CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Net Neutrality is Dead
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Net Neutrality is Dead

post #1 of 99
Thread Starter 
post #2 of 99

Fuck. Fuck. FUCK!

 

Seriously. How do we stop this? YT? Anyone? I'm listening. I am ready to write letters. I am ready to fly to DC with an END IS NIGH sandwichboard pasted to my chest. What do we do?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/technology/fcc-new-net-neutrality-rules.html

post #3 of 99

I have unfortunately come to the opinion that the majority of Americans will not learn anything unless it bites them in the ass.

 

The population of this country has to stick their hand in the fire and get burned before they realize "hey, that was a bad idea" when they knew damn well, at the very least, that it might be a bad idea.

 

"Drill baby Drill....yeehaa!....hey, what's all that black shit coating the gulf coast?"

 

"WooHoo! the stock market is awesome.....wait...what do you mean my job is being outsourced?"


 

Quote:

Is America an Oligarchy?

 

From the Dept. of Academics Confirming Something You Already Suspected comes a new study concluding that rich people and organizations representing business interests have a powerful grip on U.S. government policy. After examining differences in public opinion across income groups on a wide variety of issues, the political scientists Martin Gilens, of Princeton, and Benjamin Page, of Northwestern, found that the preferences of rich people had a much bigger impact on subsequent policy decisions than the views of middle-income and poor Americans. Indeed, the opinions of lower-income groups, and the interest groups that represent them, appear to have little or no independent impact on policy.

 

“Our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts,” Gilens and Page write:

 

Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

 

<cont>

 

post #4 of 99

Wait... didn't net neutrality die when no one gave a shit that Comcast had been throttling Netflix and Netflix decided to just go ahead and pay them to open the pipes?  Isn't that the first precedent that will fuck this all up down the line no matter if the FCC goes ahead and rewrites the rules?

 

Whoops, NVM.  Seems there is a difference between "interconnection and Net Neutrality"

post #5 of 99
Man, the providers are going to bank! Holy crap. Netflix was smart to get in early before the price rises.
post #6 of 99
Eh, whatever. Fuck the Internet. I'll just go back to talking to myself.
post #7 of 99

i was never clear on net neutrality...can someone explain it?

post #8 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

i was never clear on net neutrality...can someone explain it?
"Net neutrality" is the idea that traffic on the Internet ought to be treated equally regardless of type or content - i.e., that providers shouldn't be able to limit or block sites or services, the way Comcast was doing to Netflix before Netflix paid them to stop it.
post #9 of 99

Well damn.  

 

My new sig is right on time.

post #10 of 99
post #11 of 99

Obama: how you like me now?

 

Hey Cocksmokes, Let's Keep Net Neutrality - the official White Press statement

 

Have at it, boys (and yt).

post #12 of 99

Isn't this all over a year too late? I thought the damage had already been done. Is there a realistic chance for fixing the situation?

 

Also, I didn't realize the FCC was an independent government agency. Not sure what that means really.

post #13 of 99
"@SenTedCruz: "Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government." ... really?
post #14 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcrump View Post

"@SenTedCruz: "Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government." ... really?

 

I had to make sure that Cruz actually tweeted this...I know I shouldn't be surprised but the fuckin' douchebag actually did send it.

 

Yet another example of why the majority of the GOP are just plain assholes....in Cruz's case it's worse because he isn't Bachmann/Palin ignorant....IMO, something about his screams 'sociopath'.

 

-----

 

On a related note- from last Friday's episode of 'Science Friday'

 

U.S. High-Speed Internet Lags Behind on Price, Cost

 
Quote:
For less than $40 a month, residents of Seoul, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Bucharest, and Paris can enjoy lightning-fast Internet download and upload speeds of 1,000 Mbps. Compare that to the U.S., where the same money might buy you a comparably sluggish 15 Mbps/1 Mbps connection. Even in cities like Chattanooga and Kansas City, where high-speed Internet rivals the gigabit speeds found abroad, it still costs about twice as much, according to a new report from the New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute, called “The Cost of Connectivity.”

The reason for America's low-speed, high-cost Internet? High-speed Internet service providers have a monopoly in many markets, says Susan Crawford of Harvard Law School. That means there's little pressure from competitors or regulators to provide better, cheaper service. But in the absence of federal action, she says, mayors around the country are leading the way.

 

post #15 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post
 

 

I had to make sure that Cruz actually tweeted this...I know I shouldn't be surprised but the fuckin' douchebag actually did send it.

