Why doesn't Twitter flex its muscle and cause a national crisis by tweeting "watch out China, nukes are coming" from Donald Trump's Twitter? That ruins trust in the platform, but what if they just banned the US president's account for TOS or something? Enormous amount of power.
What if Musk's first ship to Mars had a hidden Railgun on it? "Anybody else that wants to come to Mars must pay equivalent US 100,000 million per vehicle." Alternatively, "I now own mars, who can come as well is up to my whim."
What if Microsoft issued a malicious patch that gave it access to the NSA's servers? What if Comcast slurped up FBI traffic?
In the internet and space age, corporations are getting enough real power that government power can be outright stepped over. Sure, say Comcast slurps data somehow from CIA and FBI, goes to prez, and says "give us x or we sell this to Russia," the US gov can turn around and threaten to arrest the CEO, or fine them, or kick down doors and start tearing apart infrastructure with the US military, but Comcast could easily say "do any of the above and the data is given to Russia, for free."
Musk has weaponised Mars, a state actor says "unweaponise it or be hanged," Musk can say "well, the cannon is automated, has 300 rounds of ammunition, and will not deactivate unless my secret passcode and the secret passcode of another person who I will not name, are provided. Per detected vehicle."
Etc.
Exciting, fun, terrifying. It can go fantastic for us (Google and Netflix telling telecoms to suck it), or absolutely horrifying (Comcast holding the US government hostage).
I can tell you for certain that there are dozens of safeguards. That scenario not only isn't possible, it's not plausible. Yes the President has the "codes" but those codes don't launch the missiles [1]. The scenario described is one in which there are literally nuclear warheads on a ballistic trajectory headed to the US with a verified source of origin.
I think the trope stays around because people, despite what they say publicly, like the idea of an emperor style president with supreme power.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-nuclear-wea...
Alex Wellerstein is a academic researcher on the history of nuclear weapons, and he describes the situation thus:
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/11/18/the-president-and-...
"""
>>Are there any checks in place to keep the US President from starting a nuclear war?
What's amazing about this question, really, is how seriously it misunderstands the logic of the US command and control system. It gets it exactly backwards.
The entire point of the US command and control system is to guarantee that the President and _only_ the President is capable of authorizing nuclear war whenever he needs to. It is about enabling the President's power, not checking or restricting him.
"""
The entire point of the US command and control system is to guarantee that the President and only the President is capable of authorizing nuclear war whenever he needs to.
Yes, legally and formally. Informally though, as I said, it won't go down like that, especially if it's not completely unambiguous that there is a nuclear attack on the US.
http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-59-the-des...
The captain and some fixed number of executive officers. Possibly with redundancy for one or two crew being dead. The auth codes would cause a safe to unlock or message to de-crypt.
Presumably the instructions would be delivered to each authenticating member so that all could receive the orders simultaneously.
In practice however I'd certainly be surprised to learn that there were absolutely zero checks on the process as suggested in the article.
Are there verified nuclear warheads on verified trajectories from verified origins?
Does the US President need to retaliated?
They interview ex-Secretary of Defense William Perry asking him what controls there are, if any, on a crazy president just willy-nilly deciding to nuke something.
He says there's absolutely none, even if the president is in a room full of people who vehemently disagree with him he alone makes the call to launch.
The President can make the call to launch and everyone in the room can ignore him, arrest him, tape his mouth shut.
Or just shoot him.
Edit: fixed a word
There's an argument to be made for checks on presidential power to wage nuclear war at a pin drop. President Trump pulling us back from the joint establishment Democrat and establishment Republican push for worldwide nuclear armageddon is not it.
but I did learn the word "Verisimilitude" the other day.
The only check currently seems to be people disobeying his orders, and even that is accounted for to some extent (see "mutiny is unlikely" in the article you cited).
It remains possible that ranking members of the executive branch and military might cooperate to make sure the president is isolated and unable to execute the protocol, and perhaps even conceivable (if unlikely) that enough of the military would refuse to participate. But that's the only real check, and it extralegal rather than any part of the system.
If you've ever been suspicious of "the deep state", think about that for a minute here, because it's really just another catchy term for the one of a half-handful of checks on the power under discussion here.
