dingoonline

There aren't marketing advantages in markets who have no other choice for ISP.

Title II is an 80 year old telephone rule that was stretched and deformed to fit the internet. Congress needs to pass real legislation that's specific to the needs of the internet.

"But the offer alarmed Swedish media companies, which warned that the deal gave Facebook an advantage over competitors, and Telia an edge over other telecom operators."

ISP's have a million and one other ways to be anti-competitive. Example, in New Zealand, one of the major ISP's runs 'Lightbox' a streaming competitor. If you sign up to any of their plans, you get free Lightbox.

This incentives the customer to not use other streaming services. You can talk about zero-rating all day long but no amount of neutrality regulation will prevent something like the example above from happening. What happens if Comcast decides that Hulu Plus will be free with their broadband? It has the same effect as if Comcast decided to zero-rate Hulu on their network.

For their to be real changes in the American ISP market, you need competition.

Just installed. Everything seems to be stable enough. A few little niggles, on Android, the OPML export is a bit finnicky. I was using Pocket Casts and it pops up a Share menu for you to export so I had to export to my file manager first before then selecting it. The app's interface is functional but could do with some polishing, for example, you can't rearrange your set of favorite podcasts.

Biggest annoyance for me thus far is loading speed. It always takes at least a second or so to load up a page. Seems like a small thing but it has an impact overall.

The data doesn't need to be kept though. It can be requested, checked, verified and erased.

It was such a stupid decision for them to combine their opinion and editorial section with Comment Is Free. The latter being pretty trashy most of the time.

> It isn't news. It's propaganda. NYTimes and WaPo have been spearheading a political/propaganda campaign against social media ( fb, reddit, youtube, etc ) to reign them in. Traditional media has been trying to get social media to fall in line for nearly a decade.

This gives these media companies way too much credit. If they had this much self-awareness and intelligence they wouldn't have been caught out by the rise of social media in the first place.

"Traditional media" has had hundreds of years to get it's business model down and comfortably integrated into society, so of course new media is having the lion's share of the problems which is being reported on. This should all be totally obvious and expected - it's not really a massive conspiracy - it's innovative business models forcing new problems into the open. Facebook, YouTube and Twitter have been in the public consciousness for less than 15 years.

I'm still curious as to how this system works. Don't institutions have logs that would show someone researching topics wildly outside of their field of study?