 

And people are going to believe him, too.

post #16 of 99

Fortune has a nice summary of the Net Neutrality issue HERE

 

I'm conflicted. If the reason Asian and EU Broadband is so much faster and cheaper than ours in the US because they have more competition, isn't it logical to further de-regulate the US ISP market?

 

On the other hand, as the article points out, Net Neutrality creates a level playing field for content providers, so you'd see plenty of competition there.

 

On the other other hand, Government set pricing for Internet access means more and more Broadband gets consumed. Who pays for upgrading and upkeep of the infrastructure? And if the ISPs are under regulation by the FCC, what are the odds they'll be able to adopt new technologies in any kind of sane time frame.

 

The Bay Area is teeming with various Wifi and VOIP startups. Most of their technology sucks, but it is way way cheaper than Landline or Wireless service from AT&T or Verizon. But they all ultimately rely on the back end networks of AT&T and Verizon. So already we see "free riders" using a giant expensive network for free. Something's gotta give here.

post #17 of 99

The way I see it, ISPs right now have no incentive to improve the quality or cost of their service in cities and towns that already have decent usable broadband. Letting Verizon and Comcast do whatever they want sounds like a "trickle down" type of theory, where we just hope that the magic of the free market economy will make everything better for the consumer. Doesn't the reality usually end up being that every ISP company will give people the absolute minimum service and quality, while charging the most they can get away with? Isn't that what profit based companies do in a capitalist economy?

 

The only infrastructure improvements I see happening are getting more broadband access out to the rural and lower populated areas, to increase the customer base.

 

I'm lucky enough to be on Verizon Fios right now in RI, 2 megabyte per second DL cap at 35 a month. That's the cheapest available Fios plan, pretty much all the speed I need. I only have it because Verizon runs the fiber lines to the individual neighborhoods, so as far as I know, Verizon has a monopoly on the use of the fiber lines from now until the end of time. Cox Cable is the only other game in town, 50 or 60 a month for lower speed, and much lower reliability. Other people in the country aren't so lucky though, I head Time Warner and Comcast can be a nightmare, and many have data caps to deal with.

 

The fear among the other internet folk I've seen debating this is that changing regulations will allow Verizon and friends to go willy nilly with the data caps in areas that previously enjoyed unlimited access. People are happy to pay for capped data use on their phone, so unfortunately there is a market for it. I'm sure Verizon would love to turn my unlimited 2mb/s 35$ plan to a 100gig capped 35$ plan. But if I upgrade to the $69.99 unlimited data plan, I'll get free MSNBC!

post #18 of 99

Can someone explain to me why there needs to be data caps at all...be it either with internet and or cellphone usage?

 

FFS, when the internet started getting big and companies like AOL had their charges based on time connected...only to have that model sort of disappear as smaller ISP's opened up and offered unlimited usage....ONLY to end up being bought out or priced out of the market by the likes if companies like AT&T.

 

So now...we are back to the time connected/data cap models....? Are we going to start getting AT&T cds in the mail soon?

 

I'm sorry but if left to their own devices the major ISP's will, as KR above points out-

 

"the reality usually end up being that every ISP company will give people the absolute minimum service and quality, while charging the most they can get away with"

post #19 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle Reese View Post
 

People are happy to pay for capped data use on their phone, so unfortunately there is a market for it. Soon, Verizon is going to turn my unlimited 2mb/s 35$ plan to a 100gig capped 35$ plan. But if I upgrade to the $69.99 unlimited data plan, I'll get free MSNBC!

 

I'm not happy about it.  This is why I refuse to leave Sprint.

 

Also, fixed your post.  It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.  And it will only be in spiteful nose-thumbing.

post #20 of 99

On the surface it's an issue of how much the network can take. More and more people stream movies via Netflix (which surpassed P0rn as the most used application on the Internet a few years ago, truly a milestone!), Hulu, YouTube etc. puts pressure on the network.

 

AT&T is responding by investing Billions in a new Fiber Optic Network with plans to somehow retire the old POTS (Plain Old Telephone) network by 2020.

 

I'm sure Verizon has similar plans.

 

Part of the issue is that comparing the US to other countries is often an Apple to Eggs comparison. Hong Kong reportedly has amazing Broadband est Wifi. It's also an incredibly densely populated space. Compare that to Texas or Oklahoma. Getting similar speeds and reliability at the same or lower cost just isn't happening.