> I think the trope stays around because people, despite what they say publicly, like the idea of an emperor style president with supreme power.
I suspect that people really want to believe the system works, it can't be that messed up, someone else thought of this, some one else is paying attention, and they want things to be better, not worse, and they will take care of it for you.
But the system will fail if "the whole chain is stupid." This is why it's so dangerous to have a President obsessed with loyalty.
A recent radiolab episode (http://www.radiolab.org/story/nukes/) made a pretty convincing argument that any US president could on a whim destroy the world. It goes into the whole history of why that power was given to a civilian, and not the military.
Don't forget about this lad!
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
I.e. he must convince the Vice President et al. that ending all human life on Earth is a good idea.
Which is to say, the orders may not be followed by the persons at the switch. I make no claim that they will, or will not, be followed. I merely point out that rules aren't always followed.
They absolutely have the real authority (ability) to refuse the order, and then the real authority to prevent the nuke from being launched (by eating their key, shooting anybody else that comes into the room, shooting the key/console, etc).
The Twitter nukes one wouldn't even have to ruin trust in the platform that badly. They could say the president's account got hacked. Hell, blame the hack on China if you're already trying to start a war there.
If a corporation succeeds in building General AI with enough hooks into basic infrastructure, and a loyal enough employee base, then they will have a more powerful weapon than any nuclear bomb. They can then build their own drone army that no conventional military could stand up against.
Second, what about an AI would give them an advantage over cyborgs in building drone battalions? Aren't conventional human cyborgs doing that right now?
Yes, it's annoying to me that people who believe AI to be extremely dangerous forget that people themselves can already do all that nasty stuff.
Not much that suggests it's impossible either.
"go on..."
> What if Musk's first ship to Mars had a hidden Railgun on it?
"oh god... don't stop!"
> ... the secret passcode of another person ...
brilliant.
yeah... we (in the US) gave AI/meta-cognative-entities/"corporations" a type of inalienable right with the Citizens United ruling. and now the gov't is going to find out what happens when those entities start testing the boundaries of their container. (plot twist: the container walls are permeable)
Except that's not true. Corporations have always had personhood. See 1 U.S.C. §1[0]:
> In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—
> ...
> the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
Corporations being people is what allows them to own property, use the judicial system (to sue), etc. Basically anything corporations are able to do is because they are people. The speech of a corporation is protected under the First Amendment. Donating your money to a non-profit is a form of speech, no? If I donate $25 to the EFF, I'm agreeing with what the EFF does. That's a form of expression that is protected under the First Amendment. All Citizens United v. FEC did was affirm that money can be a form of speech.
Citizens United didn't establish any president of corporate personhood anymore than Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 US 394 (1886)[1] did back in 1886.
[0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern....
Always? You cite the U.S. Code, which was first published when? 1926.
>Donating your money to a non-profit is a form of speech, no?
It's a hell of a lot different when it comes to influencing people during elections. Bad analogy, and an insincere play to the audience here with the EFF. If we allow money to be speech, we allow outsized influence on governance by a few. Corporations have much more money to spend on campaigns which works against the public interest.
> Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company
The precedent of corporate personhood didn't even come from arguments in the case, it came from an oral remark by the Chief Justice Morrison Waite, who earlier worked as a lawyer for railroads. It was recorded by the court recorder J.C. Bancroft Davis, who earlier was a president of a railroad. The precedent and its house of cards should be thrown out.
You're right.
And now there's precedent.
Holy shit I hadn't even considered this, this is awesome. New story idea.
I'll contribute that this is a good way to explain to someone why corporations inherently care about their employees only to the extent of their usefulness.
Can you recommend some novels ? (I'm also a cyberpunk nerd) Thanks in advance
For me there's a lot of crossover between Cyberpunk/scifi, the only difference being time period, so I'd throw in the Culture series and the Revelation Space series.
The Stars my Destination (grunge as fuck)
Neuromancer, though I'm sure you've already read it.
Just wanted to chime in and say that this is one of the great SF books. Alfred Bester at the height of his powers. Gritty, fantastic, political, emotional, psychedelic, and epic. A truly astounding work, especially when you consider it was written in the early 1950s.
If you like science fiction: READ THIS BOOK.
