Why Google and Amazon Are Hypocrites (om.blog)

Amazon earlier this month responded to Google's decision to remove YouTube from all Fire TV products and the Echo Show. Google says it's taking this extreme step because of Amazon's recent delisting of new Nest products (like Nest Secure and the E Thermostat) and the company's long-running refusal to sell Chromecast or support Google Cast in any capacity. Veteran journalist Om Malik writes: This smacks of so much hypocrisy that I don't even know where to start. The two public proponents of network neutrality and anything but neutral about each other's services on each other's platforms. They can complain about the cable companies from blocking their content and charging for fast lanes. The irony isn't lost on me even a wee bit. They are locked in a battle to collect as much data about us -- what we shop, what we see, what we do online and they do so under the guise of offering us services that are amazing and wonderful. They don't talk about what they won't do with our data, instead, they bicker and distract. So to think that these purveyors of hyper-capitalism will fight for interests of consumers is not only childish, it is foolish. We as end customers need to figure out who is speaking on our behalf when it comes to the rules of the Internet.

Comments

alabama

[polar red]

As hypocritical as christians electing a pedo ?

Re: alabama

[Anonymous Coward]

So, allegations are facts to you?

Re: alabama

[Anonymous Coward]

being removed from the state supreme court, twice, is enough of a reason to be disqualified for every holding another public office ever again.

Re: alabama

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes

Re: alabama

[Archangel Michael]

Franken is still in the Senate. So hypocrites abound in both parties. News at 11

Re:alabama

[ShanghaiBill]

As hypocritical as christians electing a pedo ?

What is unchristian about pedophilia? Can you cite scripture?

Re: alabama

[Anonymous Coward]

(I would not vote for Moore, but...) Even if the allegations are true, he's not a pedo; there has been no indication that he has any attraction to pre-pubescent children.

Re:alabama

[king neckbeard]

The hypocrisy is the irrational fear of gays and trans people being sexual predators, when Moore himself is a sexual predator, and the GOP can't be fucked to nominate LITERALLY ANYONE ELSE for the position.

Re:alabama

[Anonymous Coward]

In order for that to be hypocritical, wouldn't it first have to be against Christian values? Pretty sure the New Testament considered all girls marriageable "women" after puberty. If anything, Moore's (alleged) behavior would make him more Christian, however repugnant that is to our modern sensibilities.

Re:alabama

[Baron_Yam]

Just think about this... Mary would have been about 12 years old when she was married to Joseph, and Joseph would more than likely have been an adult.

According to Christians... while Joseph didn't have sex with Mary right away, a much older guy snuck in there and impregnated her. I hear the guy was, you know, infinitely old, which is a lot.

If God can knock up a 12 year old, I guess Christianity is fundamentally OK with the idea that 12 year old girls are appropriate sex partners despite extreme age differences and immeasurable power imbalances.

So if you're a fundamentalist you probably don't think pedophilia's a big deal so long as it's an older male married to a girl who is old enough to be fertile. Of course, a lot of fundamentalists still hold on to other quaint ideas, like 'women are chattel'.

Re: alabama

[I'm New Around Here]

Now that people are 'children' until they reach 26 and have to buy their own insurance, even glancing at college students counts as pedophilia.

Re: alabama

[Anonymous Coward]

So, allegations are facts to you?

Well, faith is fact to those folks, so ... yeah, pretty much.

Re:alabama

[Anonymous Coward]

if girls shouldnt have babies when young why did got make them that way

Re:alabama

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue is that it's an accusation - it hasn't been proven.

Given this strategy I think come September of next year I'm just going to claim that every single Democrat running for Congress gang raped me in kindergarten.

Re:alabama

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider that fundamental Christians consider any form of pre-martial relations to be a sin, even kissing, then Moore's behavior would be unchristian as he fooled around prior to marriage.

Re:alabama

[Neuronwelder]

People had a really hard life back then. 40 years, if you made it that far, was REALLY old.

Re: alabama

[penandpaper]

They are adults only when they have The Right Opinions (tm) and too old to change their mind!

Re: alabama

[Anonymous Coward]

being removed from the state supreme court, twice, is enough of a reason to be disqualified for every holding another public office ever again.

Not according to the constitution.

Re:alabama

[Baron_Yam]

>People had a really hard life back then. 40 years, if you made it that far, was REALLY old.

I was going to school you on life expectancy after early mortality was removed... but a bit of research shows 40 WAS damn old until a few hundred years into the common era, though late 50s had been not terribly uncommon for a maybe a thousand years by then - if you lived in the right place, of course.

Re: alabama

[e3m4n]

more importantly, there has been no allegations in more recent times. Every allegation is 30yrs old. If we are going to remove everyone from any elected or government position based on any sort of thing they did 30 years ago, under the scrutiny of 2017 views (bear in mind that in alabama, asking parents for their underage kids hand in marriage was not _that_ uncommon; Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13yr old Cousin only a about decade earlier) then we better start throwing every single one of them out and look for robots to replace them. Because nobody, and I do mean nobody, is going to be able to live an entire life without coming to a moment of change in ones life. I am not condoning anything he did, but it's also important to understand we cannot try people today for things they did before there was a stigma against it. Any one of us are already guilty of doing something perfectly acceptable when we were in high school that is now, or in the future, will be socially unacceptable. In 15yrs even practical jokes are going to be considered 'bullying' and subject to zero tolerance. Too bad you stuck that tack in your friends chair when you were 17, its totally going to ruin your chances of being elected to Congress when you are 50, because you show a pattern of behavior of being a bully and dehumanizing others. Forget that everybody used to love you for things they called 'antics' and often encouraged the behavior and cheered at these jokes.

Date Rape: that was something that didnt exist as a term until the mid 90s. Until then it was something of a he-said / she-said encounter often written off to after-sex regret (which in some cases still is just post-regret). There was a complete shit-ton of it going on in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s. Going somewhere to park and make-out was usually a guarantee of leading to sex; which is why they always told girls to never put themselves in a compromising situation. There was no "no means no" back then. Intervention and education are the only way to change someones way of thinking.

Statutory Rape: IE the age at which a child is considered mentally mature enough to actually consent to sex, and anything below that age is considered rape no matter how many times that person says yes or initiates. However, they made provisions for things, even to this day, for parental consent. "Parental consent is needed in Alabama and Utah at age 14" according to their current legislation.

So is a 30yr old dating a 14yo, possibly in search of a wife, creepy? You bet. But so is a 60yr old dating a 20yr old. And nobody calls that out, even to this day. Its taken well over a 100years to overcome racism after the abolition of slavery. One cannot expect to go back in time and hold people accountable for sexism during the 70s only a decade after the birth of feminism.

IMO IF the ONLY allegations they can find, true or otherwise, are from 30 years ago then I think it has no bearing on the issue at hand and his ability to represent the state of Alabama. If the allegations are true, then at some time, more than 20yrs ago, he quit acting this way and changed his way of thinking and acting. The Washington Post even ran an article where THEY went to Australia, to a small religious town where Moore lived for a time, in search of any sort of political dirt they could dig up, as they love to do to any non-freepass-democrat. The Washington Post admitted flat out that they have never been able to find any other place or time that someone would say that he was anything but the nicest person.

Re: alabama

[Anonymous Coward]

So, allegations are facts to you?

So allegations are "fake news" to you, as long as they're against your "team"?

Re: alabama

[e3m4n]

no, just creepy, that is, if you are old enough to potentially be their parent; which happens around age 36.

Re:alabama

[king neckbeard]

There are a lot of allegations, and this is an area where Cheney's 1% rule is applicable. If there's a 1% chance someone is a sexual predator, you should find another candidate.

Given this strategy I think come September of next year I'm just going to claim that every single Democrat running for Congress gang raped me in kindergarten.

Fine. If we do that hard enough, the only people that can run for office will be penniless eunuchs, and they might base policies on facts.

Re: alabama

[david_thornley]

Some of the accusations against Franken are dubious. They're of behavior far short of stalking malls for underage girls, which is what got Moore banned from some malls. Franken acknowledged and apologized. Franken called for an investigation into his activities.

There are indeed hypocrites in both parties, but Franken doesn't show that.

Re: alabama

[david_thornley]

So, he apparently committed certain heinous acts, and what really bothers you is that the description some people use of him is technically inaccurate?

Re: alabama

[Anonymous Coward]

Comrade, you need to expand your repertoire to the US audience. Maybe some Auburn/Alabama cheerleader jokes. (Auburn is a large university in the south of the United States.)

Re:alabama

[slew]

>People had a really hard life back then. 40 years, if you made it that far, was REALLY old.

I was going to school you on life expectancy after early mortality was removed... but a bit of research shows 40 WAS damn old until a few hundred years into the common era, though late 50s had been not terribly uncommon for a maybe a thousand years by then - if you lived in the right place, of course.

Maybe you should look a bit harder...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Specifically this table...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

The change in life expectancy of mature men has not changed as dramatically over 3000 years as might be expected, although this data must of necessity refer to privileged members of society.

The observation being, it probably matters less where you lived than if you lived a hard life...

On the other hand, this observation doesn't appear to apply to women.

Life expectancy of women at the age of 15 years has however changed dramatically over the last 600 years and by a decade and a half since the mid-Victorian period.

One wonders what socio-economic forces might explain this

Re: alabama

[Anonymous Coward]

according to my vote it is. if someone is removed from office, i'll never vote for them again.

Re:alabama

[jdschulteis]

On the other hand, this observation doesn't appear to apply to women.

Life expectancy of women at the age of 15 years has however changed dramatically over the last 600 years and by a decade and a half since the mid-Victorian period.

One wonders what socio-economic forces might explain this

Childbirth has become much less hazardous.

Re: alabama

[Anonymous Coward]

Franken is still in the Senate. So hypocrites abound in both parties. News at 11

Franken has announced his resignation, a majority of Democratic Senators have called for his resignation, the news on this was last week.

Roy Moore has received the personal endorsement of the Republican President(who campaigned for him just this weekend), their PACs(writing checks to pay for advertising to his benefit), and the rest are barely able to tepidly criticize him as they pray they won't have to accept him into the Senate due to some vague impropriety in the election or something(Shelby has already raised this issue in conference). Which is why there's already a plan by Republican Elections Supervisors to throw a wrench into the counting system just so they can come up with an excuse for a new election that doesn't force them to take a moral stand(after all, any kind of moral stand would necessarily subject them to personal and individual scrutiny, while an election being faulty is easy to cadge as an isolated mistake).

Watch it happen, the Alabama Senate election will be declared invalid, and they'll re-run it.

Re: alabama

[Anne Thwacks]

One cannot expect to go back in time and hold people accountable for sexism during the 70s only a decade after the birth of feminism.

I understand that you are in America, but even so, Feminism was a big thing in the 1920's - Ie about 100 years ago. Here in the UK, the tradition _was_ that if someone got an under-age girl pregnant, the girl would go to a mother and baby home, and the boy/man would be "disappeared" - either leave town never to return, or be found face down in the river. It was still happening in the 1960's. This kind of died out with the pill.

Re:alabama

[ShanghaiBill]

If there's a 1% chance someone is a sexual predator, you should find another candidate.

1. They couldn't "find another candidate". Even at the time of the 1st allegation, it was too late to remove Moore from the ballot.

2. There is WAY more than a 1% chance that the accusations are true. About 10% of accusations of sexual assault that are investigated are found to be false. That doesn't mean that other 90% are all true, but it does indicate that accusations are more likely true than not. The accusers have no known motivation to lie, have no history of political activism, and most of them talked about the events with friends and relatives at the time the incidents occurred. I think the accuser count is now up to 8, and if we assume that there is a 50% chance that each allegation is false, that is (1 - 1/(2^8)) = 99.6% chance that at least one accuser is telling the truth.

3. Most of the accusers are not claiming that anything illegal happened. The age of consent in Alabama is 16, and most of the women are not claiming that he had sex with them, only that he "pursued" them.

4. Moore is obvious a creep, and I hope he loses. But if he wins, then he is the choice of the people of Alabama, and no politician or group of politicians should subvert the will of the voters. Democrats should be delighted if he wins, since Roy Moore will be the new face of the GOP. Maybe the Democrats will finally have a winning issue.

Re:alabama

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. If you look, while the projections for average life expectancy is rather young. It's because of the number of child birth deaths, or child deaths to illness. If you lived to your adult life, you were likely to see 60, and plenty of evidence "grey beards" existed, which weren't 30 year olds with white hairs already.

Re:alabama

[ShanghaiBill]

Life expectancy of women at the age of 15 years has however changed dramatically over the last 600 years and by a decade and a half since the mid-Victorian period.

One wonders what socio-economic forces might explain this

Death in childbirth, or from infections following childbirth, were very common. The big change occurred from 1840 to 1870, when midwives and doctors began washing their hands.