 

Also, consider that, imperfect as they are (I HATE AT&T and Verizon), the major US Carriers have rolled LTE before most of the world (I think something like 50% of all LTE users in the world are in the US). So the Dynamic Duo are making major investments. Plus, they own the Telephone networks.

 

When you look at the carriers from the perspective of " are they utilities like Electricity or the Railroads" the similarities are striking. All three industries require huge investments in capital, all are integral to the nation, all have huge potentials for abusive behavior if not regulated.

post #21 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
 

...AT&T is responding by investing Billions in a new Fiber Optic Network with plans to somehow retire the old POTS (Plain Old Telephone) network by 2020.

...

 

Or maybe they are just going to take their ball and go home....:

AT&T Halts Plans To Expand High-Speed Internet Until Net Neutrality Is Decided

 

AT&T is halting plans to bring faster internet service to nearly 100 cities until industry regulators make a decision on how to best regulate the Internet and Web traffic.

AT&T’s CEO Randall Stephenson told investors Wednesday the company “can’t go out and invest that kind of money deploying fiber to 100 cities not knowing under what rules those investments will be governed,” according to a Reuters report. “We think it is prudent to just pause and make sure we have line of sight and understanding as to what those rules would look like.”

<cont>

 

and FWIW- I don't think AT&T is hurting too bad with regards to having enough $$ to invest in upgrading their tech....
:

SAN FRANCISCO — T-Mobile USA, the underdog among the four big American phone carriers, has made aggressive moves to shake up the wireless industry this year — and AT&T in particular. But AT&T’s results have not budged.

 

AT&T, the second-largest American carrier after Verizon Wireless, reported profit of $3.8 billion in the third quarter, up from $3.6 billion in the same quarter a year ago.

 

<cont>

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/technology/competition-rises-for-att-as-does-3rd-quarter-profit.html

post #22 of 99

And now the libertarians chime in...

 

 

the music...the obliviousness to the words coming out of her mouth.....HEY! guess what-

 

FreedomWorks :

FreedomWorks has mobilized opposition to health care reform, taxes, union labor, and climate legislation. Since 2009, FreedomWorks has been involved in the Tea Party movement. Mother Jones writes that "FreedomWorks, under Armey's leadership, was a key player in the rise of the tea party in 2010. The organization helped elect tea party favorites" and works as a "connector between tea party groups around the country, organizing protests against Obamacare and expanding the ranks of the conservative movement."[1]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Freedomworks

post #23 of 99
I don't think you have to be some kind of crazy Tea Partier to be slightly suspicious of this whole "hey, let's put the FCC in charge of basically every aspect of Internet service!" approach to net neutrality. The government has been trying to figure out how to get a slice of the Internet pie ever since it became a big thing, and given Obama's failure to stand up for less wholesale regulatory approaches to it earlier in his presidency, one could be forgiven a little suspicion.
post #24 of 99


I think saying that the "FCC is going to be in charge of the internet" is being disingenuous. That is not what is being proposed.

Quote:

The Obama administration is pushing what it calls four "commonsense steps" as the basis for its net neutrality initiative:
 

  • No blocking: ISPs cannot be permitted to block access to legal content.
  • No throttling: ISPs cannot intentionally slow down some content or speed up others.
  • Increased transparency: Ensure that some sites are not getting special treatment in places other than the "last mile" of connection between ISPs and consumers. If necessary, the FCC could apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
  • No paid prioritization: Prevent ISPs from cutting deals with content providers for faster access. Obama has asked the FCC to explicitly ban any such restrictions.

 

http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/11/10/president-obama-pushes-fcc-to-classify-internet-as-public-utility-protect-net-neutrality

 

We've given the mega-ISPs a chance to 'do right' and they have responded by raising prices, providing less than adequate service and now they are trying to restrict usage....fuck them.

 

Just as the banking industry needs to be much more controlled than it currently is, I would argue that the mega-ISPs need to as well.

post #25 of 99

VTRan nailed it for me.  I fail to see why Comcast gets to aggressively regulate my bandwidth while I watch Netflix.  They allow the lowest possible amount causing me to buffer several times during the viewing of anything.  And if I want to watch it in HD?  Yeah right. 

 

I believe I've posted this exchange on Chud before, but it's worth pointing out again.  It shows how unbelievably stupid Comcast thinks we are.  