Because the US Government has terrifying amounts of power and can be very spiteful.
Their ability to easily intimidate corporations has been demonstrated time and time again. See: NSA v tech, Qwest, broad anti-trust powers (which have nothing to do with monopoly and everything to do with subjective definitions), SEC, FTC, FCC, national security powers, executive orders, and the list goes for days.
It wasn't about one specific, small example but the big picture. Since these companies care about profit and the people running the companies likely care about their lives I'd imagine much of this wouldn't ever happen but it's all technically possible which, compared to where we were say 20 years ago, is just absolutely amazing in every sense of the word.
I understand and that's a fantasy at best, which was my point. The US Government is radically more powerful than any corporation inside of its domain. It's not even remotely close. They're more powerful than every corporation in the US combined.
The moment they send federal agents to shut down Google HQ (even if it's just for a day) and begin arresting people on terrorism charges (doesn't matter if any of it sticks, they never have to stop coming), specifically targeting management, and then walking them through & out of the buildings in handcuffs - Google instantly capitulates as their stock collapses by 20% in one day. And that's the easiest of moves the Feds can make, that's a trivial demonstration of their power to intimidate.
Then the IRS begins pursuing any exec they want to. They can do horrific things to anyone at any time, even if it doesn't stick long-term it still makes your life hell - and they never have to stop coming.
Then x y z, forever, paying their bills with your tax dollars and the infinite fiat machine.
Their initial efforts don't work? They change the laws tomorrow to give themselves a new sharp stick. They only really need one really nasty stick, and they have dozens already.
Google has the kind of power that staves off that from even happening in the first place. The US government isn't a singular entity, it is comprised of several hundred individually powerful people. Three branches, plus several military branches, each with their own branches of authority and people of power. Then you have states with their own 3 branches and national guards, police. You have a national police equivalent (NSA, CIA, FBI, ATF, Border Control).
That's a lot of people google can go to and say "Interesting that you are into midget porn, I wonder what would happen if the whole world knew that?"
That's a lot of people google can go to and say "Did you know that your neighboring state's governor is having an affair with a man? Give us this land grant for server space and we'll give you the proof."
"Give us guaranteed protection from the Fed and we'll give you the entire query history from all whitehouse IP addresses."
"Do not fuck with us or we will DDOS every single DNS server in the world with our absurdly massive server infrastructure."
"Do not fuck with us or we will turn the public against you by messaging the 63,000 people using our site per second"
"Do not fuck with us or we will make your very existence invisible to 80% of the people on the internet."
That's how wars happen, and why it's a bad idea to make ultimatums to the US government.
Like the King's head Surgeon - he could never take on the King in hand to hand combat, but he can certainly poison him slowly, over time and invisibly, in return for more consolidated power or money or some other such thing from the King's son.
1. Order ISPS to switch off access to Google's servers and CDNs. Most internet traffic stops working as any website using a google CDN breaks, all analytics stops working, internet advertising breaks almost entirely, the internet is suddenly a less profitable and very scary, mostly unusable place. Google releases as its death-throes the fact that the ISPs are entirely to blame for this, gives coordinates of ISP offices and pitchfork emporiums. Customers revolt, UN issues a missive reminding the world that access to the internet is a human right.
2. Order power regulators to cut off their power - Pretty similar to above. Internet stops working very well, except Google continues to work in other countries, and suddenly it doesn't really make sense to do business in the USA. Google employees flee abroad where they can. Opportunistic countries take advantage of this and grant asylum.
3. Freeze their bank accounts - best idea yet, I think, except for I'm not sure how it would be implemented. Government order comes through declaring "Alphabet, Inc" to be entirely comprised of terrorists? Not sure. Either way, Google goes the way of Pablo Escobar and talks directly to bank VPs - "give us some of the money / give us a warning you get a freeze order / whatever, or we tell the world about your midget porn / location of all your private estates / your tax fraud." Alternatively, google uses its near total access to civilian populations to cast the US government as a totalitarian dictatorship issuing a coup against the American people's access to free information and fosters a revolution.
The scenario is insurrection. Communications going down while people are arrested is perfectly acceptable.
