http://www.google.com/buzz/timoreilly/j61qZ42h6rB/Frustrated...
But seriously, that's strike two. One more strike, and personally I won't be reading the NYTimes for anything technology-related. Even via a link. Or perhaps I will. But I will immediately adjust my could-be-b.s. skepticism filters to 50%. I don't know if it's the reputation of the newspaper that makes them think that they can opine op-ed style (the first two sentences, including the lede, of the NYTimes piece have the word 'could' in it). But you can only mess up so many times before you get a negative reputation that is pretty hard to remove...
Be skeptic of everyone. Just because someone/organization has a positive reputation doesn't mean they won't intentionally (or unintentionally) screw things up.
I'd just say be willing to update your skepticism as new information comes in. Which is what the original comment is doing.
Politico has sources claiming that the agreement explicitly allows for Verizon to prioritize traffic: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40668.html
Facts: Google and Verizon struck agreement on traffic shaping. Agreement prohibits prioritizing data traffic over landlines. Agreement allows prioritizing data traffic over wireless.
Everything beyond that is editorializing and infotainment. The articles don't even clarify whether the agreement covers all traffic or just Google traffic.
Except that both NYT and Politico claim that that's not true. The agreement, according to Bloomberg, restricts Verizon from intentionally slowing traffic. NYT and Politico claim the agreement explicitly allows Verizon to speed up traffic from selected sources (which Bloomberg does not refute due to careful wording). If that is true, then you can certainly not claim as "fact" that the agreement prohibits prioritization of data traffic.
AFAIK, net neutrality has never pertained to prioritised mobile traffic. So such a deal would seem to be outside the discussion, but I would agree that it would certainly make G look hypocritical.
The policy that both Google and Verizon agreed to. Not the policy that is being pushed by FCC (AFAIK).
I wouldn't say its irrational, I would say it defeats the purpose of being skeptic. Skepticism for _me_ is a filtering mechanism that helps me consume information.
Lets say I got an information from two source that says "I saw an alien species from Mars driving a Bentley." (The person insists he is not joking). Whether the information comes from my father or a psychopath is a moot point. Your skepticism alarm should set off, assuming you understand the probability of such a thing happening is close to zero.
Whether you trust your father's advice or a stranger's advice, should depend on the advice not where its coming from. IMO.
You're correct that if we know with high certainty whether the info is true, the source becomes irrelevant (and the higher the certainty, the less weight the source's credibility carries). But if you extend that to areas of higher uncertainty... that's simply not a workable way of approaching the world.
"Here, drink this." is not an information.
I said: "You should have your skepticism filter on by default at the same filter rate, regardless of the source of the information."
Edit: Clarification.
> Whether you trust your father's advice or a stranger's
> advice, should depend on the advice not where its coming
> from. IMO.
No ISP need run afoul of net neutrality to offer pay-to-play accelerated peering or CDN services. So any talk of traffic-shaping to offer premiere services to content providers sends up a giant red flag.
Further, wired consumer connections are going to be largely irrelevant in the near future. Once 4G has acceptable coverage in the US, landline consumer broadband is going to follow landline consumer phone service. So even if Verizon were actually forbidden from "managing" those, it's hardly a victory.
Better?
The part, "This drink is good for you" is an information; and thus you should show some healthy amount of skepticism about it. Is the drink laden with high-fructose corn syrup? What do you know about the drink to take the claim "It is good for you" seriously or not? Whether the information is coming from your father or not is a moot point. Maybe your father is ill-informed about the drink, should you take his word for it?