Chris Castle makes 3–no wait–2 points

Responding to my comments, Chris Castle really, really wants to make three points:

First, I’d probably pay more attention to you, whoever you are, if you would sign a real name to just one of your various posts.

Second, you take the point out of context–the parasitic behavior is the trading of illegal copies. I’ve never had a problem with the technology, just the behavior. If what you’re doing is legal, then you can explain yourself to your ISP and you should be able to continue using your account although you may have to pay a higher rate for bandwidth. If you don’t like paying for your bandwidth usage, I’m sure there will be some ISPs in the short run who will cater to those being shut off. In the long run, if you don’t like paying for bandwidth, thank the millions of people who are ripping off the creative community. I–for one–will not shed a single tear for you. Fortunately for you, our society is taking a very long time to impose the negative externalities of illegal file bartering in the places they belong.

Third, I don’t debate with cowards, just those who stand behind their own names and take responsibility for what they say.

First, you may or may not pay attention to me, after all I have generally ignored you–except for a couple of times when IP Central has published links to your rants. As of yet, I will decide when or not to post anonymously. But I am in pretty good company with everyone else who has chosen to use a pen name, e.g. Mark Twain and George Orwell.

Second, I am not taking any point out of context–it is you who are trying to conflate illegal file sharing with using P2P technology. Someone can use IM infrastructure to trade illegal copies, or just a plain old website, too. Comcast broke a protocol, not illegal file sharing. They also committed fraud, because they told their customers that they could use bit torrent. And exactly why should I have to pay a higher rate for bandwidth, rather than the same rate everyone else pays? I had indicated in all of my posts that I am totally fine with Comcast charging more for bandwidth, if that is what the want to do.  What I do have a problem with though is their discriminating based on protocols used, rather than bandwidth.  And I especially have this problem after Comcast says in their own FAQ’s that they don’t discriminate based on protocols.

Third, see my response to your First comment.

Chris Castle makes 3–no wait–2 points

Hate speech of the far right (Chris Castle edition)

Chris Castle has a long rant about Comcast’s blocking the Bit Torrent protocol, or to be more precise he has a long rant about the many who are criticizing Comcast; it seems he is a little upset that many have objections to Comcast’s actions, and that a consensus exists that committing fraud in the name of some secret agenda might actually be *wrong.* Corporate misbehavior is doing much to further the cause of net neutrality; one prominent commentator has changed his mind and come out in favor of some form of net neutrality, as pointed out over at Freedom to Tinker.

Chris never mentions that Comcast lied to its own customers in its FAQS and thereby committed fraud. They also interfered with their subscriber’s freedom of association. Those are minor sins, or perhaps even virtues, in Chris’s book. First, he starts out with some generalizations, and is so mad he gets his words all mixed up, which was my clue that this was really some kind of hate speech, not rational argument:

My general thesis there is that at a high level of abstraction (a) there are two essentially classes of traffic on the Internet, one legal and one illegal, and (b) if an ISP is not going to have the spine to shut off illegal file bartering on its network, the least they could do is make it very, very unpleasant for the illegal file bartering and substantially illegal social networking systems to operate.

Here we have an insatiable demand for simplicity: there can apparently be only two categories of anything, and the idea of a nuance like ‘legal file sharing’ or ‘immoral disruption of networking protocols’ can’t even begin to enter into the debate.

The use of an adverb as a adjective is unique, though: “there are two essentially classes” beats even some of W’s hilarious mis-speaks.

Then, there is the sweeping accusation that social networking systems are “substantially illegal” which he never explains. But he doesn’t have to: this is anti-net neutrality hate speech, and he gets his thoughts as right as his grammar, and his logic as twisted as his emotions.

But this speech has plenty of antecedents, particularly over at IP Central, which seems to be about the only place that actually likes Chris Castle’s writing. He goes on:

Continue reading “Hate speech of the far right (Chris Castle edition)”

Hate speech of the far right (Chris Castle edition)