> Google goes the way of Pablo Escobar and talks directly to bank VPs
Bank VPs have no control over dollar clearing and settlement. In any case, violating an OFAC freeze is automatic jail time for lots of people. Nobody messes around with this.
For sure, that was never in dispute. No one pretended there wouldn't be consequences, either. That was never the point of my post or parent's. Take a look at the examples for what was being referred to.
Let's not kid ourselves - well before that happens there would be "Guys with guns" to see them which would stop all possible posturing.
Are you serious? That would cause actual people to die. And Twitter will end up with a huge lawsuit.
This theoretically gives a company power to shut the government if they really wanted to.
Also, the belief that there would be "competitors in the user's area that don't play stupid games" that offer comparable services (eg, within a factor of 5x bandwidth-per-dollar value) seems to be a misunderstanding of the utility/monopoly/duopoly economics in play in many regions of the USA.
But I agree that it wouldn't work because the ISP monopolies are more entrenched than the web service monopolies.
Exactly the point I'm trying to make. If Google turns around and says "Fine, you don't like net neutrality? Let me show you how this works both ways".
The ISPs do not make the product, they sell the access to the product. If the product goes away, then they aren't selling anything at all- and their customers will stop paying them.
For some people, their tolerance for bullshit is less than others. For those people, perhaps charging a dollar extra for YouTube access is enough. It only takes a fairly small percentage of customers to put a lot of pressure on service providers. Monopoly or not.
What you're describing is a substitute good. When the "choice" is to not purchase said product/service and look to alternatives, you're literally describing the effect of a monopoly.
My point is simply that a monopoly isn't some sort of God-emperor who can do anything without consequence. Even monopolies have to bow to customer pressure, they're just less sensitive to it than companies in more competitive industries. Supply and demand applies to monopolies, too, that's why their prices might be higher than they would be in a competitive environment, but their prices aren't infinite. "Going without" is always a choice, even if there are no competitors.
You can always put money on the lottery several times, win, buy your own satellite and have your own DTH service. Or kill yourself, so that you no longer need internet.
So no, there isn't always a choice in broadband service. And most times, there isn't a choice at all.
So I doubt Google would ever do anything at this point.
If ISPs don't see the point in it then they can't complain when other don't follow it (and they get the shaft)
the culture employs special circumstances when the situation exceeds the moral capacity of contact.
or to put it differently, sometimes outside forces are so strong that you either let your ethics... be flexible for while or just disappear in the annals of history.
whether OP's particular action would be effective is a different question - bing, ddg or baidu would gladly jump at the opportunity if this wasn't coordinated.
That's how you start thinking it's okay to drop napalm and nuclear bombs on cities since "it'll end the war faster"
Anyone who doesn't subscribe absolutely to radical honesty or to a morality handed down by an all powerful being has to make these kinds of decisions in their personal life all the time and rarely do those decisions have as much impact as net neutrality. Large companies are made up of people and they shouldn't get a pass when they stand by and watch as when the very foundations of their industries are destroyed by extreme rent seeking just because they have shareholders to answer to, most of whom are in a far better position than the employees of the companies to jump ship when their investments don't behave like they'd like them to.
1. I pay an ISP to provide me with internet service
2. Google cuts off services from my ISP I've already paid.
3. I call my ISP and say "google told me to complain to you," they say, "thank you for your feedback."
4. I look for a competitor. There aren't any, or the competitors don't suit my needs. Which is why this problem happens in the first place. If I could go to a competitor, I would. This is the key assumption that the whole scheme is based on and from what I understand, for most Americans, it is flat wrong.
5. I don't use my ISP's bandwidth cause Google is blocking it. I've paid them money. My continual complaints tie up a cheap call center which inconveniences them very slightly, if at all. They still have my money, plus the costs for the services they're offering me just plummeted cause I'm not using any bandwidth cause I can't access the internet. They win, I lose.
Unfortunately, they (we) are a minority.
Also, it's double expense, especially if you do something like Netflix.
Or buy internet from phone company instead of cable company.
Cell phone data is usually much more expensive and often people don't have a lot of choice on what connection options they have.
What is the net result of this? People call up and complain to their ISP? Complaining hasn't worked yet and that's the problem. You can complain all you want but when there's no competition it doesn't matter.
