Topic: Net Neutrality and E621.net - A dystopian tale

Posted under General

Chaser said:

This thread is about Net Neutrality, not Trump. Keep on topic or it will be locked.

This is already a political thread which we don't really like to have because they tend to cause problems. Bringing Trump into it(Be it for or against him) is seriously pushing boundaries, and will only be a matter of time before someone gets a record and the thread locked.
Please refer to our Site rules, specifically the Major Religions, Religious Figures, Political Parties, or Political Figures section if you need to know what to avoid in the topic.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Good morning, Ladies Gents and other of the community. My name is Faux.Pa, and you're all dead.

No, that't not some half-empty threat from some loser on the internet. That's a full-fledged threat from the American government. Even if you don't live in the USA, you're dead too.

What I'm talking about is Net Neutrality, which was a law passed under the Obama administration back in 2015 to prohibit ISPs from treating their access to the internet that they sell to you as a service, and more as a right. But F.C.C. chairman, Ajit Pai, wants that dead. In turn, he effectively wants to break your right as a grown-ass adult to look at yiff. Sound the alarm bells.

Okay, hold on a second, Faux. How is he going to stop that?
Well, lemme tell you, and give you a little of a personal back story.

By removing the Net Neutrality laws that the IFF (Internet Frontier Foundation) and the Freenet fought so dearly for, republicans (not to point fingers, but this does appear to be a republican agenda "in the name of a free and competitive market") are seeking to allow major ISPs such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable to control and/or limit the speed to which you can connect to certain websites. Effectively, these ISPs want to create a Internet Fastlane. They could start charging website owners like E621 thousands of dollars (on top of the already hefty hosting fees, domain registry fees and local/federal regulation fees) to include their website in the Internet Fastlane.

In a country that touts itself as being home of the free, land of the brave, we're looking to destroy everything that we've built just so the big corporations can make a quick buck yet again.

Now to my personal story.
From May to October of this year, I worked in a call center for AT&T Mobility as an Advanced Technical Support agent. Since our call center was one of the only that was open 24 hours a day, there's a good chance that one of you may have spoken to me to get your cell phone fixed.

Back to the story. During my time there, I felt like I was part of the call center family, but not part of the AT&T family. The only time AT&T would ever send someone from Corporate is if someone fucked up. You can guarantee that if you saw someone from corporate that someone would be walked out.

All they cared about were stats. How long were you in a call? Did you resolve the customer's issues? Did you use T-I-10? They never cared about morality unless it was one of their corporate-owned call centers that they just absolutely adore. But this next part is one of the reasons why I quit.

I heard the usual ding of the phone, and quickly closed my Google Solitaire tab in Internet Explorer. The customer was an older lady who had sounded very hoarse from either shouting or crying. She told me that she had been in the hospital with her late husband for the last 2 months, and that AT&T had charged her somewhere around $250 for cell phone service that she hadn't been using, as she had her daughter's phone to make phone calls at the hospital. Going over her bill, I was fully-ready to give her a $200 credit for the bill, but I had to get supervisor permission. Since it was over the amount that my supervisor could permit, he too had to get permission from his higher-up.

The request was declined. The way AT&T saw it, she had service going to the phone, and even if she didn't use it, she still had to pay for it. This shows you how heartless these major ISPs can be.

So what does this tell you?
ISPs don't understand the plot of "The Wizard of Oz" (no brain, no heart and no backbone)

ISPs don't understand (or are refusing to understand) how their service is one of the fundamental ways that people all over the world exercise their human right to free speech. The internet may have been created in the 1980s as some government science project, but it has grown to so much more than that.

ISPs don't have the heart to respect their customers. They give you this song-and-dance about how your privacy is their number one priority, but then give you the middle finger when they tell you that their systems are going to systematically block or slow you connection to certain websites.

And ISPs don't have the backbone to tell you that they essentially want to fuck over your right to a free internet, so they leak their intentions via side channels so you don't hear about it until some whiny uber-liberal complains about it on CNN.

These big corporations don't care about us, so why should we care about them? As an American who upholds his right to freedom of speech, and as a human of this big world, I refuse to allow some lobbyist in congress to take away my rights.

We all have a duty to protect those rights.

http://act.freepress.net/letter/internet_faces_nprm_nn/[/b]
Send a comment. Tell F.C.C. chairman Ajit Pai that we won't take no as answer.

Updated by user 252696

it's rather ironic that they reason this is for the good of a competitive market when in fact it would lead to the oposite, enabling the possibility of a monopoly and making it harder for new services to be created, and last time I checked streaming services like hulu or Netflix are also corporations and they would be hurt by this so. Seems more like a polital motivation to hinder and censor progressive and liberal websites rather then economic background.

Updated by anonymous

Darou said:
it's rather ironic that they reason this is for the good of a competitive market when in fact it would lead to the oposite, enabling the possibility of a monopoly and making it harder for new services to be created, and last time I checked streaming services like hulu or Netflix are also corporations and they would be hurt by this so. Seems more like a polital motivation to hinder and censor progressive and liberal websites rather then economic background.

Which is why I said it's a republican agenda. They know that the left uses social media heavily to spread influence. Talk about seizing the means of social production... oh wait.

Updated by anonymous

FoxFourOhFour said:
Politics.

I guess politics need to be discussed when politics essentially force themselves into discussion, e.g. it will effect browsing of this site most likely as well. Website being US based and all.

As I'm still not US citizen, I once again can't do much anything and once again the effect over here is most likely minimal. All I can say that at this point it feels like they are just trying to tire people out by constantly trying to pass these stupid things after the last one has been dealt with.