Re:alabama

[Anne Thwacks]

Pretty sure the New Testament considered all girls marriageable "women" after puberty

On what basis? That might be true in hunter/gatherer societies, but is not generally the case in farming societies. I would expect there to be firm evidence about Roman views on the issue, and the area was, as we know, under Roman rule at the time. I was taught (by a Christian school) that "Virgin" in Latin of that era should be read as "teenager" in modern terminology.

I have no idea whether Mary was thirteen or nineteen at the time of her conception, or anywhere in between, and I seriously doubt anyone else does, or there would have been a song and dance about it for two thousand years.

Re: alabama

[Anonymous Coward]

There are pictures. What's dubious about that?

Re:alabama

[king neckbeard]

Moore was a known creep before the election started. If the GOP's internal research was worth anything, they should have shitcanned him before he even filled out the paperwork. My point is that if we stop with the celebrity culture of politics, avoiding these problems is easy. If there is a more than 1% chance that someone is guilty of any major crime or morally questionable action, find someone else, because the pool of eligible candidates is in the millions.

Re: alabama

[e3m4n]

Establishing the right to vote was a big thing in the 20s. But Feminism and Women's rights are similar but not entire the same movement. Women didnt do the whole 'burn their bra' thing until the 60s. Thats really when I see the biggest transition of Feminism in society. Women in the workforce happened during WWII, but they were expected to become housewives once the men returned. Women didn't really start going back to work en masse until later. Sure there were nurses and secretaries etc, but that was reserved for 'old maids' and those below middle class income. Anything outside of this resulted in a stigma. The concept of a 2-income family really didn't gain traction until the 70s. If both your parents worked, it was because you were not even wealthy enough to be middle class. There was even a 1980s movie called 'Mr Mom' starring Michael Keaton that addressed the stigma of the wife being the breadwinner of the family. But for the most part, in the 70s and 80s sexism was still rampant and mostly accepted. Stewardess' being sex fodder for pilots was pervasive all the way through the 80s on most major airlines and thats just one example of thousands.

  Over here men who knocked up underage girls weren't 'dissapeared' as much as married (hence the term shotgun wedding); Assuming, of course, he wasn't already married.

Re:alabama

[ShanghaiBill]

they should have shitcanned him before he even filled out the paperwork.

Who is "they"?

If there is a more than 1% chance that someone is guilty of any major crime or morally questionable action, find someone else, because the pool of eligible candidates is in the millions.

The number of adults with a 99% chance of having never done anything morally questionable is precisely zero.

Re:alabama

[king neckbeard]

"They" is the GOP.

The number of adults with a 99% chance of having never done anything morally questionable is precisely zero.

Sorry if my euphemisms were a bit too vague. I'm talking about a relatively low number of major actions (corruption, ephebophilia/pedophilia, sexual harassment) that aren't covered by laws, but could similarly tarnish a campaign. The number is still going to be quite small, but we don't need very many candidates.

Re: alabama

[Anonymous Coward]

>> So is a 30yr old dating a 14yo, possibly in search of a wife, creepy? You bet. But so is a 60yr old dating a 20yr old. And nobody calls that out, even to this day. Its taken well over a 100years to overcome racism after the abolition of slavery. One cannot expect to go back in time and hold people accountable for sexism during the 70s only a decade after the birth of feminism.

That would be because a 14 yo is NOT an adult; a 20 yo IS an adult ... This blind spot worries me and casts the rest of your argument in doubt.

Re:alabama

[ShanghaiBill]

"They" is the GOP.

You seem to have a weird mental model of how elections work. The GOP consists of 52 million people. How are they going to decide who does or doesn't get to file an election form in an Alabama courthouse?

There is no "they". Anyone can run for office if they meet the age and a few other legal requirements. No one other than the voters can stop them.

If there was a "they", then Jeb Bush would be president.

Re: alabama

[Anonymous Coward]

As a general rule, I agree with you. BUT, there are a lot of other things wrong with Moore that undermines his character and fitness for the office. I think the sex accusations is just the easiest thing his opponents harp on to get their message across. But I don't think it is just about that.

For example, Moore is on the record saying that we should get rid of all constitutional amendments above 10. Think about that! He thinks that equal treatment under the law doesn't really apply to blacks or immigrants because that amendment was forced on Alabama at gunpoint. He went on to put a 2-ton biblical carving in the most prominent spot in the court and played antics saying that the law of God trumps the law of man. The federal judge that censured him and removed him was very clear about the issue - that had Moore simply put in a statue they would not be removing him, and would only ask him to remove the statue. But everything else that went with it is what made him unfit.

So yes. I agree with you that judging the morality of the past through the present lens is not fair. But the problem with Moore is that his behavior is just part of a continuing pattern.

Re:alabama

[king neckbeard]

I'm not saying that you prevent them from filing an election form, I'm saying that you make it clear that power behind the party is not going to be on Moore's side, and that you will immediately rip him to shreds if you don't withdraw.

The reason Moore wasn't impeded wasn't because he couldn't have been impeded, it's because nobody with the power to saw a reason to stop him. And no, it's not a hard, explicit, conspiracy, it's mostly not even an intentional conspiracy, but there is definitely a system, and is has a way to check a potential candidate if they misbehave.

For example, Dem donor Stephen Cloobeck explicitly said on TV that he'd pull his funding if the Dems raised his taxes. If major GOP donors pulled similar moves regarding Moore, he'd be toast in a second, which would be the smart move for the party.

Re: alabama

[pnutjam]

I wonder what you've been up to...

...not really... sounds like rapin'.

Re:alabama

[Mike Van Pelt]

1. They couldn't "find another candidate". Even at the time of the 1st allegation, it was too late to remove Moore from the ballot.

Exactly. The first allegation was trotted out to the world the very day after the deadline to remove Moore from the ballot.

Convenient timing, hmmm?

If, after the election, it is discovered that all these allegations are completely false (yeah, unlikely, some of them seem to have some basis) would there be a do-over on the election? Ha! Of course not; there is no provision in law for that.

Re:alabama

[ShanghaiBill]

I'm saying that you make it clear that power behind the party is not going to be on Moore's side

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. The establishment overwhelmingly backed Luther Strange, and was vehemently opposed to Moore.

Most political analysts believe that the establishment opposition actually helped Moore's candidacy. The GOP establishment is not very popular in American, and even less so in Alabama. Every time Mitch McConnell says Moore should drop out, his poll numbers go up.

Here is one other guy that won despite strong opposition by the GOP establishment: Donald Trump.

Re: alabama

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see you're not from Alabama. In Alabama, a male is old enough to potentially be the parent of a 14 year old somewhere between 26 and 30.

Re: alabama

[Rob Y.]

There is one picture, and if you bother to actually look at it, it's using the camera angle to fake groping - kind of like those photographs of a tourist 'holding up the leaning tower of Pisa'. Tasteless, perhaps, but not 'evidence of assault'. And you might want to account for the context of the joke - i.e. whether it was consistent with the general cut-up nature of that USO backstage scene.

No, the Democrats got played on this one - and yeah, they're way to easily played this way. That Breitbart chick that tried to dupe the Washington Post almost got away with it too.

Re: alabama

[Anonymous Coward]

Alabama has no statute of limitations for sexual abuse of a victim under 16 which is one of his accusations.

Character becomes a pretty strong constant somewhere between the ages of 15 and 30. Though his overt behavior may have changed, the chances that his character has changed are slim.

Re: alabama

[reboot246]

Actually, he was removed from the Alabama Supreme Court once, not twice. The second time he chose to leave to run for the U.S. Senate.

As far as the first time he was removed, he was right in what he was saying. It's just that the country had evolved SO far from what the framers of the Constitution meant, that no one, even the U.S. Supreme Court, was likely to agree with him.

When it comes to losing your job because of accusations, none of the men, including Al Franken, should have quit until the accusations were proven. Do you really want to live in a country where you have to quit your job based on accusations alone? You'd live every day in fear of somebody you may have slighted accusing you of something that might never be proven. Your life would be ruined and nothing you do would ever make up for it.

Re: alabama

[Darinbob]

For some reason, being disgraced is not enough of a reason to convince voters. Some of them like the crazy uncle style of politician. In Alabama they're single-issue voters; tell them how the candidate stands on the abortion issue and that's all they need to know.

Even the hypocrite Newt Gingrich, who turned out to be a much bigger sleazebag than Clinton, was making a comeback on the Trump coat tails. All the voters want is someone on their team who can shout and rail against the other team. No one gives a shit about what's good for the country, they just want their chosen team to win.

Re: alabama

[Hognoxious]

Over here men who knocked up underage girls weren't 'dissapeared' as much as married (hence the term shotgun wedding); Assuming, of course, he wasn't already married.

... or it wasn't prohibited due to consanguinity.

Re:alabama

[Darinbob]

So yes, the Republican leadership did insist that he withdraw from the race. But the closer the election came, and the closer the tax screwup bill vote seemed to be, the more they decided they should back Moore anyway.

Ironic, since it was not very long ago that everyone bitched that Bill Clinton didn't have the right "character", and that he was a "waffler". So here we see the Republicans waffling over a candidate of low character. They're ready to toss their dignity away for the sake of a tie breaking vote in the Senate.

Re: alabama

[iMadeGhostzilla]

"When I was in college I knew someone who intended to go into politics. He was 19 and systematically avoided anything that might prove “a problem” to his future career. What he avoided was everything that a normal 19-year-old might do. I couldn’t articulate then what I can now: I do not want to be led by someone who has led a life free of trial, error, remorse and forgiveness. I do not want to be led by anyone who hasn’t moved to the edge of the abyss because I want my leader to know what the abyss looks like and how to back away slowly. I do not want what we think of as a flawless leader, because being flawless is itself a vice. I want to be led by someone who has grappled long and hard with life. I will not list the venal sins humans are prone to, but I want the person who walks into a room with Vladimir Putin to know the demons that can drive a person. I want someone who has learned prudence, not someone whose soul was always so timid or ambitious that he never had to learn. It is a dangerous world and I want a president who knows how to be dangerous if he has to be – and knows when not to be."

https://geopoliticalfutures.co...

Re: alabama

[shmlco]

Didn't the Alabama House start debating a new law that would throw out special elections and instead allow the (Republican) Governor to appoint someone to fill the seat until the next general election?

But you're right, I wouldn't put it past them to declare the election invalid on some pretext, pass the aforementioned law, and the have the Governor appoint his designated crony.

And even more so if Jones wins...

Re: alabama

[Obfuscant]

So, he apparently committed certain heinous acts,

He didn't "apparently" commit, he "allegedly" committed. And yes, if the term being used has huge negative connotations compared to the truth, using the "technically accurate" term is the right thing to do. At least, it is the honest thing to do.

Re: alabama

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's agree ... a 15 yo girl has never been underage for hetro-sexual activity. You ever see an "innocent" 15-yo female ? Never ... until snapper-jaw Trotsky dikdykes recent-made-it-so. A juicy slab of male hating puta-baiting. Fuck-'em and the snotty SJW bitches that ride with them ! Can't help the Bantu and Semite for puzzy-snatching ... that's what they do ... But, DemoRat power-snatching ?? Frankens power-grubbing female molestation is x100 the evil of doing a bit of cradle-robbing.

Re: alabama

[physicsphairy]

"Dubious"? Which is of the victims are you accusing of lying and on what evidence? The stories are very consistent. Allegations came from people he worked with, met on the campaign trail, staffers at his Democratic office.

Upon the opening allegation by Leeann Tweeden, Al Franken acknowledged the hard evidence (a creepy photo) and called her a dirty lying *****. Well, he's not Trump, so he phrased it much better and said, "I don't remember it the same way," but the comment is still "What she's saying isn't true." Personally, I consider it quite unlikely that someone who decides they are going to make up a story about being assaulted a decade ago also just so happens to have photographic evidence of exactly that type of behavior by the accused, so I was very inclined to believe Tweeden even before other accusers came forward.

If you are wondering why Franken called for an investigation against himself, I believe the last time congress censured one of its own was over a decade ago and the last time the expelled someone was over a century-and-a-half ago. Meanwhile, the public outcry has time to defuse. It's especially a good move if you're expecting the investigation to come anyway. Ask yourself, when did Franken say he expected the investigation to clear himself of all charges? He didn't. And if he's not innocent, why does someone else need to tell him that? He's just hoping to punt the question and commute the consequences to a reprobation. Nothing particularly noble about that. Conyers thought this was quite the clever trick and did exactly the same thing when he was found out next.

In the subsequent allegation, Franken also used the "I don't remember" line.

