
Pai: Twitter Is Bigger Threat to Open Net Than ISPs - LeoJiWoo
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/pai-twitter-bigger-threat-open-net-isps/170316
======
gfodor
What a stupid point of view, because the entire point of net neutrality (title
2 or otherwise) is to ensure that it's possible for twitter et al to be
overthrown by an upstart who gets a level playing field wrt Internet traffic.

If Pai gets his way, ISPs will be in a great position to cement Twitter and
Facebook's monopoly with preferential treatment and free subsidized internet
plans.

I guess this shows the true plan: make the big ISPs happy, and solve the
problem of "net neutrality" instead by adding more government regulation into
the picture to regulate the market of internet applications. Truly the worst
of both worlds.

~~~
rhino369
Net Neutrality doesn't "ensure that it's possible for twitter et al to be
overthrown by an upstart who gets a level playing field wrt Internet traffic."
Twitter/FB/Google don't need ISP's to build barriers to entry, they already
have networks effects.

At best it takes away a rather unlikely method of reducing competition for
twitter.

IMO, its more likely the ISP's try to extort cash from the web monopolies than
accept cash to quash their competitors.

If Twitter really paid ISP's to block competitive services they'd get anti-
trust sued into oblivion.

~~~
binaryblitz
It's not paying to block competitors... It forcing a company to pay for their
users traffic to not be throttled by the ISP.

------
malchow
He spoke for an extended period, and this was one argument among many.
Arguably, when Pai was speaking about Twitter, he was talking _not_ about the
net neutrality issue, but about threats to free speech on the web. (That is,
he was making a response to arguments from net-neutrality advocates that net-
neut enables a freer and more open forum for political debate on the web.)

To be honest, if I look back at my last 20 years on the internet, I have seen
more colorable censorship from the Reddits/Googles/Twitters of the world than
from the various satellite cos, ISPs, telcos, quagmiric microwave relay
companies, and mobile phone networks I've used to get _on_ the internet.

Disclosure: I am on bd of Lincoln Network, which put together the event in
D.C. where Pai spoke.

~~~
H99189
This is precisely what rubs me the wrong way about the current pitches for net
neutrality and why you won't see the right budge anytime soon. NN is being
painted as a censorship issue by the biggest censorship-happy organizations in
SV. To date, the only threats to consumers have come in the form of possible
throttling and not outright blocking of certain speech. The only precedent I
know of regarding censorship of the net has been at the hands of Twitter,
Google and Youtube, Reddit, and Facebook, who are happily deleting all the
political content they feel like at the moment whether it's illegal activity
being discussed or not.

As my peer below stated, Comcast was caught disrupting P2P traffic which I
hope gets addressed, but that's not how NN it's being sold and sensationalized
today.

Edit: Clarifications

~~~
s73ver_
Except each of those companies has competition. Voat and Gab, among others,
were born out of the idea that Reddit and Twitter were being unfair. And one
had the ability to join one of those alternative platforms, even while still
remaining a user of the original, without friction, largely because of having
a neutral net. If we get ISPs offering "social media packages", what do you
think the odds that Voat, Gab, or even Mastodon will be included?

If you believe that what Reddit and Twitter are doing is wrong, then why on
earth would a reasonable solution be to extend the ability to do more of that
to actors that one cannot reasonably avoid? I have a grand total of 1 ISP to
choose from. The vast, vast majority of Americans have 1 or 2 to choose from.
If NN is revoked, and Cox (my ISP) decides they're going to act like Twitter,
then I have exactly no recourse. Why do you believe that is the way to go?

~~~
H99189
I whole-heartedly agree that ISP's shouldn't be outright blocking anything.
I'm Pro-Net Neutrality Net-whatever to keep the pipes open and unfettered by
greedy corporations.

I'm just pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of the recent campaigns talking
about censorship as a possibility when the right has been getting
attacked/censored by every big SV company in recent years. Now they're crying
about possibility when they're engaged in the very act themselves. I guess
they're right, they would know, so yeah i'm pro-NN.