A far better idea in my opinion would be for Google to spend money and muscle in partnering to provide municipal broadband.
If people had a choice between a municipal broadband provider that preserved net-neutrality or choosing the existing duopoly that wants to "rent seek" then I think the net-neutrality issue might finally be able to be put to rest.
There are some case studies in successful municipal broadband deployments here:
http://www.bbpmag.com/snapshot/snap0612.php
Google is already partnering with NYC via Sidewalk Labs. See:
https://sidewalklabs.com/about/
and LinkNYC is already up and running, so its not much of a stretch:
http://screenmediadaily.com/citybridge-to-launch-linknyc-lar...
What's one way that could change? Google stops working for millions of people, so they start using another product.
Essentially, what i'm saying is they are not, and have not been for a very long time, about search
The money is mostly coming from advertising across these services and especially adwords and adsense
Sometimes it seems easier to communicate something by stating the opposite and let people work out themselves why this is a bad idea.
If you've ever experienced the not too occasional fighting between cable companies and some of the networks they carry, it can get ugly. With both sides claiming they're in the right. Sometimes the channels even go off the air because the cable company won't pay what the networks want.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carriage_dispute
The only problem is if say google pulls YouTube from comcast, its not like customers have a plethora of other internet providers to choose from, so they suffer.
If you're blocked, you'll only see the message once. If you have to watch a video before instead, you'll get angrier and angrier each time.
First: this is pushing the onus on the consumers. Not just pushing---forcing, even. My grandmother, my wife even, doesn't care about net neutrality---they want to use the Internet. I've seen suggestions of using a VPN, and I use Tor for all of my Internet traffic, but this is an even _greater_ onus on consumers. It's a far bigger impact than the abolishment of net neutrality itself.
Perhaps more importantly, this is subverting the legal/regulatory system by using your market dominance to essentially declare your own law. The system is failing us (those who support net neutrality, at least) right now, but it's there for a reason, and it's a slippery slope to try to reverse legislative and regulatory decisions by force.
Civil uprising is fine. Campaigns to raise awareness (like the blackout for SOPA), okay. Many other things are okay. But leave innocent people out of the crossfire. They should care, yes, but it's up to _us_ to make change---those of us who understand the issue and why it's important. It's up to us to raise awareness. I'm not going to go hold people hostage over my ideals. What if Google weren't on your side? What if they did _not_ support net neutrality? Would you be okay with them using their dominance to push an agenda you didn't like? I'd think not.
"""You seem to be using <x> which is a lousy internet provider for reasons x, y and z.
Feel free to call them now at <phone number> or send a mail to <email> and let them know what you think.
Also here are other known providers in your area: <list>
You can also sign <here> and <here> to show your interest to other sane providers that are considering offering fiber in your area."""
At this point I dislike chrome for exactly the same reasons I disliked IE: it is not good enough for me[0] and its sheer dominance makes web creators lazy and triggers bean counters to skimp on cross browser compatibility checks.
But this time they could actually use it for good.
[0]: yep. You would hear the same thing back then: You are the only one wanting to use another browser. Just get over it and use IE.
Well, I am curious: what makes other browsers better for you? The other day I posed this question in a thread, and the main answer was "a good feeling inside".
Then the news that Mozilla forces you into being tracked by Google Analytics comes out, and that good feeling is gone, so what's your use case?
[0] https://mozilla-services.readthedocs.io/en/latest/howtos/run...
[1] https://mozilla-services.readthedocs.io/en/latest/howtos/run...
Real extensions? Yeah I know they will be less useful than they used to be but still way better than anything else it seems.
The fact that it handles my browsing habits like a few hundred open tabs?
Oh, and by now using almost any other browser than chrome give me a happy feeling. The limit goes somewhere between Edge and IE it seems :-P
Then the news that Mozilla forces you into being tracked by Google Analytics comes out, and that good feeling is gone, so what's your use case?
I didn't see that and didn't find anything when I searched now. Do you have any pointers?
Additionally, from the link "legal contract with Google" on that page:
> Mozilla went through a year long legal discussion with GA before we would ever implement it on our websites. GA had to provide how and what they stored and we would only sign a contract with them if they allowed Mozilla to opt-out of Google using the data for mining and 3rd parties.
