Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Net Neutrality Gave Us Shadow Banning

 

Where are the liberal free speech advocates? Conservative thought is being silenced. Silicon Valley’s powerful programmers are hiding voices with which they politically disagree by using statist-like media restrictions not dissimilar from North Korea. Kim Jong Un approves. Just this week we saw two new examples:

Project Veritas latest investigation demonstrates Twitter’s shadow banning of conservative accounts:

Twitter Engineers To “Ban a Way of Talking” Through “Shadow Banning,” Algorithms to Censor Opposing Political Opinions”. This results in far fewer people seeing conservative Twitter accounts.

Daily Wire reports:

Google Targets Daily Wire, Other Conservative Sites With Left-Wing Fact Checks, Immunizes Left-Wing Sites. Suffice it to say that the use of left-wing fact-checkers as truth police is a massive step in favor of media bias, not against it.

Free market advocates, like myself, firmly believe government control of a product or service reduces competition, decreases quality while increasing pricing. In deregulated markets such as airlines and telecoms, we have seen more options, which increase quality all while allowing lower prices for consumers.

We complain about the paying for luggage or pillows, but the reality is the cost of airfare is still very affordable. Low-cost carriers turned the antiquated airline industry on its head and while you probably hate Spirit Air, they do a service in keeping United and Delta in check.

And when was the last time you screamed at your kids for calling another area code?

When the powerful elite entices government to put its thumb on the scale, the state ends up picking winners and losers. Today’s winners are our Silicon Valley betters who dictate progressive values through suppression of any Deplorable’s alternative thought, quite possibly yours.

YouTube (Google), Facebook and arguably Twitter own the marketplace of user-created content. When programmers are politically motivated to silence your voice, you have little recourse. Currently, there are no other content platforms of comparable reach. Everyone needs to be on the big three.

For small/medium size content providers, the ability to rise above the noise has always been the challenge and Net Neutrality made it harder to remain financially viable. But now with the repeal of Net Neutrality, producers of content, whether a blog, podcast, or video service now have the ability to compete with the behemoths like YouTube and Facebook. In fact, internet service providers will start offering their own video hosting sites to creators of content and, as free-markets always do, provide more options, at a lesser cost.

ISP’s now have the freedom to determine pricing structures that best suit their own business model, as opposed to working around the states one-size-fits-all. If you are Google or Facebook, which many now compare to utilities, you were very happy with preventing serious competition. But if ISP’s can now launch their own versions of YouTube for their own customers at faster speeds with less ideological programming, suddenly there are more options.

The biggest complaint by activists against the repeal of Net Neutrality is that ISP’s who choose to create their own platform for their users may in-turn increase pricing to users who wish to access YouTube. That this may result in fewer people watching Honest Trailers (one of my favorites) on YouTube, thus YouTube loses ad revenue, as does Screen Junkies (the producers).

But, in free markets, water always finds it’s own level. Content creators such as Screen Junkies will have more choices where to put their content, which may include smaller, but more cost-effective platforms. Those platforms then grow and, voilà, more competition to YouTube. It’s then likely YouTube, no longer a monopoly, will have to adapt or die.

Small/medium-sized content creators will likely leave YouTube and Twitter, or at least spend fewer resources on those platforms and spread their investment over multiple outlets.

Whether or not Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe’s new investigation catches a gust of wind and results in change, it’s important to remember that due to the repeal of Net Neutrality, free markets can provide us the power to fight back.

There are 53 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Randy Webster Member

    So what YouTube, Google, and Twitter want is to be able to restrict content for political reasons, but to disallow the ISP’s doing it for economic reasons.

    • #1
    • January 11, 2018, at 2:55 PM PST
    • 15 likes
  2. Judge Mental Member

    Randy Webster (View Comment):
    So what YouTube, Google, and Twitter want is to be able to restrict content for political reasons, but to disallow the ISP’s doing it for economic reasons.

    But that’s different. Profit is evil, but their hearts are pure.

    • #2
    • January 11, 2018, at 3:00 PM PST
    • 15 likes
  3. Randy Webster Member

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):
    So what YouTube, Google, and Twitter want is to be able to restrict content for political reasons, but to disallow the ISP’s doing it for economic reasons.

    But that’s different. Profit is evil, but their hearts are pure.