~~~
s73ver_
I disagree. If I unleash a horde of spambots on this site, posting spam, and
they get removed, am I being censored? If I constantly use slurs and other
insults at other users, and I get my account banned because of it, am I being
censored?

~~~
dragonwriter
Yes, in both cases.

Censorship is a problem in certain cases (government, especially viewpoint-
based censorship, for instance), but not in all cases.

------
sullengenie
So his argument is, "Edge providers censor content in a biased manner, and
that's bad. Therefore broadband providers should be allowed to censor
content." It's a non sequitur. If the ability of large edge providers to
selectively censor content is a problem, it stands to reason that allowing
broadband providers the same privilege would be an even bigger problem. And
that's completely ignoring the fact that he's making his usual false claim of
equivalence between edge providers and broadband providers.

------
fosco
whataboutism.

we need more competition between ISPs _and_ more ISPs to select from (I have 1
with speeds that would allow me to successfully work remotely on Long Island
NY).

I cannot see any other way for the consumer to win in any situation.

in regards to twitter, I agree they all have issues including recently the
censorship in Romania [0] -- that is a _separate_ issue that also needs to be
dealt with.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15790687](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15790687)

edit - added links typos

~~~
rayiner
Have you ever wondered why you don't have ISP competition in Long Island? If
you live in Brookhaven, for example, it's because Verizon already started to
build fiber and then the county refused to give it a franchise. But companies
will build fiber if you let them. We already have FiOS where I live, and
gigabit cable. Comcast recently extended its Metro-E network to a nearby
business park, and as a result also started offering 2-gigabit fiber to
surrounding residential areas for $150/month. Thanks to a loophole (you don't
need a county franchise if you don't offer TV), they can build it out
incrementally based on demand.

Companies want to build fiber. It's municipalities that are holding things up
by lashing fiber build-outs to their social justice initiatives. Stockholm
built its fiber network with no public money, neighborhood by neighborhood
based on the business case, taking 18 years to cover 90% of the city. New York
City, in contrast, demanded Verizon wire up 100% of the city in just 5 years.

------
arghwhat
ISPs are a threat to net neutrality. Large social networks are a threat to
society in _others_ ways (censoring, monitoring, "bubbles", no rights what so
ever).

I hate his guts, but while his interpretation of the Twitter problem is wrong
(its not about net neutrality/open web), considering Twitter to be a problem
in a general sense is _not_ wrong.

------
austincheney
Net Neutrality is a necessary good and ISP content throttling is certainly
part of the problem. That said, he makes an extremely valid point here. If the
argument is that a few key monopoly-like players dictate what content we can
access then the major online advertising companies are just as much a part of
the problem as throttling ISPs.

~~~
s73ver_
He doesn't make a valid point, though. He makes a completely orthogonal point.
If you believe his point, that what Twitter is doing is bad, then how can you
justify expanding the ability to do that to other, unavoidable actors? If I
don't like what Twitter is doing, I can choose to instead go to Gab or
Mastodon or even just start my own blog. If Cox decides to get in on the
censoring game, and I don't like what they're doing, I can't do a thing about
it.

~~~
rdtsc
> If Cox decides to get in on the censoring game, and I don't like what
> they're doing, I can't do a thing about it.

Agree, that's the main issue. If you could choose between 3 ISPs then the one
with less censorship and throttling would win and others would be "squashed"
by the market. There would be no need for net neutrality rules. But in some
areas there is just one provider so nothing can be done. And it's not a new
thing, it's been years for the market to grow and develop, but it hasn't.

> If Cox decides to get in on the censoring game, and I don't like what
> they're doing, I can't do a thing about it.

It's a good point, however practically they have no financial incentive to
censor based on content. Yeah if could one day, so you're at their mercy, but
so far their censorship has been around extorting higher fees either from you
or from services you connect to (Netflix, Google, Facebook etc). Verizon for
example throttled my Youtube and Netflix even as I was paying a premium for
high tier "FiOS" or whatever it was called package.

Google, Twitter, Facebook on the other has been engaged in a more dangerous
censorship. We saw the story yesterday about FB squashing posts from Romanian
protest organizers. So in that respect it is closer to the classic silencing
and squashing of free speech.

Calling them out and taking a jab at them doesn't seem terrible. It won't save
net neutrality at this point but if it forced or embarrassed those companies
to reduce their censorship it seems worth it.

