Hacker News Reader

Comment by nercht12 | Hacker News Reader

It is government controlling the internet. It's the extent and who that is different. In this case, it's only forcing a fair playing field. Kinda like highways being public vs. toll instead of telling you what cars you are and are not allowed to drive. I'd like a "free" internet, but I still have to admit it's going to cost someone else's "freedom".

View on HN

So we can summarize saying it's customers freedom against ISP freedom.

The only freedom that nobody should have is the freedom to take away somebody else's freedom.

"my freedom ends where yours begins"

Yes

No, that implies companies have the same rights as individual people. They do not and should not as they don’t have the same legal constraints as people. There’s no human equivalent to many of the abilities enjoyed by corporations and corporations don’t die and cannot be imprisoned. They’re also able to raise funds in ways humans may not. The list goes on from there.

What I said doesn't imply this at all. I'm just stating that there's a trade-off between the freedom of corporations and the freedom of the people (but different kind of freedoms, ofc)

I’m thinking it over.

I think you are actually in agreement with the person you are replying to?

They point out it is freedom of ISPS vs natural people, and you are pointing out that considering ISP rights the same as people is bad.

If I ran an ISP without incorporating, should I be able to disregard net neutrality?

Controlling ISPs !== controlling the internet.

You're contradicting everything the pro net neutrality people have said for years, namely that without it the ISPs will control the Internet. Part of the premise is that the ISPs do in fact have control over the Internet by acting as the monopoly access point, and that they can do various terrible things accordingly. If you control the ISPs - ie how almost all Americans access the Internet - you inherently do control the Internet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com