    Sometimes I forget.

    • #3
    • January 11, 2018, at 3:03 PM PST
    • 7 likes
  4. RightAngles Member

    One of the biggest problems about this whole thing is the misunderstanding of it on the part of so many young people. @spin wrote an effective explanation of Net Neutrality that should be read by all these idiot SJWs who oppose it based on their shoddy understanding of what it all means. I can’t recall if I saw Spin’s article here or on Facebook, but it should be required reading.

    • #4
    • January 11, 2018, at 3:11 PM PST
    • 6 likes
  5. Dave Sussman Contributor
    Dave Sussman

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    One of the biggest problems about this whole thing is the misunderstanding of it on the part of so many young people. @spin wrote an effective explanation of Net Neutrality that should be read by all these idiot SJWs who oppose it based on their shoddy understanding of what it all means. I can’t recall if I saw Spin’s article here or on Facebook, but it should be required reading.

    Would love to read it, if you can provide the link.

    • #5
    • January 11, 2018, at 3:22 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  6. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    I was able to turn my 15 year old around on NN just by telling him who paid for the lines in the ground and then how they get used. Get got it.

    • #6
    • January 11, 2018, at 3:44 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  7. RightAngles Member

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    One of the biggest problems about this whole thing is the misunderstanding of it on the part of so many young people. @spin wrote an effective explanation of Net Neutrality that should be read by all these idiot SJWs who oppose it based on their shoddy understanding of what it all means. I can’t recall if I saw Spin’s article here or on Facebook, but it should be required reading.

    Would love to read it, if you can provide the link.

    Found it – it was a Ricochet post:

    https://ricochet.com/477269/net-neutrality-a-guy-in-the-trenches/

    • #7
    • January 11, 2018, at 3:46 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  8. ctlaw Coolidge

    Dave Sussman: For small/medium size content providers, the ability to rise above the noise has always been the challenge and Net Neutrality made it harder to remain financially viable.

    Please explain.

    But now with the repeal of NetNeutrality, producers of content, whether a blog, podcast, or video service now have the ability to compete with the behemoths like YouTube and Facebook.

    How?

    In fact, internet service providers will start offering their own video hosting sites to creators of content and, as free-markets always do, provide more options, at a lesser cost.

    What is preventing this now?

    ISP’s now have the freedom to determine pricing structures that best suit their own business model, as opposed to working around the states one-size-fits-all. If you are Google or Facebook, which many now compare to utilities, you were very happy with preventing serious competition. But if ISP’s can now launch their own versions of YouTube for their own customers at faster speeds with less ideological programming, suddenly there are more options.

    Under Net Neutrality, @davidsussman could start a service to compete with youtube and the local ISPs could not crush him. Now the ISPs can. The ISP becomes the monopolist. Should the phone company or gas company get to charge you whatever it wants? BTW, in terms of censorship issues, is there anything worse than an entity that needs to suck up to government to get its franchies renewed?

    Dave Sussman: The biggest complaint by activists against the repeal of NetNeutrality is that ISP’s who choose to create their own platform for their users may in-turn increase pricing to users who wish to access YouTube. That this may result in fewer people watching Honest Trailers (one of my favorites) on YouTube, thus YouTube loses ad revenue, as does Screen Junkies (the producers).

    I see no reason why they won’t be even more prone to censorship than google, etc.

    But, in free-markets, water always finds it’s own level. Content creators such as Screen Junkies will have more choices where to put their content, which may include smaller, but more cost-effective platforms. Those platforms then grow, and voila’, more competition to YouTube. It’s then likely YouTube, no longer a monopoly will have to adapt or die.

    How? What is stopping those small platforms now? Why won’t the ISPs keep them down?

    Small/medium sized content creators will likely leave YouTube and Twitter, or at least spend fewer resources on those platforms and spread their investment over multiple outlets.

    Again, where are these outlets coming from (other than just having to deal with 50 different local monopolist ISP holding companies in different areas)?

    • #8
    • January 11, 2018, at 4:12 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  9. Susan Quinn Contributor

    I’d love to see this start and spread. I think that if some regular producers who get grief on youtube would help get the new platforms going, like Prager University. If organizations that use youtube a lot would promote this idea, we can help the new guys get going. I hope I understand this correctly!