------
LeoPanthera
"Twitter Is Bigger Threat to Open Net Than ISPs"

So he admits ISPs are a threat?

------
seorphates
I don't appreciate the direction the nn discussion has gone. To me the core
and fundamental principal of innovation and growth is connectivity - pure,
raw, naked and unfettered access to an open network. I am and always have been
able to choose any "edge" provider or network service or content I desire,
always. This is not true with regards to simple connectivity. These two things
are being improperly (nefariously, imo) tied together much like the access and
content mergers - these two things simply do not belong together - access is
not content is not access. I do recognize and understand the broader
discussion around content and services when it pertains to inordinate impact,
influence or control via overly influential and controlling services -
services which, for the most part, we can still all choose whether or not to
use whenever we want.

The only true and immediate threats I can currently perceive are coming from
those controlling the gates to access. We've been robbed of the basic premise
of title II protections for a vital communications service because we allowed
the topic of discussion to change. "Network Neutrality" was never a good hook
and now it has enabled the loss of focus on the core problem that is ISP
service in this country. Twitter content? No so much.

------
cuckcuckspruce
It's a conflation of two separate issues.

If you have open network access then you have access to alternative providers
that will host people that may be banned or restricted on Twitter (see GNU
Social and Mastodon).

If you have ISPs regulating what you can and cannot access then you don't even
have that choice - you get the worst of both worlds - Twitter acts as a
gatekeeper and your ISP acts as a gatekeeper on top of that.

~~~
criddell
It is a conflation and if Pai doesn't get this, then he has no business having
the job he has.

I think he does get it though and this is a tactic that might work for him.

I think it's worth making a distinction over regulating the internet vs
regulating ISPs. The internet should be unregulated but ISPs should be
regulated. ISPs provide a telecom service while companies like Twitter provide
an information service. They aren't the same thing at all and we shouldn't let
telecom companies pick the winning info service companies.

------
simplify
Red herring. Twitter will never have the power to throttle competing websites.
This is completely unrelated.

------
justboxing
Almost all the Ajit Pai stories these days appear to be Astroturfing. They are
cleverly manipulating the masses of voting population, which doesn't think
like most folks here at HN, into believing that this is a great thing for
them.

Astroturf and manipulation of media messages | Sharyl Attkisson | TEDx
University of Nevada => [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-
ZZtEU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU)

------
LeoJiWoo
I don't like his argument.

I think we should regulate ISPS,DNS providers, Social media, and other parts
of the Internet Ecosystem to be neutral.

Though I agree full with Pai's statement:

“what I know is not the right answer is that a cabal of ten tech executives
with names like Matthew, Mark, Jack, . . . Jeff are the ones choosing what
content goes online and what content doesn’t go online.”

I don't like this will be used probably successfully as a wedge to destroy net
neutrality.

~~~
tw04
No, instead it should be a cabal of ten tech executives with names like Brian,
Lowell, Marcelo, Thomas, and John - you know the good ol' boys who have made
Pai rich and have jobs lined up for him as soon as he retires from the FCC.
Those silly new-age-tech guys don't understand how the game works, and think
that the constitution has any place in our "Democracy".

~~~
sbov
> Those silly new-age-tech guys don't understand how the game works, and think
> that the constitution has any place in our "Democracy".

What part of Pai's actions go against the constitution? Unilateral actions by
the executive can also unilaterally be undone by the executive.

More durable change rests with congress or the courts.

~~~
tw04
>Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If ISPs are allowed to put up a tollway preventing or slowing my access to the
press - at their own discretion, that is absolutely a violation of the
constitution.

------
TYPE_FASTER
So, I can have any kind of water in my house, but Pai wants to control whether
I have crushed ice or cubes?

------
s73ver_
The thing I ultimately don't get, and that makes this entire argument
disingenuous, is that, if you believe that what Twitter is doing is wrong,
then why on earth would you decide that you want to enable more actors,
especially ones that people cannot avoid, to be able to do that?

------
campuscodi
This guy is twisting arguments to spew a talking point favorable to his agenda

------
pruett
This logic is so flawed, it's a bit scary he has the platform to voice it.

