8 ms·

Not sure how I feel about this. So they want to teach Ajit Pai about some of the potential consequences of killing net neutrality? I'm pretty sure he fully unde

Not sure how I feel about this. So they want to teach Ajit Pai about some of the potential consequences of killing net neutrality? I'm pretty sure he fully understands the consequences and he's most likely a puppet for the powerful forces who are hell bent on killing NN. It's worthwhile trying to understand who was behind the push to end net neutrality and how they managed to get so far. If anyone has links about this topic, feel free to share them. While a part of me would love to see what's mentioned in the conversation, I hope Cloudflare does not stray from their principle of being a utility provider and I don't want them to abuse their power to target individuals that they disagree with.

iuguy 9y ago
I agree with OP, this is dangerous ground but the CEO in question has learned nothing from prior dangerous activity. This is the same cloudflare CEO that decided it was going to arbitrarily block the Daily Stormer because he woke up in a bad mood. If people support net neutrality, they're against peoples' Internet connectivity being interfered with by corporations, and by extension they're against this. If they support interfering with Ajit Pai's connectivity, then they're by extension against net neutrality.
- vidarh 9y ago
  It's possible to think that putting these restrictions on Ajit Pai's connectivity on a permanent basis would be a bad thing and still think that putting them in place on a temporary basis is reasonable political activism. The damage of doing so is extremely limited, while the damage he is proposing to do to the entire US is far more extensive. I agree with you it's problematic that Cloudflare's CEO has this power. But the solution to that is not to complain that he has this power, but to make sure the rules prevent him exercising them... Enforcing net neutrality would be a start.
- kazagistar 9y ago
  > If people support net neutrality, they're against peoples' Internet connectivity being interfered with by corporations No, I'm against throttling extortion being used by powerful actors for selfish, monopolistic reasons. Not every act of throttling is inherently evil or something, it's just bad because of the damages it causes. So some acts (like throttling people who have the power to affect policy to show them the dangers of deregulation) are perfectly acceptable morally. However, I also belive in due process and just laws, so ideally, which is why it makes sense to have laws in place that prevent all Internet throttling extortion, regardless of the objectives, so that they may be simple and enforceable without loopholes. Just because you want something prohibited does not mean you think all instances of that act are wrong. Just that we would be far better off with the law then without it.

iuguy 9y ago

I agree with OP, this is dangerous ground but the CEO in question has learned nothing from prior dangerous activity. This is the same cloudflare CEO that decided it was going to arbitrarily block the Daily Stormer because he woke up in a bad mood. If people support net neutrality, they're against peoples' Internet connectivity being interfered with by corporations, and by extension they're against this. If they support interfering with Ajit Pai's connectivity, then they're by extension against net neutrality.

vidarh 9y ago
It's possible to think that putting these restrictions on Ajit Pai's connectivity on a permanent basis would be a bad thing and still think that putting them in place on a temporary basis is reasonable political activism. The damage of doing so is extremely limited, while the damage he is proposing to do to the entire US is far more extensive. I agree with you it's problematic that Cloudflare's CEO has this power. But the solution to that is not to complain that he has this power, but to make sure the rules prevent him exercising them... Enforcing net neutrality would be a start.
kazagistar 9y ago
> If people support net neutrality, they're against peoples' Internet connectivity being interfered with by corporations No, I'm against throttling extortion being used by powerful actors for selfish, monopolistic reasons. Not every act of throttling is inherently evil or something, it's just bad because of the damages it causes. So some acts (like throttling people who have the power to affect policy to show them the dangers of deregulation) are perfectly acceptable morally. However, I also belive in due process and just laws, so ideally, which is why it makes sense to have laws in place that prevent all Internet throttling extortion, regardless of the objectives, so that they may be simple and enforceable without loopholes. Just because you want something prohibited does not mean you think all instances of that act are wrong. Just that we would be far better off with the law then without it.