    • #9
    • January 11, 2018, at 4:13 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  10. RightAngles Member

    And will someone please explain to these people what fascism actually looks like.

    • #10
    • January 11, 2018, at 4:18 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  11. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Dave Sussman: For small/medium size content providers, the ability to rise above the noise has always been the challenge and Net Neutrality made it harder to remain financially viable.

    Please explain.

    But now with the repeal of NetNeutrality, producers of content, whether a blog, podcast, or video service now have the ability to compete with the behemoths like YouTube and Facebook.

    How?

    In fact, internet service providers will start offering their own video hosting sites to creators of content and, as free-markets always do, provide more options, at a lesser cost.

    What is preventing this now?

    ISP’s now have the freedom to determine pricing structures that best suit their own business model, as opposed to working around the states one-size-fits-all. If you are Google or Facebook, which many now compare to utilities, you were very happy with preventing serious competition. But if ISP’s can now launch their own versions of YouTube for their own customers at faster speeds with less ideological programming, suddenly there are more options.

    Under Net Neutrality, @davidsussman could start a service to compete with youtube and the local ISPs could not crush him. Now the ISPs can. The ISP becomes the monopolist. Should the phone company or gas company get to charge you whatever it wants? BTW, in terms of censorship issues, is there anything worse than an entity that needs to suck up to government to get its franchies renewed?

    Dave Sussman: The biggest complaint by activists against the repeal of NetNeutrality is that ISP’s who choose to create their own platform for their users may in-turn increase pricing to users who wish to access YouTube. That this may result in fewer people watching Honest Trailers (one of my favorites) on YouTube, thus YouTube loses ad revenue, as does Screen Junkies (the producers).

    I see no reason why they won’t be even more prone to censorship than google, etc.

    But, in free-markets, water always finds it’s own level. Content creators such as Screen Junkies will have more choices where to put their content, which may include smaller, but more cost-effective platforms. Those platforms then grow, and voila’, more competition to YouTube. It’s then likely YouTube, no longer a monopoly will have to adapt or die.

    How? What is stopping those small platforms now? Why won’t the ISPs keep them down?

    Small/medium sized content creators will likely leave YouTube and Twitter, or at least spend fewer resources on those platforms and spread their investment over multiple outlets.

    Again, where are these outlets coming from (other than just having to deal with 50 different local monopolist ISP holding companies in different areas)?

    If the ISP built all the lines and owns them, then they should have control of them.

    • #11
    • January 11, 2018, at 4:20 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  12. ctlaw Coolidge

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    If the ISP built all the lines and owns them, then they should have control of them.

    They built them under a contract that gives them a renewable monopoly franchise and gives the municipalities authority to approve terms.

    • #12
    • January 11, 2018, at 4:27 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  13. Dave Sussman Contributor
    Dave Sussman

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    One of the biggest problems about this whole thing is the misunderstanding of it on the part of so many young people. @spin wrote an effective explanation of Net Neutrality that should be read by all these idiot SJWs who oppose it based on their shoddy understanding of what it all means. I can’t recall if I saw Spin’s article here or on Facebook, but it should be required reading.

    Would love to read it, if you can provide the link.

    Found it – it was a Ricochet post:

    https://ricochet.com/477269/net-neutrality-a-guy-in-the-trenches/

    This was excellent. Sending it to my 17 y.o.

    • #13
    • January 11, 2018, at 4:33 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  14. tigerlily Member

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    And will someone please explain to these people what fascism actually looks like.

    Jonah Goldberg was right. It will come here in the US with a smiley face as it has at Google, YouTube et al., all in the name of the greater good.

    • #14
    • January 11, 2018, at 4:37 PM PST
    • 8 likes
  15. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    If the ISP built all the lines and owns them, then they should have control of them.

    They built them under a contract that gives them a renewable monopoly franchise and gives the municipalities authority to approve terms.

    Marietta contracted with Comcast and ATT to run cable into my home?

    • #15
    • January 11, 2018, at 4:43 PM PST
    • 1 like
  16. Mountie Member

    I can tell you the exact day that I quit looking at Twitter. March 1st, 2012. The day Andrew Breitbart died and the most vile disgusting slime perculated up from the bowels within the sub strata of the internet and rejoiced at his death. I haven’t been back since that day. My life has been fine and I don’t feel the slightest bit disadvantaged.