> We now have two check boxes in our GA premium account that allows us to opt-out of additional usage of our data. Because Mozilla pushed Google so hard, those two check boxes are available to every other GA user in the world regardless if they have a premium account like we do.
When and where Mozilla caves to pressures they always stood against, I will not hold it against them more than against the ones putting them under pressure -- or against those trying to muddy the waters even more in these already trying times, for that matter.
Editors: David Dorwin, Google Inc.Jerry Smith, Microsoft CorporationMark Watson, Netflix Inc.Adrian Bateman, Microsoft Corporation (Until May 2014)
https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/
So in this way we can save the net neutrality?
So you are suggesting that they harm their own business interests? For how long exactly?
It's not even that insane. MTV did exactly this to gain an edge when negotiating with cable companies. They ran ads telling people to call their cable companies and say, "I want my MTV!" The campaigns were largely successful, and MTV quickly became a standard offering on cable TV.
Google has far more negotiating power than MTV did. If Google actually cut off ISPs and told people to call their ISP and say, "I want my net neutrality!" it would have a good chance of working.
One of the arguments against Net Neutrality is it would help break up the Google marketing monopoly (yes this logic is shockingly what the cable companies have provided for the government as a pro).
In some sense Google is not much different than the cable companies except that the only entity that can out leverage the cable companies is the government that owns the poles and airways.
(If you don't think google is a monopoly or at least extremely unfair it is impossible to make a competitor to google as you would have to do your marketing of a such a product through them).
Frankly I'm already concerned that 99% of the marketing is controlled already by two entities: Google and Facebook. If google were to do what your proposing it would probably make far more people aware of the monopoly.
They could change their banner, though, and I'm sad they aren't serious enough about this issue to do that.
They should be redirected to a page saying - your ISP is against Net Neutrality. Contact them and tell them how you feel about this...or find a new ISP. Your access will be restored on Tuesday. If you don't like this, get used to it-it's the way a net neutrality-less internet works.
Those same ISP's will be begging to bring back net neutrality in a month or two.
That would really send a statement that they were serious about network neutrality.
Is this a mistake? Am I missing something?
[0] https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/#participants
Edit: I also checked for the parent company "Alphabet", which also is not listed.
To be fair, Apple is pro-NN but not vocal about it.
> Is this an insane idea? Yep.
It sounds like we're in agreement on the latter, as for the former; the way it would play out is that Google Search, YouTube and Gmail would fade and successful competitors would replace them overnight.
Suddenly Google is facing a fine 10x larger than what the EU just threw at them (after all, look at the business % ratio regarding markets over the last decade, the majority of their business has been in the US), and a dozen agencies begin pursuing them on a variety of issues.
The government can do anything it wants to to Google at any time it wants to do it. They have enough methods, they can make Google's existence absolute hell.
Which competitors?
It discusses the use of faster lanes that only companies with money would have access to. At first this seems fair that companies should be able to purchase better technology to improve their speed. The question then becomes what happens to traffic on the slower lanes? I could argue this both ways. At the end of the day, the history of most ISP companies makes me not trust them.
Here's an article about Comcast trying to find loop holes https://www.wired.com/2015/11/comcast-may-have-found-a-major...
I think that's why they won't.you are asking them to do something where they have a deep conflict of interest not to.
Where as an ISP is unaware of any specific relationship and therefore isn't attempting to interfere.
IANAL but that's my interpretation of this specific tort law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference#Elements
[edit]
It could however work if they throttle priority isp traffic to counterbalance.
How? Google is a private individual/company; they can deny anyone service, so long as the reason is not discriminating against a protected class.
How? Well, a simple statement saying "any ISP who abuses net neutrality will have their customers cut off from Google products". No Google search, no YouTube, no Gmail. Have those requests instead redirect to a website telling the customer what their ISP is doing, why Google won't work with them, and how to call to complain to the ISP. Make the site list competitors in the user's area that don't play stupid games.
Is this an insane idea? Yep. Would Google come under scrutiny because of their now-obvious market power? Oh definitely. And Google would probably lose money over it. But it would certainly work.
People don't get internet, and then decide to use Google. They want Google and then get internet for that purpose.
edit: an hour later, fixing an autocorrect word