Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Aug 2012 08:29 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 531895
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: net neutrality isn't neutral...
by marcp on Thu 23rd Aug 2012 15:47
in reply to "RE[2]: net neutrality isn't neutral..."
Please take a look at philosophical concepts of positive and negative freedom. You'll get many interresting things out of it.
Positive freedom is all about "I want to do this and that [no matter what, who, etc]"
Negative freedom is all about "I want to be free from you doing this or that [no matter what, who, etc]".
It is absolutely horrifying that people - nowadays - have absolutely no clue about the fact that their freedom is limited with the freedom of others. The hurt others until they don't get hurt themselves. Then they're suddenly shocked. This is so rediculous and just senseless. So little thinking, so much acting. Only "me, me, I want, I'm gonna do". Damn!




Member since:
2009-05-14
What you're saying is ludicrous and a horrible business plan. There is a difference.
Net neutrality or anything similar is pretty much the people telling one person how to run their business. This is anti-freedom because you (the individual) or they (a person in charge of a business) should have a say in how you go about your business.
Anything else would be mob rule, which only "works" if it's a government, not a business. A real business cannot work in such a model. It's like unions asking for better pay: who's going to make them the money?
You are advocating the idea that you, a lay person who more than likely knows nothing about running an ISP, know how best to make money, provide service, and not piss people off all at the same time. In return, spend less than you make. Juggle that, then get back to me.