What is "cancel culture" to you?

Cancel culture is unstable, mentally infantile SJW democrats having their feelings hurt and deciding the best course of action is to ruin whatever hurt their feelings. This is the most clear and concise definition ever conceived.

Deal with it.

1 Like

Okay, but understand that net neutrality is the current status quo. If we get rid of it, it opens up big tech companies to buying preferential treatment by ISPs. It’s not about individual consumers buying better speeds, we already have that. Getting rid of it would mean Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. could buy better speeds for themselves or hurt the speed of their competition.

That argument does not hold water. If getting rid of it would benefit Facebook, Twitter and Google, they would be all for it. I tolerate Google, mainly because it has aided me in my historical research. I despise Facebook and especially Twitter. Twitter is a complete stooge for the left. It’s garbage.

The only companies outright supporting its repeal are internet service providers like Comcast. It benefits them most directly as they would be able to charge us premiums to visit certain websites.

Zuckerberg may not be supporting net neutrality repeal out loud, but try googling their venture “internet.org

In the internet.org model, Facebook claims to be delivering cheap internet access to impovershed peoples. Sounds great, except, Facebook hand picks the websites you’re allowed to visit. You couldn’t come to this website, but Facebook and wikipedia are fine. Last I saw a list, there were only 30 or so websites it allowed you to visit. Net neutrality repeal could allow the highest bidder to get a truly captive audience.

For the record on this, I think net neutrality should be expanded to web boaters as well. Right now it only protects consumers from ISPs, but I believe it should apply to web hosting as well. For instance, Amazon should not be allowed to refuse to host Parler. I may not like anything about Parler, but it’s not up to the web hosts to take down the whole thing.

Which is not facing industry vs consumer use case.

Your standard bit rate use from watching netflix, doesn’t have the real time requirements of an enterprise who need their data consistently at a high rate, 24/7, with little buffering.

Consumer vs enterprise requirements exist just as they also exist with hardware.

For the same reason most don’t need an enterprise grade Western Digital hard drive with its higher stabilization, temperature sensing, or its fault tolerance, you don’t need the consistent packet delivery or minimum buffering of what enterprise connections require, and do not suffer just because their traffic is prioritized.

That aside, there’s another argument about what ISPs do in regards data caps seeing as how we’re past the point where reaching maximum bandwidth of the system is likely.

Critics assert data caps are a holdover habit of the industry that is continued simply as they’re used to it, and it’s a revenue driver.

Perhaps, but if that’s the problem, there’s a market facing solution. Lower the bar for competition.

Right now many parts of America only have one or two isps, because of how publicly owned right-of-way nexus points are regulated, not only making costs higher than they should be to deploy new infrastructure, but it allows existing ISPs to hold veto power over a new ISP starting up in their area. Which of course, they say overwhelmingly say “no” to.

Conversely, when cities drop these regulations, you get Kansas City installing google fiber practically overnight.

Just as with other issues; I don’t like chasing symptoms. Attack the root problem.

This doesn’t happen. Data packet inspection technology to do that at mass scale doesn’t exist, and even if it did, it would slow the connection to everyone using it. Including to the websites they were “hoping” to boost.

You would only increase speed by making everyone worse off. In an age where more phone and satellite competition exists, that would be a pretty awful gambit for an ISP to make, and it would make all of your clients hate you in the process.

Real-world, non-neutral behaviors is based on users (Consumer vs enterprise) and use case (video streaming vs IoT vs articles, vs live calls, etc), not “the speed” to your destination.

This is a separate issue to what I posted on before, these are walled off gardens.

And it shows neutrality is not a good in of itself. Other things can be of more importance.

Apple for instance had reasons to lock off their app eco systems in ways Android didn’t; they were trying to deliver an enhanced user experience, with reliability, and features they could not do if their system was a free-for-all.

By having more direct control over their app ecosytem, and leveling higher requirements on developers who operated within that system, they were better able to build out their functionality, how well services operated, and raise the bar overall for user experience.

Ergo, this serves a purpose.

In Facebook this also served a purpose. They had technical requirements for what websites could load within Internet.org, because if they allowed just any website running HTTPS or javascript, it could overload the devices they were distributing this internet on.

It comes back to user experience. Building out functionality that didn’t exist before, within a certain space, with less client-level resources on hand to deliver it on.

Technical limitations drove the requirements.

Not allowing Facebook to operate this way, is the same as saying they can’t offer this.

I say a stripped down internet today is better than waiting 5-10 years for the full experience to show up.
“Perfect” should not be the enemy of the “better”.

And if users don’t like what Facebook is offering, or find it hard to access due to the lack of language options, they’re free to eschew it. It’s a problem users can and do solve on their own, and which Facebook by virtue of wanting users will address itself as it gains experience within these markets.

1 Possibly. But the fact is that the wholesome family-friendly movies also sell, and Hollyweird has a dearth of them. Also, they’ve also been producing left-politicized movies that bombed.
2 I doubt it will be fixed.
3 One factor of net neutrality, at least as Obama did it, wasn’t just the speed-throttling issues, but made a pathway for government to control content, and I don’t mean porn or criminal activity. That’s not good.

4 I trust government even less than big tech or Hollyweird.