And again on the next one. (On this one he also said "I've met tens of thousands of people and taken thousands of photographs, often in crowded and chaotic situations. I'm a warm person; I hug people. I've learned from recent stories that in some of those encounters, I crossed a line for some women — and I know that any number is too many." Yes, "I can't remember all the people I've met and groped, but just in case the takeaway is I'm a warm bubbly hugger. Oh and sorry I guess.")

  As the allegations continued and he became clearly to his party he was jeopardizing a safe seat while blunting their use of Moore and Trump, Franken eventually got forced out. In his resignation he complained that other predators got to stay while he had to leave. Obviously very contrite.

I suppose in the age of Trump people have forgotten that most politicians are downright artful in their weaseling. Sexual predators too for that matter -- being able to deflect, reframe, and appear contrite are all key tools for a serial offender trying to keep their pattern under the radar. Franken's statements were calculated and skillful. But he never actually displayed any integrity in owning up to what he was guilty of, so let's not fall for his maneuvering there.

As for "What about Moore" someone could easily construct a defense for him along the same line as yours for Franken. They could doubt the accusers (who Moore says are lying). They could say "It happened 30 years ago" (Can Franken?) They could say it was nothing against the law at the time (Can Franken?). But the fact is that both men are predators, neither deserve office, and their unethical behavior does not need to be interpreted in the framework of each other. You might as well tell the judge, "Hey, what about O.J. Simpson and that murder?" when she sentences you for not paying your taxes.

Re:alabama

[Pseudonym]

This is a myth. When you factor out the high infant mortality rate, average life expectancy in the Roman world was somewhere around the late 50s. So a little under half of everyone who made it to (say) age 10 could be expected to live into their 60s.

Re:alabama

[Anonymous Coward]

Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed. Grass on the field? PLAY BALL!

Re: alabama

[I'm New Around Here]

I roommated with a woman and her daughter once. The mother was 31 and the daughter 16. But this was in Michigan.

Re: alabama

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeOnj1Sgt8g

Re: alabama

[Kartu]

Not long before that (less than a century, closer to half a century) only rich could vote which was roughly 3% of population.

What "working" meant has also changed a lot, going from "place where you are likely to die from an accident that is also likely detrimental to your health" to nice office jobs.

WW2 has accelerated the process (commies in USSR were pushing women to work starting 1920).

Attributing "women can work now" to emancipation movements is rather naive..

Re: alabama

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, he was removed from the Alabama Supreme Court once, not twice. The second time he chose to leave to run for the U.S. Senate.

It was effectively twice. After his pointless (and cowardly) act regarding the ruling in Obergefeld v. Hodges, they suspended him till the end of his term, making it a removal in all but name.

As far as the first time he was removed, he was right in what he was saying. It's just that the country had evolved SO far from what the framers of the Constitution meant, that no one, even the U.S. Supreme Court, was likely to agree with him.

He was entirely wrong the first time, and completely and utterly hypocritical anyway since he was making a graven image to be worshiped and fawned over, which he promptly set about doing as a money-making tour after his removal. More importantly, if the Founding Fathers had wanted to make a religious theocracy, they wouldn't have decided to make it expressly forbidden to have a religious test. And they surely knew that judges should not be taking a religious stance including placing a monument in the courthouse for his own personal edification.

He was a liar, and a fraud, and while it's not the court's business to take note of this, he was actually blasphemous, meaning he was falsely proclaiming Christianity for his own self-aggrandizement.

That's wrong.

Of course, what really happened is that he was removed because of his failure to obey a lawful court order, which yes, the Founding Fathers did anticipate. And later, was a problem in Worcester v. Georgia. Sadly, what people don't realize is that Roy Moore wanted to end the rule of law and subject all of us to his personal whims and declarations, a matter of conduct that few among those who wrote the Constitution would accept, and most would quite earnestly deplore.

When it comes to losing your job because of accusations, none of the men, including Al Franken, should have quit until the accusations were proven. Do you really want to live in a country where you have to quit your job based on accusations alone? You'd live every day in fear of somebody you may have slighted accusing you of something that might never be proven. Your life would be ruined and nothing you do would ever make up for it.

People know who they are, and what they did. Some people can live in a world of complete and utter denial, others will not make that choice. Al Franken, rather than fighting a course of denial and excoriation, took a nobler course of responsibility, while Roy Moore and Donald Trump repeat their hysterical outrage of merely being accused.

They have chosen their behavior, and by their very actions, they condemn themselves.

Re: alabama

[Shirley Marquez]

Franken has already announced his intention to resign, and the governor has named his successor. He's just waiting until he can resign without dire consequences. Resigning just before the vote on the heinous Republican tax proposal would be a very bad idea, as the Republican leadership of the Senate would delay seating his replacement until after the vote and thus make it easier to pass the bill.

Re: alabama

[david_thornley]

He allegedly had sex with young teenagers, which is rape. (He has been banned from at least one mall for being seen stalking teenage women.) This is bad. This is colloquially called pedophilia, although that is not its technical meaning in psychology. Calling him an apparently child rapist would be more accurate, I suppose, but I don't see that changes the negative connotations.

Also, I'm not going to call him a child rapist without proof, but I can look at the evidence myself and decide whether to use "apparently" or not. It seems to me that he's probably guilty.

Re: alabama

[david_thornley]

"I don't remember it the same way" is not "you're a dirty lying weasel". People do indeed remember things differently. It's very likely that Franken had dealings with people that he doesn't remember. I can't remember everyone I've talked to or even touched over the past ten-year period. Franken's statements are perfectly consistent with being basically a good man who did a few bad things. You, on the other hand, have convicted him, and therefore have incentive to make up reasons why he isn't.

Meanwhile, I do know that you're misstating the photographic evidence, which you may if you wish interpret as me saying you're a malicious liar, since you don't seem to like to accept words at face value.

Who has accused Franken of raping teenagers? We agree, I suppose, in considering that forced kisses and stalking underage girls for sex are both wrong. I, however, don't see that they're equally wrong, so your false equivalency with Moore falls apart.

Re: alabama

[Obfuscant]

He allegedly had sex with young teenagers, which is rape.

Well, at least you recognize these are just allegations. Amazingly timed, poorly supported allegations. And from several decades ago, during a time in Alabama's history where 14 was considered eligible for marriage.

This is colloquially called pedophilia,

This is colloquially called "allegations".

Also, I'm not going to call him a child rapist without proof,

No, not when you expect the allegation to be sufficient to achieve the goal, you don't have to. It did work, too.

but I can look at the evidence myself

Would that include the fabricated school yearbook?

It seems to me that he's probably guilty.

He's a witch! Burn him! He turned you into a newt!

Re: alabama

[c]

"It is a dangerous world and I want a president who knows how to be dangerous if he has to be â" and knows when not to be."

So, a president with impulse control?

Well, good luck next time...

Re: alabama

[david_thornley]

What's wrong with you?

I have a perfect right to look at evidence, according to my own interpretations, and decide whether someone is probably guilty as accused or not. I have to act on tons of things without adequate information. The yearbook in question was not forged. The woman in question (I don't remember her name) had put in a few details after Moore's signature, to note when he signed it. I find it disturbing that Moore lied like that when denying an accusation.

What I do know is that Moore is known to stalk teenage women, and has been banned from a mall for that. That seems like an excellent reason not to vote for the man.

That's easy

[DontBeAMoran]

We as end customers need to figure out who is speaking on our behalf when it comes to the rules of the Internet.

Nobody.

Next question?

Re:That's easy

[penandpaper]

Next question?

What is the air velocity of an unladen swallow?

Re:That's easy

[Archangel Michael]

African or European?

Re:That's easy

[bill.pev]

I totally agree with this. NOBODY is speaking on people's behalf on the rules of the internet. Even when we [The People] speak on our own behalf in large numbers, nobody is listening.

I would add that this is ironic when you consider that this is how power talks to people. It is not a conversation with power, the promise of the web. The "world wide web" of broadcast ideas is a one way dialogue at us, and a one way collection of information from us. I'm not sure what it will take for this to change, if it can. But I'm not optimistic.

Re:That's easy

[penandpaper]

Even when we [The People] speak on our own behalf in large numbers, nobody is listening.

There is your problem. You mistake the US as a democracy and the FCC under whims of popular opinion. The government is listening to "The People" through their elected representatives in Congress and Trump. Have you ever considered that "The People" disagree and the best way to handle that disagreement is through elections which we have had (having) to decide how best the government address the concerns of "The People"? Sometimes in elections your opinion loses to the other opinion.

If the current FCC chair is so bad then Obama shouldn't have nominated him to serve in the FCC. Yes, under law he was required to nominate a republican and he was suggested by the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McTurtle (seriously looks and sounds like a turtle) but Obama didn't have to accept that recommendation and pick any other republican to fill the position.

What's the problem here and how is the government ignoring "The People"?

Re:That's easy

[I'm New Around Here]

No, no, no. Certainly "What is your favorite color?" should be next.

Re:That's easy

[penandpaper]

*looks around*.... Yes. :D

Re:That's easy

[cyberchondriac]

Hunhh? I don't know that! AAaaaiieeeeeee.....

Re:That's easy

[Immerman]

It's a fine idea. And perhaps one day it will be common to find politicians who actually wish to represent the people electing them, rather than the donors willing to offer the biggest bribes.

I'll start looking right after I catch a unicorn.

Re:That's easy

[penandpaper]

This is the part where you tell me that the people voting are too stupid to vote for their own self interests. Out of the 536 federal elections none of the constituents understand the issues like you, right?

I am confused. Are people smart enough to have their opinion matter for the FCC or are they too stupid to vote in 3 people to represent their interests at the federal level?

Re:That's easy

[david_thornley]

So you're saying that we should vote every other November and shut the hell up on the other 729 days? That we should only express our political opinions by voting for one person who represents our interests better than the other guy?

The election was not about Net Neutrality. The people voting for Trump were not voting to get screwed in favor of large businesses.

If you've spoken out on any government action, like the ACA, you're being hypocritical.

The problem is that people like you get all technical about social problems, and try to discourage any dissent.

Re:That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

>I totally agree with this. NOBODY is speaking on people's behalf on the rules of the internet. Even when we [The People] speak on our own behalf in large numbers, nobody is listening.

Nobody is speaking on the "people's" behalf because what the people have to say is dead simple: "Give me access to everything; give me unlimited content in the fastest way possible, and, like most of the stuff on the internet, give it all to me for free. If I have to pay anything, it should be for the lowest amount while still giving me everything I demanded above." The "people's" wants are not exactly hard to discern.

Re:That's easy

[Immerman]

No, I'm saying candidates interested in representing their electorate rarely get the financing necessary to run a credible campaign, and so instead everyone votes for the perceived lesser evil of the major party candidates,who clearly *don't* represent their interests except on a few hot-button topics of no interest to their corporate backers, and which they tend to remain in eternal gridlock with their opponents over - to the benefit of everyone directly involved.

And sadly, voting for the lesser evil is in fact the rational choice in this situation - it is a known weakness of first-past-the-post voting systems, and one that politicians have learned how to game extremely effectively.

Re:That's easy

[penandpaper]

Hold the phone. There is a difference in voicing your opinion about federal issues through arguments/votes and conflating a legally required open comments for a federal bureaucracy with "speak on our own behalf in large numbers, nobody is listening". The government and FCC/FTC ARE listening. If you don't believe that then you can tell me what the FTC got wrong in 2007. Seems to me they understand perfectly well the issues and what is at stake.

Go ahead and tell me why the FCC/FTC are wrong or that how you think such and such issue is important with what solution. If you convince me then I can use my vote in 3 elections to help that goal. It's slow and that is the point with federal governance. But do not expect me to follow along "nobody is listening to democracy!" bullshit. Because we are having this discussion and have been having it for decades precisely because the government is listening.

Do you see how misunderstanding and misrepresenting a legal requirement of a federal bureaucracy is not the same as voting or arguing to have your interests upheld by that bureaucracy?

It doesn't help that HOW things are done at the federal level matter. I can agree that net neutrality is important but the way it is done is MORE important.

Re:That's easy

[penandpaper]

rarely get the financing necessary to run a credible campaign

The funny thing is that the more moneyed candidates have been losing. Well financed != victory.

few hot-button topics of no interest to their corporate backers

If you are a single issue voter, so what? If a congressmen has a corporation in their district that employs many of their constituents, do you expect the employees to be favorable to that corporation in the election? It would seem like corporate welfare to an outsider but do you think the people voting would want favorable treatment of that corporation by the government and want that interest represented at the federal level?

first-past-the-post voting systems, and one that politicians have learned how to game extremely effectively.

If enough people wanted it, it would happen. Elections are ran by the state so if the those people wanted it changed it would be. It has it's flaws but so does other systems. Nothing is prefect so why change something that works well enough for the people that vote in that system?

Re:That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I'm saying candidates interested in representing their electorate rarely get the financing necessary to run a credible campaign...

