neutral is just dishonest.
    2
  2.  Kathy Sharp  Sure... and now we're in a situation where we 1) have learned that it's a good thing that the Internet is a neutral carrier, and 2) There are signs that without that being regulated this will end.
    1
  3.  Kathy Sharp  You managed to completely ignore my point and not related to it. The fact is that we're looking at the prospect for ISPs using monopolies as leverage to make deals with large content providers to prioritize their traffic. - further strengthening the monopolies.
    1
  4.  Kathy Sharp  Because breaking up monopolies is a drastic and controversial action which takes so long time to recognize the need for and effectuate that it often have managed to do a lot of damage to the economy before that. Sometimes it's just simpler to make a simple clear rule about some piece of infrastructure to prevent it in the first place. And I don't agree that businesses are always two steps ahead in general. Some times simple rules just work. People have to recognize that the wonders of the free market only works when the market is actually FREE ... price setting and the optimization of free market forces won't work if there are errors in the market. Monopolies and externalities are the two most important things people have to recognize make the market not optimize to the best solution. An unregulated market is not always a free market in the sense that free market forces reign.
    1
  5.  Kathy Sharp  First... let's point out that this problem is A LOT more complex than mandating net-neutrality and regarding the IP internet as infrastructure. Secondly... I definitely recognize that it's a problem for democracy that public discourse increasingly is concentrating on very large platforms controlled by corporations. Facebook being the prime example, but sure... Google should not be exempt from scrutiny. What we do about it is a much more difficult question. I completely agree that some of the "bannings" some of these major providers (Twitter included) have done are very very problematic. And I would be very open to discuss a solution ensuring a sound democratic debate with respect for liberal principles and free speech. I have easy solution though.
    1
  6.  Kathy Sharp  I did answer... I guess the answer just didn't fit into your expectations for the rhetorical usefulness of your question. But to be more specific, here's two additional things I would say about it: 1) I don't support regulations targeted at unique companies which hasn't broken any law and which cannot be formulated as a simple general principle. So I would need to know the exact justification and what the criteria for doing that regulation would be. 2) It certainly depends on specifically what the regulation would be. It's way too simple to just throw out that "Google can't ban anyone".
    1
  7.  Kathy Sharp  Gee... now you are degenerating into conspiracy theories. And you even completely ignore parts of what I wrote which doesn't fit into your narrative. Listen... I'm a computer science professional. I've been using the Internet since the late 80s ... I don't need you or Google to tell me anything about how the internet works best. - and my position has NOTHING to do with Googles bottom line. Jesus...
    1
  8.  Kathy Sharp  You know... Political ignorant American lingo isn't really that impressive to us Europeans.
    1
  9.  Kathy Sharp  I don't really care. People using terms like "leftard" instead of listening to what was actually said and addressing the substance have little interest to me.
    1
  10.  Kathy Sharp  You claimed that (quote) "NN is just the attempt of one giant monopoly - Google - to subjugate other companies, by law, to provide it with services it needs at very low prices. And YOU SUPPORT THIS, either because you ate Google's propaganda about this being "fight for consumers rights" (LOL), or because you think that Google is on your political side, and accumulation ever more power for your side is good." How is that not a conspiracy theory? I couldn't care less about Google and you don't know shit about my political beliefs. As I said... I'm an IT-professional. I don't need you or Google to tell me why NN is a good principle. And your idea of what I "demonstrated" was based on you totally ignoring everything I said and cherry-pick that I said I didn't have an obvious good solution for the social network thing to mean that I somehow was selective in who I wanted to regulated based on what you thought my "side" was. That's conspiratorial thinking if I've ever seen it. ... And calling me "totalitarian" ... You're complete moron. I'm even a member of a libertarian party.
    1
  11.  Kathy Sharp  You seem to have a problem with basic logic. Google lobbying for NN combined with me saying it has no bearing on my opinion doesn't imply that it's a figment of your imagination that they lobbied. Actually it doesn't even imply that you are correct about their motivations - or mine for the matter. Non sequitur.
    1