This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I've been seeing media reports (1) about ISPs asking for companies (especially companies that use a lot of bandwidth like Netflix) to pay for network infrastructure. A quick google led me to a number of articles (2,3,{1}) that read something like:
"Large corporate bandwidth user resists efforts by ISPs or governments to make them pay for bandwidth use" (this is a little bit flippant, but isn't all that far from the truth).
My intuitive response is that users of bandwidth should pay for it, including large companies. This seems fairly straightforward, right?
Another article (4) mentioned that "net neutrality" is the idea that prevents ISPs from charging their customers. How is this defensible?
Another quick google leads me to this article (5) which mentions that one advantage of net neutrality is freedom of speech (which the modal mottizen might be inclined to support), but this goes against the straightforward argument that customers (e.g., Netflix) of a service (network infra providers) should pay for it. What gives?
Sources:
This week (mar-2023): https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/netflix-fights-attempt-to-make-streaming-firms-pay-for-isp-network-upgrades/
More than a year ago (sep-2022): https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/09/google-fights-latest-attempt-to-have-big-tech-pay-for-isps-network-upgrades/
More than 10 years ago (feb-2011): https://www.osnews.com/story/24357/internet-infrastructure-who-should-pay/
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/who-pays-internet-infrastructure-simon-dillsworth/
https://www.itpro.com/strategy/28115/the-pros-and-cons-of-net-neutrality
I hadn't heard about this argument in a while and the comments on your first link reminded me why: Comcast won in the US and got Netflix to pay them money because the US regulators failed to do anything about it. In addition to the double-dipping argument mentioned by another reply, it's important to highlight all of these costs are entirely artificial. Everyone could save a lot of money by the ISPs not refusing to rent space in their datacenters to Netflix, since Netflix's service actually requires almost zero Internet bandwidth due to nearly all of their bandwidth being them sending the exact same data to multiple customers, so more local caches improve their efficiency a lot. Comcast (and other ISPs with their own TV/video interests) is artificially greatly increasing the amount of Internet bandwidth Netflix needs because their parent company owns competitors to Netflix.
The economics of internet infrastructure are weird. Companies at the core (Tier 1) don't pay for connectivity to each other at all. They get paid by Tier 2 and 3 networks that can't summon the requisite connections and data flow to qualify.
Honestly, the fact that a decentralized Internet with global connectivity to almost everyone works is quite the technical and political feat.
But yes the fact that Comcast, part owner of competitor Hulu and cable TV operator, can do this is probably a tad disappointing.
Yeah, which is why I'm not entirely sure if Netflix or Comcast is right on the "double-dipping" claim.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link