So? Pick someone you like and give him money and convince your peers to do likewise, instead of donating to and voting for the usual status quo candidate.

Organize advocacy groups to talk to people, publish ads, and get out the vote. That's what that financing you refer to is largely spent on anyway. Replace the financial grease with elbow grease. Get off your ass and do something or stop your whining.

Re:That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

The government is listening to "The People" through their elected representatives in Congress and Trump.

Representatives, 38% of whom represent "safe" gerrymandered districts?

Trump, who lost the popular vote by millions?

In the words of the greatest Republican president:

we here highly resolve [...] that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth

That resolve has failed.

The people of the United States of America are now governed by and for corporations and aristocrats.

Re:That's easy

[EETech1]

We are no longer allowed to talk about issues of color, or pick favorites!

Re:That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying that

To readers: whenever a passage begins with those four words you can ignore the rest. All that comes after is a poor reconstruction intended for destruction. Not quite a strawman, but not far off either. If it were honest the author would not begin with a snarky "So you're", making the argument a personal one instead of against the ideas presented.

To the author: No. The answer to the question is always no.

Re:That's easy

[aussie_a]

America wasn't founded by people who hoped good politicians would eventually look after them. It was founded by people who tool the matter into their own hands.

The founding fathers would be disgusted by you.

Re:That's easy

[penandpaper]

Pshhh. Says you! My favorite color is clear. The most accepting of other colors. The invisible favorite of everyone's color!

Re:That's easy

[Whorhay]

No kidding. I just saw someone today vow to vote for a likely pedophile, definitely a racist, misogynistic, and homophobic senate candidate because he is more strongly pro 2nd amendment than his competition. The sad thing is I'm definitely a 2nd amendment guy, but I'd much rather risk a little more firearm regulation than see such a contemptible candidate elected.

Re:That's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

If enough people wanted it, it would happen. Elections are ran by the state so if the those people wanted it changed it would be. It has it's flaws but so does other systems. Nothing is prefect so why change something that works well enough for the people that vote in that system?

Nope. Turns out entrenched interests in state governments are widely hostile to the people effecting change, and they don't work well enough, in fact, by not working well, they are convincing of the opposite.

See how Florida's legislature had to be sued to comply with constitutional amendments to make it create fair districts, how Arizona's legislature sued to deny the people of the state's right to determine how the state's government would create districts, how Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Maryland all have court cases with documented examples of flawed and partisan districts.

Sorry, poopers, you're still stuck in the days before actual justice in government was a thing. At some point, you just want to stop looking like an idiot. Right?

Re:That's easy

[david_thornley]

A legally required open comment period should be paid attention to, which the FCC does not appear to be doing. The government agency isn't required to go with the majority of comments, but it should pay attention and address concerns.

Re:That's easy

[penandpaper]

Why would anyone waste their time with spam bots if nothing of value was added? Which concerns were not addressed in the document I linked?

Re:That's easy

[david_thornley]

Why would anyone waste their time with public opinion when there's spambots to blame comments on?

Not hypocritcal

[Tepar]

A good parallel is Uber and Lyft. They both use the same infrastructure (roads). Should they be required to support each other's services? No. They're competitors. Similarly, Google and Amazon use the same infrastructure (the Internet). Net neutrality should allow them to compete on the shared infrastructure, just as others compete on their shared infrastructure.

Re:Not hypocritcal

[fustakrakich]

Exactly. This "veteran journalist" is just demanding that Ford sells cars with Chevy engines in them.

Re:Not hypocritcal

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.dailyo.in/technolo...

No they are hypocrites.

Re:Not hypocritcal

[bigpat]

A good parallel is Uber and Lyft. They both use the same infrastructure (roads). Should they be required to support each other's services? No. They're competitors. Similarly, Google and Amazon use the same infrastructure (the Internet). Net neutrality should allow them to compete on the shared infrastructure, just as others compete on their shared infrastructure.

Agreed. There is a difference between a level playing field and having players from the other team on your team.

That said, yes this sucks for customers and customer choice and is anti-competitive for companies to be using their market position in one area to be restraining other goods and services.

I would fault both companies... where if Google have not retaliated and acted in the best interest of consumer choice I would have laid the blame squarely on Amazon.

Another reminder of why it can be bad when companies get this big.

Re:Not hypocritcal

[novakyu]

Except one and the same driver can be driving for Lyft and Uber at the same time, choosing the most convenient passenger to pick up (or for that matter, someone can have both Uber and Lyft apps on their phone at the same time).

What Google and Amazon are doing is anticompetitive. It may not match with your carefully drawn definitions of net neutrality, but what they are doing is anticompetitive (they are leveraging their market power in one market segment to help their product in another segment), which is why to nontechnical people, this seems as wrong as violations of net neutrality principles.

Re:Not hypocritcal

[OYAHHH]

A good parallel is both Amazon and Google are (and are planning even more) suckling at the government teat.

Case #1 in point, Amazon shopping it's new mega-whatever facility it is around the country with cities practically everywhere bending over backwards to give them tax credits.

Case #2 in point, Google's execs regularly fly their Boeing 767 into and out of government owned Moffett Field rather than "fight the lines" at San Jose International a mere 4 or 5 more miles down the road.

Whether it is Uber, Lyft, Google, Amazon, Comcast, or AT&T they ALL in some manner depend upon government supporting their endeavors. To think otherwise is just foolish.

Do I personally want Net Neutrality? Absolutely not. The actions of Google at Moffett Field show me exactly what happens when big business cozies up to big government. It's not pretty. And that is exactly what will happen with Net Neutrality. Big government will absolutely pick and choose the winners and the losers.

And guess what happens then? We all lose! Just like the people of Venezuela have.

I much rather Google and Amazon be forced to make it in the marketplace without being given the right to be in my "leader's" ears at a moments notice without me even knowing it.

Same goes for AT&T and Comcast, I want competition for those scarce government resources among them. Not the buddy system which government rule always devolves into at some point in time.

Re:Not hypocritcal

[Kohath]

Oh no! Car analogies are going autonomous!

The information superhighway will never be the same.

Re:Not hypocritcal

[Anonymous Coward]

The flaw in your analogy is overlooking that infrastructure roads are public, whereas the infrastructure of the internet is built on private networks. If roads were built and maintained by private entities, they would be within their rights to charge a fee for usage, a.k.a, a toll, right? But they would also be within their rights to vary the price of the toll based on the amount of usage and impact to the roads. We accept this model for toll roads, yet, for some reason, reject it for networks.

Re:Not hypocritcal

[Anonymous Coward]

Do I personally want Net Neutrality? Absolutely not. The actions of Google at Moffett Field show me exactly what happens when big business cozies up to big government. It's not pretty. And that is exactly what will happen with Net Neutrality. Big government will absolutely pick and choose the winners and the losers.

Wait, what?! Your understanding is completely ass-backwards!

The default policy under the law is you can do anything you want. It takes a law to deny you the right to do something.

Net Neutrality is the law that states precisely that Government is barred from picking and choosing anything over anything else.

That's a bit like saying you do not like murders and therefore you are against the laws that deny people the right to murder.

Re:Not hypocritcal

[swillden]

Case #2 in point, Google's execs regularly fly their Boeing 767 into and out of government owned Moffett Field rather than "fight the lines" at San Jose International a mere 4 or 5 more miles down the road.

That's not a very good example. NASA got a pretty good deal there, gaining access to regular use of the Google jets, saving them several million dollars per year, and then later $1.2B for a lease of Hangar One, saving them millions more in annual maintenance expenses in addition to the cash.

Re:Not hypocritcal

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this modded insightful ironically? Seriously, I've never read such a misunderstanding of what net neutrality it in my life.

The whole point of net neutrality is to keep the playing feild level-- there is no way to "pick winners and losers" with the open internet order.

You clearly have no understanding of the concept, you just don't want the 'dirty gubbermint" doing anything. Enjoy life under your corporate overlords. I'm sure the magical fairly land of the free market will solve all your problems despite thousands of years of evidence to the contrary... I'm looking at you child labor, slavery, worker health and safety being non-existent without regulation, meat packing industry health issues prior to regulation, railroad monopolies, telecommunication monopolies, corporate armies under the East India Company, need I go on?

I'm sure somehow in your empty head those are all the magical problem of TOO MUCH GUBBERMINT, but the reality is your a moron, and you should probably just hurry and die so the rest of us can live in a world that isn't dominated by the willfully ignorant and the greedy and opportunistic.

Re:Not hypocritcal

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, what?! Your understanding is completely ass-backwards!

No, he doesn't. The Title 2 classification as part of what is currently labeled Net Neutrality exists for government involvement in utility monopolies. To even consider applying that to ISPs means the government of two years ago was perfectly happy with the concept of ISP monopolies, and was probably pushing for the mergers and buyouts. The Title 2 rules just mean the ISP monopoly has a somewhat enumerated list of its responsibilites to the federal government. Note that the responsibilities are not intrinsically to the people, they are to the government.

If you want a government imposed monopoly with immunity to civil legal action by individuals, then you support what is currently called Net Neutrality.

Re:Not hypocritcal

[Anonymous Coward]

Case #2 in point, Google's execs regularly fly their Boeing 767 into and out of government owned Moffett Field rather than "fight the lines" at San Jose International a mere 4 or 5 more miles down the road.

NASA says Google subsidiary Planetary Ventures LLC will pay $1.16 billion in rent over 60 years for the property (from: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/google-takes-over-nasas-moffett-airfield-robot-space-research-n245561)

Re:Not hypocritcal

[dj245]

Case #2 in point, Google's execs regularly fly their Boeing 767 into and out of government owned Moffett Field rather than "fight the lines" at San Jose International a mere 4 or 5 more miles down the road.

Not sure that is a great example. Google leases the field from NASA and operates it. I've never leased an airport before, so I'm not sure if 1.16 billion dollars for a 60-year lease (and Google taking over the maintenance costs) is a good or bad deal for NASA.

Re:Not hypocritcal

[Anonymous Coward]

If I understand what you're saying, you're saying the best option is to use a ride hailing service that runs Kodi in the on-board computer. Nailed it!

Re:Not hypocritcal

[Anonymous Coward]

So... ISP's should not be forced to equally distribute their resources? Right. Got it.

Re:Not hypocritcal

[Anonymous Coward]

We accept tolls and varying prices based on the impact to the roads. Trucks are more expensive than cars because they weigh more. What we don't have are different tolls for trucks of the same weight because they are owned by different companies, or because one is carrying electronics and the other fruit.

Re:Not hypocritcal

[omnichad]

This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality and everything to do with actually making a better product. Both make products that have nearly every video content competitor out there. Except for their direct technology competitors. It's the worst kind of vendor lock-in.

No, compare this to the attack ads or lower-third crawls that your cable/satellite company runs when a local broadcast affiliate or national network wants to raise its rates - they are both being greedy and selfish and making the experience worse for the customers.

Re:Not hypocritcal

[Riceballsan]

iI'd still say that analogy is not quite right though.. while yes with uber and lyft you can install both apps on your phone. It is merely because it is your phone. Uber provides the uber app, Is there a button in that app to show lyft services inside of the uber ap? No, but of course the phone allows you to install either app without issue. That I believe is where the huge life or death difference is between these 2 issues. Your choice of ISP is determined by your location, and obviously not every location even gives you more than 1 option. You are totally free to use duckduckgo and yahoo. for whatever you want if you don't like googles services, plenty of other options. But lastly I think the biggest thing the article ignores... is do we really care how good or bad the people fighting on our side are or should we even. Fact is you don't win political battles without really rich and powerful people on your side, and for the most part.... it ain't the saints that have billions of dollars to throw at a problem. We didn't have to like the soviets to fight the nazi's, and it certianly would have made the war a lot harder for either side if we asked them to leave, or if we left ourself just because we didn't agree with the soviets on much other than... we have to stop this crap.

Re:Not hypocritcal

[jdschulteis]

Google leased Moffett Field from the government.

Re:Not hypocritcal

[jdschulteis]

The flaw in your analogy is overlooking that infrastructure roads are public, whereas the infrastructure of the internet is built on private networks. If roads were built and maintained by private entities, they would be within their rights to charge a fee for usage, a.k.a, a toll, right? But they would also be within their rights to vary the price of the toll based on the amount of usage and impact to the roads. We accept this model for toll roads, yet, for some reason, reject it for networks.

We accept higher tolls for heavier vehicles that do more damage to the road. Do you think people would accept different tolls for the same vehicle traveling the same stretch of road, based on what the destination was? Headed to Disney World? Your toll is $10. Universal Studios? $20. Going to visit both? $30. That is where we will end up without either net neutrality or a competitive market for ISPs

The cost of transferring a packet between a subscriber and the internet backbone is the same regardless of the source or destination. ISPs are going to get the right to charge more for certain packets without providing any additional value.