    • #16
    • January 11, 2018, at 4:46 PM PST
    • 7 likes
  17. ctlaw Coolidge

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    If the ISP built all the lines and owns them, then they should have control of them.

    They built them under a contract that gives them a renewable monopoly franchise and gives the municipalities authority to approve terms.

    Marietta contracted with Comcast and ATT to run cable into my home?

    Do you think CTLaw, Inc. could just run cable to your house without contracting with Marietta?

    • #17
    • January 11, 2018, at 4:50 PM PST
    • Like
  18. Mountie Member

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    And will someone please explain to these people what fascism actually looks like.


    When I was in high school, lo those many years ago, my history teacher had fought the facist in World War 2. He never refered to the the Germans as Nazi’s. He referred to them as National Socialist with an emphasis on the word Socialist. I’d just be happy if people would acknowledge the historical background of fascism.

    • #18
    • January 11, 2018, at 4:51 PM PST
    • 9 likes
  19. Judge Mental Member

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    If the ISP built all the lines and owns them, then they should have control of them.

    They built them under a contract that gives them a renewable monopoly franchise and gives the municipalities authority to approve terms.

    Marietta contracted with Comcast and ATT to run cable into my home?

    Do you think CTLaw, Inc. could just run cable to your house without contracting with Marietta?

    Wasn’t there a court order preventing you from doing that again? ;-)

    • #19
    • January 11, 2018, at 4:51 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  20. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    If the ISP built all the lines and owns them, then they should have control of them.

    They built them under a contract that gives them a renewable monopoly franchise and gives the municipalities authority to approve terms.

    Marietta contracted with Comcast and ATT to run cable into my home?

    Do you think CTLaw, Inc. could just run cable to your house without contracting with Marietta?

    I don’t know what to think, other than Verizon and Google also lay cable in these here parts (though not to my home).

    • #20
    • January 11, 2018, at 5:00 PM PST
    • 1 like
  21. Spin Coolidge
    Spin Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    If the ISP built all the lines and owns them, then they should have control of them.

    They built them under a contract that gives them a renewable monopoly franchise and gives the municipalities authority to approve terms.

    Marietta contracted with Comcast and ATT to run cable into my home?

    It really depends on the technology you are talking about, but there is a ton of problem wrapped up in the fact that not all cable operators can provide cabling in all locations. This needs to be fixed, for sure. But I’ll just say again: this industry is changing dramatically, and even the experts who work in it all day every day aren’t sure where we end up in 5 years, let alone 10. Net Neutrality applies yesterdays thinking to tomorrows technology. It was wrong headed, and I hope it stays gone.

    • #21
    • January 11, 2018, at 5:00 PM PST
    • 11 likes
  22. harrisventures Coolidge

    How to Get Kicked Off YouTube – By Colin Flaherty

    He writes on the disproportionate criminal mischief done by 13% of the population. So of course he’s banned from YouTube.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/01/hot_to_get_kicked_off_youtube.html

    He recommends https://www.minds.com/

    I think there will be plenty of competition soon enough. Of course https://gab.ai/ is a good twitter substitute.

    • #22
    • January 11, 2018, at 5:01 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  23. Spin Coolidge
    Spin Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    If the ISP built all the lines and owns them, then they should have control of them.

    They built them under a contract that gives them a renewable monopoly franchise and gives the municipalities authority to approve terms.

    Marietta contracted with Comcast and ATT to run cable into my home?

    Do you think CTLaw, Inc. could just run cable to your house without contracting with Marietta?

    I don’t know about Marietta. I am in the process of moving coax and fiber from one spot to another. The county has to give a permit, but the poles are owned by the local power company. Well, some of them are owned by us, but the point is, the cable running in the public thoroughfare doesn’t require a “contract” with the county or the city. A permit yes, but not a contract.

    • #23
    • January 11, 2018, at 5:03 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  24. ctlaw Coolidge

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    If the ISP built all the lines and owns them, then they should have control of them.

    They built them under a contract that gives them a renewable monopoly franchise and gives the municipalities authority to approve terms.

    Marietta contracted with Comcast and ATT to run cable into my home?