 

About a year ago, Netflix was unwatchable.  I couldn't watch a damn thing.  If it did load, it would buffer every 30 seconds.  I took to Twitter and posted something along the lines of, "Fuck you very much for the awful streaming speeds, Comcast!"  They had a customer service rep engage me by saying, "Hey this is so-and-so from Comcast.  Would you mind if I helped you troubleshoot the problem?"  I replied with, "Your throttling of Netflix prevents me from watching it."  His reply, "We don't and have never throttled Netflix.  Besides, we have just worked a deal with them to make streaming smoother."  Incredulous, I responded, "If you aren't throttling, then why did you have to make a deal?"  He didn't reply.

 

I don't expect internet services for free, but they are fucking crooks.  They need some damn regulation.  At this point, I don't care where it comes from.

post #26 of 99

Can't help thinking this will bite people like Ted Cruz in the ass. Sure, the right has its brainwashed armies, but when something impacts their lives directly, when they're put in the position of having to actually give something up, or when it looks like someone else is going to control the way they access information, the playing field shifts pretty rapidly.

 

Right-wingers who aren't millionaires are frequently willing to vote against their own interests, but amongst the Millennials and Gen Xers, at least, fucking with their internet/video games/media consumption is a recipe for disaster.

post #27 of 99

how it really impacts everyone....

 

Porn Stars Explain Net Neutrality

post #28 of 99

clevier!

post #29 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post
 

Can't help thinking this will bite people like Ted Cruz in the ass. Sure, the right has its brainwashed armies, but when something impacts their lives directly, when they're put in the position of having to actually give something up, or when it looks like someone else is going to control the way they access information, the playing field shifts pretty rapidly.

 

Right-wingers who aren't millionaires are frequently willing to vote against their own interests, but amongst the Millennials and Gen Xers, at least, fucking with their internet/video games/media consumption is a recipe for disaster.

 

They're banking on their oldest friend - ignorance - and they might just succeed, but if the internet is unrelenting in making statements like that Funny or Die video, maybe even the most brainwashed will begin to this as the shakedown that it is.  Hopefully.

post #30 of 99

it's just a blog post, but still.....<fingers crossed>

 

FCC Expected To Announce Internet Will Be Regulated As Public Utility

 

 

Of course, conservatives are going to scream bloody hell over this 'socialism'.

 

ETA- NYT link on this issue  In Net Neutrality Push, F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating the Internet as a Utility


Edited by VTRan - 2/2/15 at 9:55am
post #31 of 99
Definitely encouraging news. I can only hope the White House is up for the fight that the cable companies are going to give them, through their hired legislators.
post #32 of 99

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

By Tom Wheeler 

 

<excerpt>:

Originally, I believed that the FCC could assure internet openness through a determination of “commercial reasonableness” under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. While a recent court decision seemed to draw a roadmap for using this approach, I became concerned that this relatively new concept might, down the road, be interpreted to mean what is reasonable for commercial interests, not consumers.

 

That is why I am proposing that the FCC use its Title II authority to implement and enforce open internet protections.

 

Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone’s permission.

 

I'll be really interested in hearing the arguments trying to say this is a bad idea. More specifically, I want to have politicians opinions on record.... 

post #33 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by wd40 View Post

 

I fail to see why Comcast gets to aggressively regulate my bandwidth while I watch Netflix.  

 

Anyone else notice that this is happening again? Been noticing the same kind of lagging again recently that was happening about a year ago. 

post #34 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post
 

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

By Tom Wheeler 

 

<excerpt>:

 

I'll be really interested in hearing the arguments trying to say this is a bad idea. More specifically, I want to have politicians opinions on record.... 

 

Forgive my ignorance on this, but having the FCC in charge concerns me with respect to censorship. I'm very suspicious of the reference to "legal content." Maybe it's because I've been listening to Howard Stern for almost 20 years, but I don't trust that they won't eventually try to expand their authority to "regulate content"

 

I would want to see it specifically stated that they are forbidden from ever trying to impose any decency or content restrictions on any part of the net for any reason. Can anyone tell me if that's being talked about or not?

post #35 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoatMan View Post
 

 

Forgive my ignorance on this, but having the FCC in charge concerns me with respect to censorship. I'm very suspicious of the reference to "legal content." Maybe it's because I've been listening to Howard Stern for almost 20 years, but I don't trust that they won't eventually try to expand their authority to "regulate content"

 

I would want to see it specifically stated that they are forbidden from ever trying to impose any decency or content restrictions on any part of the net for any reason. Can anyone tell me if that's being talked about or not?