Re:Not hypocritcal

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, you mean that you DO want Net Neutrality, and you DON'T want it Repealed?

As of now Net Neutrality refers to the current set of rules soon to be voted to expire. Under these rules Comcast, Verizon, et al, are forced to treat ALL Internet communication traffic equally. This means that Time Warner cannot treat Hulu traffic more favorably than Netflix traffic. (Something they have already done, as well as most the others). If I want to watch Netflix because I believe it is a superior service, I and Netflix should not be strong armed by a sore-loser who wishes more people would use their service, AT THE DELIVERY LEVEL.

If Roku wants to sell a product which doesn't include Netflix in place of something they support and invested in, that is up to them. There are enough other products on the market for the free market to decide what the best practice should be. With Internet Service Providers (ISPs), there is not enough available competition due to them breaking up regions into non-competes. Got Verizon where you live? Unlikely to have Comcast, or Time Warner, or AT&T, etc. Costs are prohibitively high to prevent new offerings in these markets as well. Especially considering the other telecoms have set up regulatory pitfalls in municipalities, preventing even someone like Google from using existing telephone poles to string new fiber.

Net Neutrality really is a separate issue of individual businesses cozying up to Govt(s). Other than, the ISPs, which are the specific targeted businesses whose services are currently defined (as to be repealed) as Utilities. Those ISPs are paying government lots of money to remove that classification, and the restrictions that come with it, enabling them to charge different amounts of money, or offer different 'speeds' or levels of service, depending on the type and source of data traveling on their lines.

You seem to know something or another about this Moffett Field business, but for all you know Google is paying the Airbase/Military/Government for that use. Or they might be only allowed to use that airbase while they are operating on government contracts. Regardless, it has nothing to do with Net Neutrality or what that looks like when removed. The "Winners" and "Losers" for the battle of ISPs has already been decided, the 'cozying' is found in people like Ajit Pai. Regulatory Agency Chairman, who is a ex Verizon lawyer, and once he leaves office will certainly fill a C.O. level position in whatever ISP he set up to 'win'.

Re:Not hypocritcal

[Shotgun]

That is insightful to a point. Where the comparison trips up is that the "internet roads" are really *semi* private. They use land that was confiscated with the force of eminent domain to put up. Time-Warner, et. al., didn't go door to door making agreements with individual land owners in order to run cable lines across private property.

If that were the case, I would accept your analogy. As it is, I have to ask why the cable lines are private. IMNSHO, if the state uses eminent domain to confiscate property "for the public good", then said property and anything built upon it should remain with the state "for the public good."

Re: Not hypocritcal

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually no.

Source/destinattion costs vary. Content based costs (what is being delivered) do not.

It may cost an ISP A $X to send a packet to ISP B. So source/destination discrimination is somewhat reasonable. (though prohibited by net neutrality) Content based discrimination, such as blocking torrents, is not.

Re:Not hypocritcal

[Anonymous Coward]

It's probably more like Wal-Mart wanting Target to sell the GreatValue brand items in their stores.

Re:Not hypocritcal

[Hognoxious]

Was just going to chime in with a car analogy, but there's two good ones here.

Re:Not hypocritcal

[Anonymous Coward]

>The cost of transferring a packet between a subscriber and the internet backbone is the same regardless of the source or destination. ISPs are going to get the right to charge more for certain packets without providing any additional value.

That's ridiculous. Are you just assuming that your packets are only being transferred over your ISP's circuits? Do you even internet, bro?

As for charging more for packets, that's fine with me. I rarely watch video over the internet, so if my ISP were to offer a lower cost service providing basic access to everything, but only guaranteeing, say, low resolution (maybe 240p) video content, I'd snap that up in a minute. Like games? Well then pay for a gaming package that provides very ow latentcy networks with premium access to whatever the new hotness is in online gaming. With net neutrality, ISP's can't do that.

Re:Not hypocritcal

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, that's not how it works. You're confusing easements with eminent domain.

Re:Not hypocritcal

[Obfuscant]

Time-Warner, et. al., didn't go door to door making agreements with individual land owners in order to run cable lines across private property.

That's right. They went to the local municipality and obtained a franchise agreement allowing them access to the easements and rights of way that the government had already obtained.

They use land that was confiscated with the force of eminent domain to put up.

The implication being that Time Warner was the driving force behind the easement/rights-of-way and caused the land to be confiscated. Time Warner is a late-comer to that process.

As it is, I have to ask why the cable lines are private.

Because they belong to Time Warner or Comcast or ... who are paying the municipal authority for access to the rights-of-way.

IMNSHO, if the state uses eminent domain to confiscate property "for the public good", then said property and anything built upon it should remain with the state "for the public good."

If we had to depend on "the state" building our cable and telephone systems, we'd be a country with a lot worse internet than we have now.

Whoa

[Anonymous Coward]

I am shocked...they actually jump on SJW and Meme hotcake bandwagons like 99.9% of others on the planet? Crazy stuff.

All Businesses

[Anonymous Coward]

Are hypocrits. Let's not pretend there's a single business that actually cares about its statements.

First and foremost, they're profit driven not morally or ethically driven--those are merely side attributes they balance with consumer impression. They may be "people" legally but they have no conscious. Hell, even most people are hypocrits so it's hard for an entity composed of people not to be.

Secondly, when you're a large organization, there's no way with all the activities done that some activities and or statements do not conflict. It's inevitable that this will happen.

Re:All Businesses

[Anonymous Coward]

Are hypocrits. Let's not pretend there's a single business that actually cares about its statements.

First and foremost, they're profit driven not morally or ethically driven--those are merely side attributes they balance with consumer impression. They may be "people" legally but they have no conscious. Hell, even most people are hypocrits so it's hard for an entity composed of people not to be.

Secondly, when you're a large organization, there's no way with all the activities done that some activities and or statements do not conflict. It's inevitable that this will happen.

Is that "hypocrite" or "hypercrit" ? "Hypnocrat"? Really, you should invest in some spelling lessons.

Re:All Businesses

[I'm New Around Here]

Spoken like someone who always cheats if he can.

Re:All Businesses

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like an idiot who doesn't take advantage of existing opportunities when presented with them. You probably don't even take advantage of all tax deductions legally available to you (if you pay taxes at all you millennial putz).

Re:All Businesses

[I'm New Around Here]

Spoken like an idiot who doesn't take advantage of existing opportunities when presented with them. You probably don't even take advantage of all tax deductions legally available to you (if you pay taxes at all you millennial putz).

Millenial???? HAHAHAHAHAHA

Why would you think that in the first place?

[king neckbeard]

So to think that these purveyors of hyper-capitalism will fight for interests of consumers is not only childish, it is foolish.

Who the hell said that? Google and Amazon are acting in their own interest. On net neutrality, their interests align with ours. I'm not sure I'd call it hypocrisy, because the point is the same in both cases: corporations are going to serve their own interests, including when that has a detrimental effect on healthy competition. If you are trusting anyone to do anything else, you are a fool.

I'm happy to see people conflating this

[Anonymous Coward]

Network neutrality does not necessarily mean "service" neutrality, but people are starting to realize that even if all packets are equal (before QoS) the people that own the servers those packets travel to and from are not.

Exactly!

[Anonymous Coward]

Net Neutrality makes baby jesus cry.

Poor Article

[Anonymous Coward]

The two public proponents of network neutrality and anything but neutral about each other's services on each other's platforms.

Network neutrality is not platform neutrality. Building a gadget to run apps and building and maintaining a huge network to provide internet to millions of people are two completely different contexts.

So to think that these purveyors of hyper-capitalism will fight for interests of consumers is not only childish

What the hell is hyper capitalism? If I don't like Google or Amazon I'll buy a Roku. Or get a TV antenna. Or read a book. I don't think the author knows what capitalism is.

Re:Poor Article

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, for sure.

The difference would be seen at Google Fiber. Last I checked people on google fiber can access whatever the hell they want, no service level differences, or throttling, despite any competing products/services.

On Google Fiber: want to access vimeo instead of Youtube? You got it. Want to visit Twitch? No problem. Want to watch Amazon Video instead of Google Play? Apple Music instead of Google Play Music? Use Alexa instead of Home Assistant? No skin off their back. As an ISP their objective is to deliver internet packets at expected speeds, with as little service interruption as possible, and provide good customer service, all at competing or industry leading prices.

On Time Warner: Want to access Netflix instead of Hulu? Fuck you, get throttled to 460p shit quality and constantly buffer. Want to access Starz player instead of HBO Go? Maaaybe eff you, we own HBO so it gets faster internet. Want to read the news? CNN coming right at you.. Oh you'd like someone else? Better hope they paid us...or maybe you just get it at dial up speeds.

The proper analogies, with people bringing up cars etc. Would be, if you drive Uber you can't drive Lyft and vice versa. Then to prevent competition both companies sit down and say "I'll take New York, but you can have both Chicago AND DMV area". In those split areas if you as a passenger you can only use Uber or Lyft in your city. Then they both create regulations and contracts in each city, getting funding from the Govt, to pay for them to repave roads and add new roads (that they never did). Then Uber and Lyft jack prices up to cover 'infrastructure costs' they never paid for. Its now impossible for common citizens to use the roads, or anyone to start a new taxi service using the roads because the regulations pinch them out. Building new roads of their own, not only makes no sense in places where they already exist but is too expensive for a company with no customers yet.

In this future dystopia Uber now owns movie theaters, food restaurants, and shopping malls as well. Uber wants you to visit these places, they take you there faster, you can go to other malls, but it takes you 2x maybe 3x as long. New pet store opened up, Uber has no business at all with Pet stores, but it still means your drive is slower than it should or could have been. Some parts of town entirely blocked out uniless you are willing to pay more, even though the distance traveled isn't any further. Uber also aims to charge these shops to pay to allow customers to visit in a timely manner, if at all. So Uber gets paid 3 times for a service they before charged only once for, and at a fair rate which no longer has any control or competition.

If they are actively blacklisting...

[mark-t]

... a competitor's web browser when there's no technical reason to do so (that is, it works fine in every other equally capable browser), then that's a serious problem. If they are just not offering any support for its use on another platform, or just not allowing competitors apps on their platform, that's another matter entirely, and I see no problem with that.

Now near as I figure, Amazon did the latter... and Google responded by doing the former.

This kind of arms race is just going to fragment the 'net, and the consumers like you and me are going to the losers.

Re:If they are actively blacklisting...

[admin7087]

None of this has anything to do with Net Neutrality, though, and it's important to make people aware of the fact that whoever wrote the original story has not the slightest clue about net neutrality. It's important, because the enemies of net neutrality are aggressively pushing all kinds of false narratives about it.

Re:If they are actively blacklisting...

[Anonymous Coward]

but the WWW should also be neutral and servers should not discriminate against user agents

Re:If they are actively blacklisting...

[ScentCone]

but the WWW should also be neutral and servers should not discriminate against user agents

Why not? If I'm running a web server and don't have unlimited resources to pay for horsepower and bandwidth, why shouldn't I be able to tell my server to handle some requests differently than others if that suits me? I know why. Because you have no idea what it's like to actually pay for anything, but still want to tell other people how to run their lives.

Re:If they are actively blacklisting...

[david_thornley]

The web is being neutral. As .long as the net is neutral, neither Google nor Amazon can block the rise of competition. Google and Amazon are acting like jerks here, but companies acting like jerks is nothing new and not necessarily a problem.

Re:If they are actively blacklisting...

[GuB-42]

AFAIK, they didn't block the web browser, you can still go to youtube.com and watch all the videos (and ads).
What they blocked was the app, Amazon responded by spoofing a web browser, probably using the same technique as NewPipe, and this is what they blacklisted.

Re:If they are actively blacklisting...

[Anne Thwacks]

Nobody is saying you won't be able to do that - what the FCC wants is for your ISP to handle your traffic the way they want - as in: [Al Capone accent] nice business you have there, shame if all your traffic was to get throttled.

Re:If they are actively blacklisting...

[Aighearach]

This kind of arms race is just going to fragment the 'net, and the consumers like you and me are going to the losers.

No, consumers like you are going to be a loser.

If I don't like it, I don't buy it. Just because you're a moron and fail at your own attempts to vote with your wallet doesn't mean I made the same mistakes.

Re:If they are actively blacklisting...

[Aighearach]

Net Neutrality is not about the WWW or about servers.

It is about routers.

Internet routers should not discriminate. That is net neutrality. If a server wants to discriminate, that is just Freedom.

Re:If they are actively blacklisting...

[mark-t]

I was referring to consumers of internet service in general, not the consumers of products that might be pushed upon them.

Of course, if you are suggesting that you are intending to go without using the internet at all, then, well.... to each their own, I suppose.

