Pai: Twitter Is Bigger Threat to Open Net Than ISPs (opens in new tab)

He spoke for an extended period, and this was one argument among many. Arguably, when Pai was speaking about Twitter, he was talking not about the net neutrality issue, but about threats to free speech on the web. (That is, he was making a response to arguments from net-neutrality advocates that net-neut enables a freer and more open forum for political debate on the web.)

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

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

I don't like his argument.

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

Though I agree full with Pai's statement:

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

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

What a stupid point of view, because the entire point of net neutrality (title 2 or otherwise) is to ensure that it's possible for twitter et al to be overthrown by an upstart who gets a level playing field wrt Internet traffic.

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

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

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

whataboutism.

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

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

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

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

edit - added links typos

It's a conflation of two separate issues.

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

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

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

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

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

"Twitter Is Bigger Threat to Open Net Than ISPs"

So he admits ISPs are a threat?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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