How is that different to people paying for slow and fast internet access. If I pay for 100Mb download speeds, which is sufficient to watch Netflix and then they want to charge me extra for watching an internet site that requires high download speeds.
Well, different issue again. Personally I think Internet packages are dishonestly marketed, but that might be because the ISPs know most people donât know the difference between âMbâ and âMbpsâ () and would therefore be confused if they were more explicit.
The Mbps figure they offer you is the maximum theoretical bandwidth of your point-to-point link. They cannot possibly offer you any guaranteed bandwidth upstream, mainly because so much of it is out of their control. If (as IbisWtf said) they were more upfront about exactly what you get - say, giving you estimates of peak availability of the upstream pipe from your local hub - people might accept throttled connections for what they are, ie., an attempt to get maximum capacity from a limited resource.
Not at all. But I didnât see it in Ibbyâs paradox.
However, you probably wouldnât like it if the government started telling you what youâre allowed to do with your private property and what youâre not.
Oh, the horror. The government says you canât throw rocks at other peopleâs windows, even if theyâre your own rocks from your own property. Iâm crying an ocean right now.
Inappropriate reductio ad absurdum, mainly because your example involves damage to other peopleâs property.
Telling network operators they canât optimize their bandwidth usage is like telling you that you canât use your washing machine during off-peak electricity periods.
How is it a different issue? Say youâre getting what you pay for, youâre happy with it. If suddenly they started saying you get 100MB but Netflix isnât included - you need to pay extra - that is a load of crap. The concept that 100MB is actually 12.5 MB/s is irrelevant to the issue here.
I agree. Itâs a load of crap. My point was that the â100Mbpsâ number is a stupid way of describing what theyâre delivering. Itâs completely meaningless.
If the ISP were to sell packages with different throttles, the accurate way to market them would be to show graphs of average and peak available bandwidth up to the local backbone. That would go waaay over most peopleâs heads, so the next best thing would be to do exactly as depicted in kelakeâs graphic: pick the package which suits the services you use most.
Google, YT, Facebook and Twitter all apply âsoft censorshipâ, hiding certain results from searches, or making some videos not show up even if youâre subscribed to a channel, making posts from some FB pages not appear to followers and deciding which users get verified and have their Tweets at the top, regardless of other factors.
This shouldnât be allowed because theyâre preventing people from accessing information on the bases that the information may be âproblematicâ.
Itâs a completely different issue from ISPs throttling data to reduce the bandwidth usage of some websites/services that use large amounts of data.
If the new regulations will be used to apply âsoft bansâ to some websites, like:âOh you were trying to access the Washington Post? Sorry the connection is messy, have a look at Russia Today insteadâ then I will have the same problem with it.
Iâm not sure how you can go all:âIBBYâS PARADOX, CHECKMATEâ, comparing internet censorship to data throttling. Before 2015 carriers often (always?) applied data throttling, people just didnât know and/or didnât care about it.
As long as tax-funded public right of way is used for laying fiber optic cable, the backbone of the Internet, and only so many cables can be accommodated thereâs a clear public interest in determining what information is carried on that cable infrastructure and under what rules:
But how does that make sense with the âcustomers will go elsewhere!â mentality? ISP decides that Netflix, Google, whatever, will cost extra. Customers will go from business A to business B.
Google, twitter, youtube, facebook - they donât give priority to comments/posts/media I like! CENSORSHIP!
No no no no no, you just have to switch from company A to company B, donât you?
Yep, private sector. Go ahead, call it (self) censorship. No argument from me.
This shouldnât be allowed because theyâre preventing people from accessing information on the bases that the information may be âproblematicâ.
It shouldnât be allowed, you say? Oh, so you want the state to intervene. Censorship! Tyranny!
Itâs a completely different issue from ISPs throttling data to reduce the bandwidth usage of some websites/services that use large amounts of data.
Private sector again, but you donât perceive it as part of the Illuminati Agenda⢠(yet), so youâre okay with it. A law preventing it though, you seem to be calling that tyranny (or as Finsky would say, the government telling you what you can and canât do! )
Yes, I call it Ibbyâs Paradox. If Finley wants to share the credit, Iâm willing to rename it.
Iâm not convinced the censoring youâre talking about is as bad as alarmists would have you believe. Twitter, for example, just have an algorithm that removes spam and posts from bots. If your post is removed, youâd be well within your rights to ask them to reinstate it and I think they would. If youâre talking about individual posters being banned, you may look into their reasons for being banned.
The most you could say about twitter is they perhaps give extra weight to hashtags they agree with. Possibly. In that context, it could be easily compared with reducing bandwidth.
Not that any of this is going to change anybody elseâs minds. Weâre all just shouting at brick walls, essentially.
Yes, I think that people should be able to access all sources of information, and media outlets (press, social media, YT etc etc) shouldnât apply some form of censorship because they decide that some things are âproblematicâ.
Throttling data, which has been going on until 2015, is a very different thing, and I still fail to see how they can be compared.
Well, lets start by removing that âperhapsâ, since the hashtag meddling is a thing that has been going on for years now. They recently started to remove the certified tag from previously certified users in order to make them become invisible, as certified users can hide the content from non-certified ones. And Iâm talking about really popular people. While at the same time, accounts of random people who just happen to receive a lot of likes because they follow a narrative that Twitter likes, receive the certified status. The same thing happens on FB, YT and in Google searches. Just yesterday I thought I was having an aneurysm when I opened Youtube; the homepage was showing me a video from one of my subscriptions, yet when I opened the subs page that video wasnât there. It happens all the time to content creators who for some reason are considered âproblematicâ.
âWell, you can switch to Minds or other social media platformsâ, true, but media platforms, be it a social media or news outlet, shouldnât be allowed to exist in a grey area where they can select the kind of news and information that are available to the public. We donât live in China or North Korea, and I donât care about the:âWe do it to protect you from fake news!!1â argument, thatâs idiotic. The press and social media should be free from the state, but at the same time they have the responsibility of providing people with all the information, not just some.
I think it was a Google employee who in an interview proudly said:âWeâre not censoring people, weâre just making sure that some things donât show up in search results!â. Thatâs not throttling data to reduce the bandwidth, and if you were able to use the internet in 2015 and live a decent life, I doubt youâll notice a huge difference in the coming future.