Re:If they are actively blacklisting...

[mark-t]

If the app needs to spoof a browser to function, then why don't they just open up the video in a browser window in the first place? Seems like a whole lot less work, to say the least.

Re:If they are actively blacklisting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not? If I'm running a web server and don't have unlimited resources to pay for horsepower and bandwidth, why shouldn't I be able to tell my server to handle some requests differently than others if that suits me? I know why.

Actually, your big problem is that you can't identify a particular agent with any accuracy, it's easy to fake any of it, and so it serves no certain purpose.

It's well-documented as bad solution, especially when it causes issues with disability services, but also when it's revealed as an attempt to cover over some impropriety.

You're better off solving your problems, whatever they may be, and don't think nobody has noticed you haven't identified your issues, with a better method.

Because you have no idea what it's like to actually pay for anything, but still want to tell other people how to run their lives.

Actually, you're the one who wants to tell other people how to run their lives, by controlling what their web browser does.

Because you have a personal obsession with power and control that makes you the hypocrite here. Far worse than Google or Amazon, though not as bad as Comcast or AT&T.

Re:If they are actively blacklisting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Net Neutrality is not about the WWW or about servers.

It is about routers.

Internet routers should not discriminate. That is net neutrality. If a server wants to discriminate, that is just Freedom.

Your stump could use some honing. The issue is about the routers you emphasize, discriminating as you emphasize, against certain servers which you deemphasize, serving particular www content, which you deemphasize.

It's not just about routers. It's about the totality of Free Speech amongst Humanity. It's about lips, fingers and keyboards too. And porn, and DDoS attacks, and heroine sold with tor and pgp and cryptocurrency. It's about a lot of things. All of them important facets of the bigger picture. And the vast majority of voters probably have opinions about most of those things, but probably very few opinions about upstream ISP routers they have never seen or worked with directly. By narrating the issue as about these complex devices most voters know very little about, you are serving the groups that prey on an uninformed electorate.

Re:If they are actively blacklisting...

[ScentCone]

Actually, your big problem is that you can't identify a particular agent with any accuracy, it's easy to fake any of it, and so it serves no certain purpose.

The discussion of the user agent is merely an example. We could just as easily say "requests that match a certain frequency or speed or pattern of IP address use" and the issue would be the same.

Actually, you're the one who wants to tell other people how to run their lives, by controlling what their web browser does.

What? How am I controlling what their web browser does? I'm not controlling anybody else's web service or content, just mine. Their web browser can do whatever it is they want to, with whatever connectivity they find a vendor willing to sell them, under whatever terms they both agree to. That has nothing to do with whether or how I choose to dedicate some given portion of my resources that person's traffic to/from my web server.

Because you have a personal obsession with power and control

Says the person who wants the power to control how I run my web server or how I choose the network providers and services that I use to connect it to other networks. Hilarious. Just like the antifa types. "We're against fascism! And we're going to put on our matching uniforms and use organized violence to silence people who use Wrong Think in order to prove our virtue!"

Re:If they are actively blacklisting...

[Anonymous Coward]

The discussion of the user agent is merely an example.

It's a poor example, fault on both a technical and practical leve, and as such, distracts from the discussion of the issue by instead creating a strawman that is actually on fire, because it's so poor an idea that it discredits your position.

We could just as easily say "requests that match a certain frequency or speed or pattern of IP address use" and the issue would be the same.

That you'd be concocting another entirely illegitimate strawman argument with no other real effect except to invalidate your own opinions? Well, yes, that's true, you wouldn't be making your argument any different, it's still be the same flawed method that accomplishes only one thing: Making you look bad.

You should really stop, and let it go. I know you can't, you're pathologically fixated on it, but you should.

Actually, you're the one who wants to tell other people how to run their lives, by controlling what their web browser does.

What? How am I controlling what their web browser does?

How aren't you? You're insisting on having control over them, rather than letting them control and decide what their web browser does.

I'm not controlling anybody else's web service or content, just mine. Their web browser can do whatever it is they want to, with whatever connectivity they find a vendor willing to sell them, under whatever terms they both agree to. That has nothing to do with whether or how I choose to dedicate some given portion of my resources that person's traffic to/from my web server.

Nope, you're using your web server to control what their web browser can do. You just won't admit it, even though it's patently obvious. For no other reason than to satisfy your burning strawman. Because you have to remain in control of everything, yet can't admit what you're doing.

Because you have a personal obsession with power and control

Says the person who wants the power to control how I run my web server or how I choose the network providers and services that I use to connect it to other networks.

Nope. I want you not to have power over me. But you want to have power over me. I don't want that. So the only way to do that is to remove your power over me.

Don't like it? Well, like I said, you have a personal obsession with power and control, so no surprise. But you'll learn to live with it, because you have no power over me, and thus you have nothing.

Hilarious. Just like the antifa types. "We're against fascism! And we're going to put on our matching uniforms and use organized violence to silence people who use Wrong Think in order to prove our virtue!"

Still so obsessed with controlling people that you bring in yet another strawman into the discussion?

You should really get psychological help with your delusions. It's really quite pathetic how you are so unable to articulate valid and rational arguments that all you can do is set up a field of strawman arguments to raucously denounce.

It's really quite pitiful.

Re:If they are actively blacklisting...

[Aighearach]

No, that is your newsletter. I stand by what I said.

Re:If they are actively blacklisting...

[Aighearach]

Right, that's what I meant when I said "customers like you." To you it seems like refusing to use browsers that don't respect my freedom would mean not even using the internet. Whereas, I know that to be absurd; actually I'm a software developer and would sooner write my own browser than not have access, but also there are lots and lots of browser choices already. There is no reasonable scenario where a person could be forced to use a sucky browser. It is only your perception that it is so that makes it that way for you. For me, that would always be a false choice that I would refuse to consider.

I'm just fine with it

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd just as soon that the Big Five don't get too close to one another, aside from cooperation on standards, and an alliance on common interest matters such as net neutrality and climate change.

It would be a nightmare if Google passes to Microsoft everything they know about me, or vice versa.

It's a matter of importance and magnitude

[Opportunist]

YouTube on some Amazon gadget or Amazon selling some Google toy is two kids petty bickering I can easily ignore.

Net neutrality is something that WILL affect me, no matter how hard I try to ignore it being eliminated.

This smells of a rather desperate attempt to shill, after all sensible arguments have been gone for a long, long time, so what's left is whataboutism and deflection.

Re:It's a matter of importance and magnitude

[Anonymous Coward]

>Net neutrality is something that WILL affect me

Net neutrality didn't exist until 2015, and given the court challenges tying up its administration with the FCC, it has really never been put into effect. Yet, you're sure that its absence WILL affect you. You do realize that all so-called negative consequences are merely theoretical at this point, right? LOL

Re:It's a matter of importance and magnitude

[Opportunist]

With net neutrality in place, they would not even be theoretical.

Do you have fire insurance? If so, why? The risk of a fire in your house is merely theoretical, or is it on fire already?
Are you wearing seat belts when driving, despite the merely theoretical chance of an accident?

It is called avoiding a risk. An unnecessary one, even.

Good point. Not.

[Anonymous Coward]

Macy's does not tell Gimble's.

McDonald's doesn't sell the Whopper.

Coke and Pepsi have separate vending machines and coolers.

People expect that. Internet service is different. Now I know certain dishonest individuals are too partisan to accept the rest of us having the ability to discern the difference, but we can. A provider of services that depends on the public right of way is different when they are one of many common users versus the sole provider. And to be honest, there are limits the other companies can violate. That is why we have anti-trust law. Except for baseball.

not a valid comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

ISPs are meant to deliver the internet. All of it.

Retailers sell goods from a selection of suppliers.

Re:not a valid comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

and a web server is meant to deliver hyper media content to any agent, all agents

Re:not a valid comparison

[ScentCone]

No, a web server is meant to do whatever the person who bought it and provisioned it and is paying for the admin time, power, and bandwidth WANTS it to do. Just because you want to be able to tell other people what to do with their own money doesn't mean you get to.

Re:not a valid comparison

[ScentCone]

ISPs are meant to deliver the internet. All of it.

Retailers sell goods from a selection of suppliers.

This is childish, incoherent nonsense.

Hey Siri...

[Anonymous Coward]

Search the web for "Amazon Being a Dick"

Because no one is perfect

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way to avoid being a hypocrite is to never, ever have any ideals. If you're ever in favor of anything good, you'll fall short of perfection in your actions and someone will say you're a hypocrite for advocating something you don't perfectly embody yourself.

The reason they support âoeNet Neutrality

[guruevi]

Is because the current incarnation supports them and not any newcomers. Bundling, zero-rating services, higher speeds on networks exclusive to Google/Amazon/Netflix and selective data caps all while maintaining the âoecommon carrierâ status helps them a bunch. Losing Obamaâ(TM)s Net ââ(TM)Neutralityâ would level the playing field again to where they all have to play to the same rules or lose common carrier.

Bad Comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? You think that Amazon and Google should offer each others competing products? When was the last time that you could buy an Apple computer on Microsoft's Website?

This comparison is nothing like net-neutrality because neither company is a common carrier, and one does not prevent you from doing business with the other.

Re:Bad Comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

>his comparison is nothing like net-neutrality because neither company is a common carrier

Up until 2015, ISP's weren't designated as common carriers either.

Nothing to do with Net Neutrality

[ne7minder]

His complaint is valid and very much a concern but it is irrelevant to the companies position on net neutrality. This is an example of the behavior you should expect from the big providers one NN has been killed and it argues against killing NN but google's & amazon's opinion on NN is not germane to the subject

Re:Nothing to do with Net Neutrality

[ScentCone]

Net neutrality has exactly NOTHING to do with forcing retailers to sell particular goods. Where are you getting this notion?

Ungrateful FUCKS

[Anonymous Coward]

You ungrateful fucks!

Google gave us Android. Free and Open!

Stop disparaging Google as if they are on the same level as Amazon or worse Apple!

Stop being ungrateful fucks cos no other company in history has done more fucking good than Google.

Neutrality doesn't sell in the marketplace

[mysidia]

Consumers are EASILY distracted by marketing.
Of course it's NOT to the end users' benefit that you can't watch Youtube on your Echo and you can't listen to Amazon Music on your Google home.

BUT with a general purpose computer you can still listen to both.

The big telecoms want to TAKE AWAY rules protecting your freedom to use a general purpose computer to access whatever content you want at the same cost to download or upload each bit of data from your ISP no matter which service you decide to use; that way they can subsidize their own services and those of big companies that partner with them, for example: You like Netflix? Binge on Free data, as much as you want! You like Twitch? Not a partner, you're gonna have to pay per Gigabyte for that data.

Google and Amazon are not hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do we have this tendency to anthropomorphize companies? They are not people. Companies are run by sociopaths, whose only goal is to make more money, and screw everyone in the process. There is no hypocrisy here when you stop pretending companies are people.

Yes, this happens a lot these days

[Anonymous Coward]

No doubt being hypocritical is rather popular these days. The pot calling the kettle black is the norm. Don't know if this is deliberate, or these people just have no clue how hypocritical they look.

hoodwinked

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing to me that Google and Facebook have so completely hoodwinked the public into not realizing that their primary goal into supporting net neutrality is because of the threat that large ISP's pose to their business models. Once nn is gone, ISP's will be allowed to get into the analytics and advertising game in direct competition with Google and Facebook.

Make constitution enforceable on huge companies.

[Anonymous Coward]

They should extend/force the US constitution onto private companies that serve X% of the country, or perhaps value of the company. They put all sorts of rules on companies after different sizes.. make it worth something.

Want to be extra progressive? Force them to follow the US constitution when operating internationally also(if they want to do business within the USA).

Think of the problems it would solve, censorship, collecting unnecessary(for the service function) data(illegal search/etC). etc etc.

Or maybe some spin-off, a corporate constitution only for companies so large they almost should be public utilities.

Article fusses over non-issue

[Anonymous Coward]

If the device can access the Internet, it can play youtube. Apparently, the Fire is some kind of walled-garden already, so negotiations about what are in or out actually make sense. If Amazon wants youtube in their walled garden, they appease Google. Otherwise, they tear down the walls. They can get youtube either way.

Amazon's store front doesn't sell everything in the world. There are many products not listed for many reasons. There is no store-provision neutrality law nor even debate on the topic. Every online storefront in the world decides what it will and will not carry, including Amazon. If people really want Google products, they are free to buy them from Google's storefront, at the same price they would have been on Amazon anyway (and with less risk of accidentally getting a knock-off).

Re:Article fusses over non-issue

[dcollins117]

If the device can access the Internet, it can play youtube. Apparently, the Fire is some kind of walled-garden already, so negotiations about what are in or out actually make sense.