 

Any restrictions on any part of the net for any reason?  Not for nothing, but this makes it sound like you want to be sure Big Brother isn't going to take away your kiddie porn.

post #36 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 

 

Any restrictions on any part of the net for any reason?  Not for nothing, but this makes it sound like you want to be sure Big Brother isn't going to take away your kiddie porn.

 

Wow, ok that escalated quickly don't you think?

 

Surely you understand the danger and the slippery slope that comes from an organization that makes decisions on what is considered "decent" or not?

 

I mean, I'm not being irrationally paranoid, that is a big part of what the FCC is about.

post #37 of 99

The 'free market' has been shown to sorta be good idea....but we've all been witness to what happens when it becomes unregulated.

 

Personally, if I have to choose between the government run FCC or some monolithic, privately owned corporation like Comcast to determine what I have access to over the internet, I'm going with the FCC.

Does no one remember the recent Netflix/Comcast contract disputes where Comcast purposefully slowed Netflix connectivity?

 

At least with the FCC, I can get in touch with my democratically elected representatives and voice my opinion....if Comcast is your only local option for high-speed internet access, do you think some Comcast board member will give a shit about "that one customer who can't download a video"?   

post #38 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 

 

Any restrictions on any part of the net for any reason?  Not for nothing, but this makes it sound like you want to be sure Big Brother isn't going to take away your kiddie porn.

Yeah this attack might have been a little much.

post #39 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoatMan View Post
 

 

Forgive my ignorance on this, but having the FCC in charge concerns me with respect to censorship. I'm very suspicious of the reference to "legal content." Maybe it's because I've been listening to Howard Stern for almost 20 years, but I don't trust that they won't eventually try to expand their authority to "regulate content"

 

I would want to see it specifically stated that they are forbidden from ever trying to impose any decency or content restrictions on any part of the net for any reason. Can anyone tell me if that's being talked about or not?

 

It's not an unreasonable question.  The FCC's regulatory action has nothing to do with content in terms of the "content of the content," as it were.  This is about treating all data packets the same.  So that Comcast can't give preference to its Xfinity VOD service vis-a-vis Netflix or Redtube if you happen to get your internet service from Comcast.

 

FCC also regulates POTS (plain-old telephone service), cellular telephones, handheld radios, etc.  The reason that broadcast television and AM/FM radio have decency standards is complicated from a legal standpoint, but it primarily stems from the fact that these operators are essentially renting the airwaves from the American people and have to operate them in a manner consistent with prevailing social mores.

 

You'll still be able to download your porn, kiddie or otherwise.

post #40 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spook View Post

 

You'll still be able to download your porn, kiddie or otherwise.

 

Everyone is so concerned with porn when all I'm really worried about is that Stormfront will remain active

post #41 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoatMan View Post
 

 

Everyone is so concerned with porn when all I'm really worried about is that Stormfront will remain active

 

post #42 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post
 

The 'free market' has been shown to sorta be good idea....but we've all been witness to what happens when it becomes unregulated.

 

Personally, if I have to choose between the government run FCC or some monolithic, privately owned corporation like Comcast to determine what I have access to over the internet, I'm going with the FCC.

 

Does no one remember the recent Netflix/Comcast contract disputes where Comcast purposefully slowed Netflix connectivity?

 

At least with the FCC, I can get in touch with my democratically elected representatives and voice my opinion....if Comcast is your only local option for high-speed internet access, do you think some Comcast board member will give a shit about "that one customer who can't download a video"?   

 

I agree with every word you typed, especially the part with how easy it is to get in contact with our representatives to voice your opinion. Which is what every mother / religious / school / political group does to get their little pocket issue taken care of.  How many shows have been cancelled or censored, how many people have lost their jobs because literally a few dozen or hundred people complained and wrote some letters?

 

I'm not trying to be alarmist, just raising awareness that having the FCC get involved with carries another set of concerns that should be discussed. This way people aren't caught off guard. I'd put money on that within 5 years if this going through, someone will try to put a bill in increasing the FCCs jurisdiction to start regulated decency standards.

 

And just to make it clear, I'm for the most part all for this. I just want to see as many protections as possible built into this from the foundation up.

post #43 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waaaaaaaalt View Post
 

Yeah this attack might have been a little much.

 

Not an attack.   Just saying that free expression has never been absolute, online or off.  Stressing such a hard line so strongly begs a lot of "wait, even ____??" questions. 