    Do you think CTLaw, Inc. could just run cable to your house without contracting with Marietta?

    Wasn’t there a court order preventing you from doing that again? ;-)

    That was a restraining order by a woman named Marietta.

    • #24
    • January 11, 2018, at 5:14 PM PST
    • 6 likes
  25. ctlaw Coolidge

    Spin (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    If the ISP built all the lines and owns them, then they should have control of them.

    They built them under a contract that gives them a renewable monopoly franchise and gives the municipalities authority to approve terms.

    Marietta contracted with Comcast and ATT to run cable into my home?

    Do you think CTLaw, Inc. could just run cable to your house without contracting with Marietta?

    I don’t know about Marietta. I am in the process of moving coax and fiber from one spot to another. The county has to give a permit, but the poles are owned by the local power company. Well, some of them are owned by us, but the point is, the cable running in the public thoroughfare doesn’t require a “contract” with the county or the city. A permit yes, but not a contract.

    Are you sure? So I could start my cable company down there without any city franchise?

    • #25
    • January 11, 2018, at 5:16 PM PST
    • Like
  26. Dave Sussman Contributor
    Dave Sussman

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Dave Sussman: For small/medium size content providers, the ability to rise above the noise has always been the challenge and Net Neutrality made it harder to remain financially viable.

    Please explain.

    CT, all good questions, unfort. heading out to dinner, but wanted to point you to a great piece from an IT pro that answers many of your questions. Written 4 weeks ago.

    First, I will say this. Smaller players getting a foothold in any industry is always hard. But NN made it harder as they added hundreds of pages of red tape which prevent aggressive businesses from providing features and options for customers which would otherwise be popular. Example from the same IT Pro: T-Mobile’s “Binge On”.

    T-Mobile’s Binge On: If Upheld, Net Neutrality Would Make This Illegal

    Another area that trips up my pro-Net Neutrality comrades is their uneasy skirting around the raw fact that awesome innovations which benefit customers would be the first things killed off if the FCC upholds these crazy regulations.

    Case in point number one, and something many netizens are aware of, is T-Mobile’s Binge On. The aggressive cell service provider advertises this value-add for their customers as a way to use specifically chosen media services without nicking one’s overall data allotment. Content juggernauts like YouTube, Amazon Video, and Netflix can be consumed nonstop on T-Mobile phones due to what is known as a technical “zero rating” from the cell carrier for that tagged content.

    Many of my techie friends brag about this capability and indeed a number of them chose T-Mobile solely because of this benefit. I’m personally on Google’s Project Fi cell service and can’t take advantage of this (yes, jealous at times). If you’re a heavy media consumer of these certain content providers, then T-Mobile is a darn good deal for a large number of subscribers.

    But according to many outlets, including industry watchdog the EFF, Binge On is a clear violation of Net Neutrality rules because it is nothing more than an obfuscated throttling scheme. While those users who love eating up gigabytes worth of Netflix on the go may disagree, T-Mobile is in essence picking “winners and losers” in the media consumption war because its subscribers are being given preferential treatment for using Binge On-approved services.

    Cheers.

    • #26
    • January 11, 2018, at 5:32 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  27. The Reticulator Member

    ctlaw (View Comment):
    I see no reason why they won’t be even more prone to censorship than google, etc.

    Very good comment. I also don’t see how repealing Net Neutrality helps here. I don’t see how having Net Neutrality helps, either. I’m not 100 percent sure about this, but I suspect the only thing that will help maintain political diversity is chaos, i.e. allowing states and localities to do their own regulation.

    • #27
    • January 11, 2018, at 6:14 PM PST
    • 1 like
  28. Jules PA Member

    Following this thread.

    • #28
    • January 11, 2018, at 8:15 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  29. Spin Coolidge
    Spin Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Jules PA (View Comment):
    Following this thread.

    Thanks for letting us know. We will refrain from commenting further.

    • #29
    • January 12, 2018, at 6:20 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  30. GFHandle Member

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):
    Would love to read it, if you can provide the link.

    Here you go

    https://ricochet.com/477269/net-neutrality-a-guy-in-the-trenches/comment-page-2/#comment-4011376

    • #30
    • January 12, 2018, at 2:09 PM PST
    • Like

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.