It' s very much a walled garden, with music, video, and apps pointing to Amazon Prime services and shopping for products at Amazon is very easy. You can't install apps from the Google Play store on the Fire (unless you root the device, apparently). However, there is a YouTube app available from the Amazon apps store.

*Ahem* Google Fiber anyone?

[DeplorableCodeMonkey]

They're competitors. Similarly, Google and Amazon use the same infrastructure (the Internet). Net neutrality should allow them to compete on the shared infrastructure, just as others compete on their shared infrastructure.

Google is a competitor to the big ISPs via Google Fiber. Google wants neutrality on their networks for its streaming services, but you know it's not going to scratch their backs if they want full and undiscriminated access to their networks.

Re:*Ahem* Google Fiber anyone?

[jdschulteis]

Google is a competitor to the big ISPs via Google Fiber. Google wants neutrality on their networks for its streaming services, but you know it's not going to scratch their backs if they want full and undiscriminated access to their networks.

Google Fiber serves only a few areas and last I heard had put a halt to its expansion plans.

Maybe if incumbent ISPs start upcharging for YouTube they will reconsider those plans.

Not the same issue

[sinij]

I don't have to buy Amazon products to use their services. Shopping and viewing shows from any modern computing device is still possible. I don't have to buy into Amazon gadgets to use their service.

The same cannot be said if, for example, my ISP decided that access to YouTube is not part of my internet channel package, and I have to pay $30/mo more for the privilege.

Re:Not the same issue

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no issue with Google telling you that you can't use their website unless you buy your web browser from an approved vendor?

Re:Not the same issue

[sinij]

I do have many issues with Google, but they are not nearly the same magnitude as potential tampering by my ISP.

Google can't really block any open device from accessing Youtube. How would they know I am using X and not Y unless my computing device tells them that? If I can control my computing device, I will continue being a dog.

Re:Not the same issue

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree 100% it's not the same issue as net neutrality, but that doesn't mean it won't be harmful to the customer.

What happens when you do need Amazon products to stream Amazon content? I imagine a nightmare future where everything is streaming and the average person needs 16 different HDMI dongles that stream 16 different services each with a monthly fee just to cover the content they want to view. Why? Because general purpose computers could be used to rip off the poor starving media companies.

Maybe the repeal of net neutrality will prevent this nightmare future only to supplant it with a new much more horrible nightmare future.

Roll-on, proof-reading AI

[Anonymous Coward]

The two public proponents of network neutrality and anything but neutral

You mean are anything but neutral?

Nobody proof-reads shit these days, and it's not limited only to /.

There isn't a journalistic outlet these days that doesn't consistently fuck up in the grammar and spelling departments. You know, the things that journalists are supposed to be really good at. Writing words on a page to communicate a story. No, these are not small, acceptable mistakes. Grammar and spelling is your bread-and-fucking-butter, and the whole integrity of your publication depends on it.

If you don't want to read what you're about to post, stick it on fucking Facebook.

Re:The reason they support âoeNet Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait what?

Walk with me here....

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's imagine that net neutrality gets repealed. Totally abolished. How plausible are these scenarios about what happens next?:

1) Major carriers immediately raise prices, throttle service, block stuff you want and charge a premium for it, etc.
2) People get SO pissed off by this that they team up with the pro-net-neutrality lobbiests (google, facebook, netflix, et. al.), apply political pressure, vote for candidates that vow to re-instate it, and before too long we get it back.

scenario 2:

1) Major carriers immediately raise prices, throttle service, block stuff you want and charge a premium for it, etc.
2) People get SO pissed off by this that they create real economic demand for new ISPs that promise not to do this (and are held to that promise by the FCC's recent statement that they will hold ISPs to their promises). They mount political pressure locally to roll back legislation that blocks local ISPs, and suddenly the market has new competitors.
3) the "net-neutral" ISPs get more business than the net-filtering ISPs, and the net-filtering ISPs wind up needing to become net-neutral in order to stay in the market.

scenario 3:

1) Major carriers immediately raise prices, throttle service, block stuff you want and charge a premium for it, etc.
2) People cry and complain, but do nothing, and just put up with it.
3) We live with a broken Internet forever, hating it, but completely powerless to do anything about it.

Re: Walk with me here....

[Anonymous Coward]

You got a few of the scenarios wrong.

Scenario 1 is already hapoening and the fcc is still pushing forward. You're forgetting ISPs also have lobbyists.

Scenario 2: what small isp can afford to start up competitively these days? None. Here in Canada, the big companies are forced to resell since they mostly used public funds to make their money. An FCC so against nn will not do this.

SIGH

[Anonymous Coward]

This has NOTHING to do with net neutrality.

Who said that?

[Anonymous Coward]

So to think that these purveyors of hyper-capitalism will fight for interests of consumers is not only childish, it is foolish.

Interesting strawman, considering that you probably cannot find a single person (not counting employees or owners) who has ever said anything like that, about either of those companies.

Wait, did I say "interesting?" I mean "childish and foolish."

They can be neutral and still do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Neutral means treating everyone the same, with no preferences.
If they both treat other companies the same way, they are still neutral towards each other.

Who's speaking on my behalf?

[hackwrench]

Well, the ones saying the same things I'm saying of course.

Re:The reason they support âoeNet Neutrality

[swillden]

Is because the current incarnation supports them and not any newcomers. Bundling, zero-rating services, higher speeds on networks exclusive to Google/Amazon/Netflix and selective data caps all while maintaining the âoecommon carrierâ status helps them a bunch. Losing Obamaâ(TM)s Net ââ(TM)Neutralityâ would level the playing field again to where they all have to play to the same rules or lose common carrier.

Huh? Can you please expand on that, because it seems like self-contradictory nonsense to me.

Re:unchristian about pedophilia?

[hackwrench]

Supposedly Matthew 18:6 Matthew 18:6 6"If anyone causes one of these little ones-those who believe in me-to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

the enemy of my enemy...

[Anonymous Coward]

if net neutrality benefits them and me, i don't really care why it benefits them. the battle is solely for networks treating all traffic the same. if their motivation is so they don't have to pay a premium to listen to me talk about drones and zelda... oh well. works for me.
seems like this is a battle to worry about on a different day.

So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rich hypocrite is best hypocrite.

Why this article is stupid.

[MotherErich]

There's no comparison between two internet based corporate giants throwing hissy-fits at each other and net neutrality. This is a moronic comparison. Yes, there are similarities, but to derive that either company endorsing Net Neutrality is a farce due to this scuffle is just stupid. Net neutrality is an issue because private companies hold the reins to the internet (when they shouldn't) and our pro-corporate America government wants to take away the existing blinders that prevent these companies from prancing into our living room and shitting on the carpet. The comparison here is apples to orangutans.

Bastards...

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently bought a FireStick because the Youtube client on my TV is too old to work any longer. Sure I can get a ChromeCast, but the actual remote of the Fire is a plus for some of the less techies in my household.

It just pisses me off. Why can't Amazon allow Nest plus other Google products to be sold and Google allow Youtube on the Fire. Sometimes children acting badly need a spanking. Too bad the govt. is pretty much out to lunch and is overly distracted by endless BS.

Re:Bastards...

[omnichad]

Get a Roku. For now. Before Roku tries too hard at becoming a media company in its own right. They have Youtube AND Amazon. Just nothing Apple, because they are exclusively vendor lock-in across the board.

Removal Scares Even The Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

That is because removing Net Neutrality is an act in preparation for war. The United States has made several promises in the past in regards to the Internet and failure to hold true to those is an act of war. And that is something you could use to get even the president behind on this issue. This FCC issue is an International crisis.

I have a few question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you understand how the internet works?

What's the difference between content producers and ISPs?

What specifically does NN apply to? (Hint, it's not content producers!)

Re:The reason they support âoeNet Neutrality

[david_thornley]

Um, no. You're completely wrong. With Net Neutrality, any site that wants to compete with Google and/or Amazon can reach everybody. Without Net Neutrality, Google and Amazon can work out a relationship where search engines and online stores pay some for access to the ISPs' customers, and freeze out potential competition before it starts.

can't be neutral on a Google train

[Anonymous Coward]

If Google Chromecast and Amazon Fire products perform by playing video provided by proprietary applications, the hypocrites are those who complain about "neutrality" in the context of these products.

Choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Consumers have a choice to use Amazon's or Google's products and services; both or neither.

Far too many consumers have no realistic choice in broadband ISPs.

Either internet access must be a regulated utility, or steps must be taken to ensure meaningful competition.

Frankly, when I compare my experience with meaningful competition (mobile network service) to my experience with regulated utilities (POTS, electricity, natural gas, water/sewer), I would go with regulated utility.

Strawman

[Amezick]

This is an EXCELLENT example of a strawman or false equivalency argument. Please add the tag "strawman".

Amazon hypocrisy

[acoustix]

If Amazon won't sell competing products in their store, then why do they sell iPads? Those compete against the Amazon Fire tablets, right? Amazon is full of hypocrisy.

Re:Amazon hypocrisy

[omnichad]

Because Apple doesn't have any cloud computing or API services.

Re:Amazon hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

To say that iPads compete against Fire tablets is like saying BMW competes against TaTa.

True, but...

[JDShewey]

...the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Just because Google and Amazon are the highest profile defenders of Net Neutrality doesn't make them Mother Theresa - It just so happens that their interest aligns with yours (for the moment; see: Netflix).

False equivalence

[XSportSeeker]

The analogy is stupid, badly thought out, and has no place to be compared to Net Neutrality.
Doesn't matter if the companies are fighting, you can get a Roku stick, an Apple TV, Hulu, stick to a tabletop HTPC or whatever if you don't like what Google and Amazon are offering.
This is about ISPs treating data equally without distinguishing it, not about what corporations choose to offer in their own proprietary devices.

How can people still be this stupid on this issue after how long we have been discussing this. Stop sharing moronic arguments, please.

Google Does Tit-For-Tat

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia: Tit for Tat

Google plays nice. They are open and cooperate with others.

However, if the other side decides to play nasty, then Google will return the favor.

We saw it before when Facebook would access a user's Google contact list, but wouldn't let Google access the user's Facebook contact list.
Facebook doesn't want to play nice and share? Fine, NO DATA FOR YOU.

Same thing here with Amazon. Those devices had access to YouTube, until Amazon didn't want to play nice.
Amazon doesn't want to play nice and share? Fine, NO DATA FOR YOU.

Tit for tat is the best strategy. If everybody plays nice, everybody wins.
If someone acts like a jerk, they get called on it until they play nice again.

Amazon just needs to start playing nice, and Google will return the favor.

Re:Google Does Tit-For-Tat

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is Google and Amazon allowed to play that game with each other, but ISPs are not allowed to join in? Rudolph would like a word with you out back.

Lead by example

[dabadab]

They are providing a really valuable, real life example of why net neutrality is important: because otherwise we will get shit like this Google-Amazon cat fight where the only ones that really lose are the customers.

Yeah, because ISPs == online stores

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfettered access to information and innovation is in no way equal to multinationals being able to sell products on each other's store. It's about people's access to the internet, which is essential in education, health, work, research, hobbies, politics, taxes and many other ways.

Hypocrit? I think not

[epine]

Bezos is an apex predator, who has never even pretended to not be an ignore-what-I-say planet-destroying hypocrite where his business interests were concerned. To some degree, Google really has to fight fire with fire here. I remain a long ways away from tarring Google and Amazon with the same brush.

Check out The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon (2013). Captures the general tone of the organization brilliantly.

Amazon just removed encryption from its tablet devices — March 2016

Robin Handaly, an Amazon spokesperson, pushed back on criticism of the move.

"In the fall when we released Fire OS 5, we removed some enterprise features that we found customers weren't using," Handaly wrote in an email. "All Fire tablets' communication with Amazon's cloud meet our high standards for privacy and security including appropriate use of encryption."

Their customers didn't agree, and in this instance, Amazon was forced to eat crow and restore the feature.

Amazon's customer service backdoor — January 2016

... I contacted both Amazon Retail and AWS expressing my disappointment and asking them to put a note on my account that it is at extremely high risk of being socially engineered, and that I will always be capable of logging in. Amazon Retail said they would put a note, and have a specialist contact me (who never did) while AWS was dismissive of even a risk existing.

Amazon divulged his personal information to J. Random Blackhat twice more, despite this interaction.

Amazon Advertising Executive Fired for Refusing To Lie — November 2014

A former advertising executive for Kindle is suing Amazon for wrongful dismissal. The saga begins in 2012 with the launch of the Amazon Kindle Fire Tablet. Amazon was seeking launch partners in order to build traction with their Special Offers edition. Credit card company Discover signed on, as they normally participated with pilot projects at Amazon. Then things got interesting.

A classic Bezos manoeuvre. We know how that ended.