 

I like to think that if nothing else, my time here has shown that I do not come to throw stones at anyone else's porn preferences.

post #44 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoatMan View Post
 

 

I agree with every word you typed, especially the part with how easy it is to get in contact with our representatives to voice your opinion. Which is what every mother / religious / school / political group does to get their little pocket issue taken care of.  How many shows have been cancelled or censored, how many people have lost their jobs because literally a few dozen or hundred people complained and wrote some letters?

 

I'm not trying to be alarmist, just raising awareness that having the FCC get involved with carries another set of concerns that should be discussed. This way people aren't caught off guard. I'd put money on that within 5 years if this going through, someone will try to put a bill in increasing the FCCs jurisdiction to start regulated decency standards.

 

And just to make it clear, I'm for the most part all for this. I just want to see as many protections as possible built into this from the foundation up.

 

If the FCC could get out of the business of regulating decency standards in the public airwaves, it would.  Trust me.

post #45 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spook View Post
 

 

If the FCC could get out of the business of regulating decency standards in the public airwaves, it would.  Trust me.

 

Why should I trust you? That's a serious question, do you have some sort of inside knowledge of the agency? Again, genuine question.

 

I work for the government, we are ALWAYS looking to expand resources and power. It's job security.

post #46 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 

 

Not an attack.   Just saying that free expression has never been absolute, online or off.  Stressing such a hard line so strongly begs a lot of "wait, even ____??" questions. 

 

I like to think that if nothing else, my time here has shown that I do not come to throw stones at anyone else's porn preferences.

 

I don't post much, typically because I eventually have the entire community attacking me after a few days. So you'll have to excuse me being defensive since after my first post I'm accused of defending kiddie porn.

 

But this is the internet, with it comes hyperbole, and I did say "for any reason" so I guess you got me. I assumed some common ground of discourse. Obviously no one is talking about criminally illegal actions.

 

We should all know what that means, so let's move on.

post #47 of 99
Moving on: The assumption that an FCC policy ensuring net neutrality will lead directly to a de facto repeal of the First Amendment sounds very silly to me.
post #48 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoatMan View Post
 

 

I agree with every word you typed, especially the part with how easy it is to get in contact with our representatives to voice your opinion. Which is what every mother / religious / school / political group does to get their little pocket issue taken care of.  How many shows have been cancelled or censored, how many people have lost their jobs because literally a few dozen or hundred people complained and wrote some letters?

 

While there are always going to be small pockets of ignorant and backwards thinking individuals trying to get their way...(TX school book debacle)...I'm thinking the days when a few aggravated parents demand that the word 'muslim', 'abortion', 'Beyonce', etc. not be spoken in their child's school room are waning.

 

IMO. this is due, ironically, to the internet. There's something to be said for internet 'activism'....I can email my representative in a shorter amount of time than it took to type all this out....whereas before, I'd have to either call and/or physically write a letter....which  many people couldn't be bothered with.

 

Also, don't discount the idea of public shaming. These days, a person's 'local' retrograde idiocy can be given wide exposure...instantly.

Look to the way that Rand Paul and Christie tried to walk back their vaccine stupidity. If it were 20-30 yrs ago, they would have skated on those comments.

post #49 of 99

I work for the public sector (AKA "Government")  - our state level officials are trying to destroy the social infrastructure and auctioning off essential services to whoever sneaks them enough money, while also lowering taxes and getting re-elected.  If not a single fucking thing in the community works, but is "privatised," this is somehow better than anything working ever.  This is how pretty much how every red state in the nation operates, and middle-income educated people have been heading to blue states like rats off the Titanic.  That's the plan of the telecommunications companies - to deregulate services that should be public in the first place, then charge people up the ass for essential services that they don't really deliver.  This type of thing rolls in fly-over states, but when you get to the cities full of people with money - these types of shenanigans get stopped dead.

 

On Friday the county level data-services where I live were "slow" while I was trying to update public info, then the fucking bank had the same issues while I'm trying to deposit checks at a local branch.  There's no way that the Feds will roll over on this, because the telecorps already try and leverage the strangle-hold that they have on society - they've soured the voting base, POTOS, and the Justice Department.  They are going to get hit hard, and soon.

post #50 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoatMan View Post
 

I don't post much, typically because I eventually have the entire community attacking me after a few days.

 

Did it ever occur to you that it's the content of what you post that might be the catalyst for the 'attacks'?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Net Neutrality is Dead