Prince Longshank's "high counsellor" shown the exit

Back when Amazon still mailed out DVDs, Bezos probably had that scene on repeat piped through the entire building.

My files on Google's malfeasance are hardly empty, but by comparison, they tend to lack that special Braveheart touch.

How did you get a a common sense blurb like this

[Anonymous Coward]

past the /. thought police? Cool.

Re:unchristian about pedophilia?

[ShanghaiBill]

Supposedly Matthew 18:6 Matthew 18:6 6"If anyone causes one of these little ones-those who believe in me-to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

That doesn't sound like a blanket ban. Pedophilia should still be okay as long as the victim isn't a believer.

Veteran Journalist?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd think a veteran journalist could write a little more coherently. There may be a way to validate it against a grammar journal, but it's some of the sloppiest sentence structure I've seen from a supposed "professional" writer.

Good example

[Shotgun]

Hypocrites or not, this is a good example of what will happen when the telecom companies, which have a de-facto monopoly in a specific area due to infrastructure costs, have the ability to charge differently and throttle the traffic going through the 50Mbps pipe I paid for based upon where that traffic originated.

Google can eat my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Talk about nerve to whine about support for casting. I bought a Moto Z phone this summer. Great phone and I love it, except that it used to be able to do things that it no longer can, and that's all thanks to fucking Google. The phone came with Android 6 installed, and I could cast to every device that supported casting in my house, particularly my Roku. Along comes the Android 7 update, and that support is suddenly GONE. A little digging revealed that this done at Google's behest, and Google's position on this is "Chromecast, that'll work. You don't need anything else." Go fuck yourselves. I'm about ready to start wishing cancer on the children of anybody involved in steering that company.

Amazon is a reprehensible company that seems to promote literal slavery and replacing humans with any kind of robotics they can. Unlike Google, they don't even pretend to not be evil. Fuck both of those companies, they're the worst of the worst.

Re:unchristian about pedophilia?

[TemporalBeing]

Supposedly Matthew 18:6 Matthew 18:6 6"If anyone causes one of these little ones-those who believe in me-to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

That doesn't sound like a blanket ban. Pedophilia should still be okay as long as the victim isn't a believer.

and yet the text doesn't say that. The text doesn't refer to whether or not the victim "believes". It also isn't limited to pedophelia - murder, pedophelia, abuse, etc would all fall into the context of what was said, and the term used is a generic for all children.

Conflated post.

[andydread]

The poster is trying to conflate the Amazon Google battle with net neutrality in an attempt to cast them as hypocrites. I wonder did AT&T/Verizon lobby arm create this post?

This has nothing at all to do with net neutrality. What this is about is Amazon's starting a war with Google by blocking the sale of Google's products in favor of their own products and as a result Google has responded in kind after two years of doing nothing. I remember two years ago when Amazon pulled Google Chromcast from their store and blocked 3rd party vendors from selling it when they came out with their own fire stick. They have that right of course. Google did nothing for two years. Now amazon is blocking the sale of more Google products and it seems Google has had enough and decided to take drastic measures. This is an attempt to create a false equivalency between the two in which there is none. Amazon is clearly the bad actor here.

Re:unchristian about pedophilia?

[ShanghaiBill]

The text doesn't refer to whether or not the victim "believes".

Uhh ... yes it does: "those who believe in me".

If the qualification was not important, then why did J.C. include it?

Nest shows on Amazon for me

[Anonymous Coward]

Search Nest Thermostat

/me raises hand

[Anonymous Coward]

We as end customers need to figure out who is speaking on our behalf when it comes to the rules of the Internet.

Nobody.

Next question?

There are one or two of us at least, to correct you.

https://www.wired.com/2013/07/google-neutrality/

It's kind of funny, when Ryan Singel of Medium/Wired first approached me about this article, I did some due diligence and found his interesting article on cyber-drugs (mp3 audio files that allegedly were getting people 'high'). I called him out on the fact that he apparently had done no followup story in the years since that intriguing article. Thus I am not at all surprised regarding the lack of follow-on reporting of my Google Network Neutrality Hypocrisy Issue from 4+ years ago. In fact in yesterday's reference to a more mainstream 53 page complaint to the FCC about network neutrality, the concept of the Home Server seems curiously unrepresented. Though I did appreciate the weak reference to 'web hosting'.

Ugly shill submission

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly the actions of Google and Amazon are in no way parallels to the efforts of telcos to set themselves up as information highwaymen. No proper comparison at all. Not allowing Jimmy into my house is completely different from charging Jimmy a toll to go down a road he already paid for.

None of the above

[WaffleMonster]

Personally I would much rather have mega corporations fighting each other than duopolies colluding.

YouTube has jumped the shark.

[Mal-2]

Amazon may have as well, but YouTube has definitely passed its "Best Used By" date. Now they're all about bringing in that ad revenue, including extending the middle finger to longtime contributors simply because the advertisers would prefer to go in another direction. The sooner they fade into irrelevance (I don't think they'll die any time soon), the sooner we'll have to come up with an alternative or three.

YouTube should die in a Fire(TV).

vs. Movies Anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

And then there is Movies Anywhere, which just works, just about anywhere, with just about any movie, bought on just about any digital sales platform. Amazon, Google Play, iTunes, Vudu playing on Roku, Amazon Kindle/Fire, Chromecast, Apple/iOS hardware, for 20th Century Fox, Sony, Universal, Disney, & WB.

Seriously, it just works, and I don't have to worry about if we bought a physical BluRay with UltraViolet or bought online or how I want to play it, it just works.

Paramount, Lionsgate and MGM/UA aren't playing - but they will, or they'll lose out on a huge market. I know any movie by those studios is on our ban list for purchases as of now, until they get with the program.

No: Net Neutrality != Platform Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Net Neutrality is not the same as platform neutrality.

Net Neutrality means one thing only: No discrimination against IP traffic based upon the content of that traffic.

The idea would be like postal neutrality: the mail wont discriminate based on the content of your letters.

That says nothing about what the reciever of the message does after they get the content that was delivered by a common carrier.

Hence, Google is not offending net neutrality in any way here. Of course, they may be causing a problem, but it's more of an antitrust issue than a net neutrality one.

There is so much media pushing for Net Neutrality

[Tighe_L]

That I can't help but know that it's a bad thing.

That's hypocrasy.. how?

[Altrag]

It seems to me that there's a difference between:
"I'm not going to support my competitor's products"
and
"I don't want a random third party fucking up my business."

If Google was complaining about net neutrality while simultaneously blocking their services from Comcast customers (as a competitor to its Fiber brand) then they would be hypocritical. Fighting with your competitor in an unrelated market is not. At least not by any definition I've ever heard.

Of course words don't mean anything anymore in our current political environment, so who cares how they're used as long as it sounds scary. Covfefe!

Re:The reason they support âoeNet Neutrality

[guruevi]

Yes, my point is, that was what common carrier status was all about, about a decade ago at least. Then "Net Neutrality" came about which actually was a redefinition of what we understood back then to be Net Neutrality and suddenly all these providers are now bundling their data, apps and Netflix/Google is more than happy to pay for priority access to the network without any repercussions.

Google/Netflix/Amazon don't REALLY want Net Neutrality, they want government protected lines for themselves but not for the newcomers. That's why they want to "protect Net Neutrality", because going back to the old days means carriers wouldn't be able to interfere with the data packets.

Re:unchristian about pedophilia?

[TemporalBeing]

So the generally accepted reading of that passage applies it to all children. Probably in part b/c most churches do not differentiate between those children that believe and those that do not; most do not know how to determine it reliably especially at younger ages. The greek word would apply to any child all the way up to about the age of 12.

Matthew (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+18%3A6-9&version=NIV) and Mark (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+9%3A42-50&version=NIV) both provide the same reading; Luke (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+18%3A15-17&version=NIV) refers to it with less detail.

Re:Good point. Not.

[Obfuscant]

McDonald's doesn't sell the Whopper.

If you go into a McD and ask for a "whopper", they'll happily sell you their equivalent. I've done it. They laughed, asked for money, then magically a hamburger remarkably similar to a Whopper appeared on a tray in front of me.

BTW, "special sauce" is just thousand island dressing.

Typical

[Anonymous Coward]

This is typical Jewish behavior - a wall for Israel, not for the US. Immigration restrictions for Israel, not for the US. Keep Israel Jewish, turn Europe into the 3rd world. Net neutrality is nothing new - one set of rules for God's chosen, another for the unwashed masses.

It's time to nationalize social media.

I'm hungry. Hungry for fascism.

At the core of new FCC chair's argument

[Anonymous Coward]

The new FCC chairman's argument about Obama's "net neutrality" policy revolves on precisely this problem.

A handful of super-powerful internet companies (like Google) were very wired-into the Obama admin and made sure "net neutrality" was implemented so nobody else could edge into their turf while they themselves were not in any way touched by it. They control the vast majority of internet ad revenue, and handle the flow of most content, often deciding which content flows and which does not, which gets ad support and which does not, which gets labelled harmful (and therefore is never seen) and which does not, etc.

These companies have far more control of internet content, and have been repeatedly caught favoring some content over other content, while spending lots of money to push their preferred version of "net neutrality". Sadly, plenty of millenials have foolishly bought into supporting that policy. The elimination of the Obama policy simply returnns the internet to the set of rules that applied to its first 2 decades and allowed it to blossom. If anybody proposes a new "net neutrality" that is EXACTLY like the Obama one, BUT also includes Google and Facebook etc as carriers people will get fatal doses of whiplash watching how fast these highly manipulative and dishonest corporate big whigs change positions.

*sigh* No.

[Christopher Cashell]

Amazon and Google are acting like spoiled children, and behaving in a poor, customer-unfriendly way. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with Net Neutrality. If Amazon doesn't want to sell Google stuff in their store, you can go to Walmart, Best Buy, or literally a thousand other places to get it. If Google doesn't want to support Youtube on FireTV, you can use Roku, Google devices, or literally every single Smart TV on earth. You have a ton of options. This is an annoyance to customers, but that's it.

With Internet access, most people have one, maybe two viable broadband offerings. If your provider screws with you or abuses you, you have no recourse. They are often no alternatives. There is no market competition. Additionally, you may not even know that they're screwing with you (throttling).

Comparing Google and Amazon's behavior to Net Neutrality just muddies a discussion that already confuses enough people. Don't go grandstanding and getting indignant just to get clicks by trying to tie this into an important topic. It just pisses us off.

Also, neither Google nor Amazon have been big supporters of Net Neutrality in a long time. Both are big enough that they don't need Net Neutrality to protect them like the smaller players do.

They are competitors

[JohnStock]

They are competitors, so why is any of this surprising and indeed, why is it on /, ?

awareness!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi. We are a group of hackers called Golden Group and we offer hacking services for everyone. Some of our services are: - Get any password from any Email Address. - Get any password from any Facebook,spy on facebook messages,hack snapchat,track your kids phone, Twitter or Instagram account. - Cell phone hacking (whatsapp, viber, line, wechat, etc) - Grades changes (institutes and universities) - Websites hacking, pentesting. - IP addresses and people tracking. - Hacking courses and classes. Our services are the best on the market and 100% secure and discreet guaranteed. Just write us and ask for your desired service: OUR EMAIL ADDRESS: charlescyberwiz@gmail.com.

No, worse than that

[baristabrian]

More hypocritical than Muslims worshipping a "prophet" who fucked a 9-year old girl. Or pathologically partisan Democrats standing by serial grouper Slick Billy. The list goes on. GOP shills? Democratic sycophants? Go choke yourselves. YOU are the problem.

Hillary Worshipper Alert

[baristabrian]

We get it: you're a flaming Democrat.

Re:Hillary Worshipper Alert

[david_thornley]

I normally vote Democrat, but the party doesn't do that great a job of representing me. (It's far better than the Republicans at that.) I'm the sort of guy who looks at Bernie Sanders' program and considers it a very good start.

That doesn't mean that everything I type should be disregarded as the rantings of a left-wing loon, since I try to evaluate things on their merits.

In this case, I was (perhaps foolishly) replying to someone who looked at everything in the absolute worst light for Franken, and I pointed that out. From that point of view, absolutely nothing Franken could have said or done would have changed physicsphairy's opinion, meaning it was unfalsifiable and irrational.

Franken doesn't compare.

[MotherErich]

Firstly, the allegations against Franken don't compare. Shadow puppets != child molestation. Furthermore, Franken and the democrats of the senate have openly invited an ethics hearing. Moore and his supports simply refuse to acknowledge any possibility of wrong doing. Meanwhile, our glorious POTUS and his supports simply say, "we can't afford a democrat in that seat." ie, it's okay if he's a pedophile as long as he votes republican.

This level of (twisted) logic is why most democrats think most republicans are either stupid or blissfully ignorant.