Updated by anonymous

A peep told me that if you wanted to know what would it look like if this thing passes through, take a look at Portugal. I was confused at first, but then I read this

I'm sure it won't be exactly like Portugal, but it's an interesting outcome.

Updated by anonymous

And us fear-mongering and spreading panic is sure as hell gonna solve all our problems, right? Oh wait. There's nothing we can do anyway, our government is a bunch of money-grubbing losers, what's voicing our concern going to do, magically stop the FCC and other groups from screwing us all over?

Might as well give up while the getting's good, no point trying to stop it now. Sites like this, YouTube, Reddit, etc are all screwed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vewkfFu8Q7I

What can citizens actually do? Write their Senators and hope they actually fight against this? Ha ha ha ha ha *deep breath* ha ha ha ha.

Updated by anonymous

fox_whisper85 said:
And us fear-mongering and spreading panic is sure as hell gonna solve all our problems, right? Oh wait. There's nothing we can do anyway, our government is a bunch of money-grubbing losers, what's voicing our concern going to do, magically stop the FCC and other groups from screwing us all over?

Might as well give up while the getting's good, no point trying to stop it now. Sites like this, YouTube, Reddit, etc are all screwed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vewkfFu8Q7I

What can citizens actually do? Write their Senators and hope they actually fight against this? Ha ha ha ha ha *deep breath* ha ha ha ha.

Except it's been attempted and stopped before. It's attitudes like that that has gotten a certain person where he is today.

Updated by anonymous

Waba said:
Except it's been attempted and stopped before. It's attitudes like that that has gotten a certain person where he is today.

Oh, then what do you suggest? Do tell, I'm just dying to know your solution. Governments have never cared for the people, regardless of who the POTUS is, and that's a fact. Comcast, Verizon, AT&T can all burn for all I care.

Do you honestly believe writing and calling our Senators, reps, etc, with our concerns is going to somehow stop this from being repealed? Even if it is stopped, how do you know these losers won't try again?

Updated by anonymous

fox_whisper85 said:
Governments have never cared for the people

You found the problem, then it's time to apply the solution. Remove goverment and bring democracy!

Updated by anonymous

DelurC said:
You found the problem, then it's time to apply the solution. Remove goverment and bring democracy!

That's easy for you to say.

Updated by anonymous

fox_whisper85 said:
That's easy for you to say.

Why? Seems easy for US to bring Democracy to other countries.
It's nigh time for Americans to bring Democracy to US.

Updated by anonymous

Waba said:
Except it's been attempted and stopped before. It's attitudes like that that has gotten a certain person where he is today.

Largely the vote got split on party lines- dems voted to keep net neutrality, reps voted against it. When it got blocked before there was a dem majority. Now there's a rep majority. If they vote with their party again then yes, net neutrality will likely be repealed. People can try to call in and give their opinion, but that's not a vote and has no real power, especially in areas where people pick their senators/representatives based mostly on party and there are few/no other candidates of that party to choose from.

The non-mainstream internet is also still seen as a pretty niche interest. Sure, everyone has Facebook and Twitter, but these are big enough to not likely be affected too badly. Fandom sites, gaming? That's weird nerd shit people not into weird nerd shit don't care about. Most people also don't know or care about less mainstream or niche news sites. And many conservatives would (at least publicly) love to be able to claim they're stopping internet porn.

In order to get this to be stopped, and stopped every time it comes up (because it will keep getting brought up until it either passes or we go extinct), you'd need to convince politicians that it's not a party issue and you'd need to convince people who absolutely do not care about this issue that it IS worth their time.

Updated by anonymous

regsmutt said:
Largely the vote got split on party lines- dems voted to keep net neutrality, reps voted against it. When it got blocked before there was a dem majority. Now there's a rep majority. If they vote with their party again then yes, net neutrality will likely be repealed. People can try to call in and give their opinion, but that's not a vote and has no real power, especially in areas where people pick their senators/representatives based mostly on party and there are few/no other candidates of that party to choose from.

The non-mainstream internet is also still seen as a pretty niche interest. Sure, everyone has Facebook and Twitter, but these are big enough to not likely be affected too badly. Fandom sites, gaming? That's weird nerd shit people not into weird nerd shit don't care about. Most people also don't know or care about less mainstream or niche news sites. And many conservatives would (at least publicly) love to be able to claim they're stopping internet porn.

In order to get this to be stopped, and stopped every time it comes up (because it will keep getting brought up until it either passes or we go extinct), you'd need to convince politicians that it's not a party issue and you'd need to convince people who absolutely do not care about this issue that it IS worth their time.

So you're saying it's not all doom and gloom to make our voices heard in letters, phone calls, etc?

Updated by anonymous

fox_whisper85 said:
So you're saying it's not all doom and gloom to make our voices heard in letters, phone calls, etc?

It might work? Maybe? Most likely not, but possibly? You still run into the issue of party voters and single-issue voters. Sure, you can tell an elected politician "I won't like it if you make this decision!" but that has no bite unless there's a valid threat of them losing the next election because of this issue. It's STILL effectively meaningless if they then lose to another candidate of the same party who would make the same decision. In areas that consistently vote one way or another because their constituents are party voters or single-issue voters, there's no incentive for them to change their decision.

Updated by anonymous

fox_whisper85 said:
Do you honestly believe writing and calling our Senators, reps, etc, with our concerns is going to somehow stop this from being repealed? Even if it is stopped, how do you know these losers won't try again?

Yes, actually.

And honestly, yes.

The last year's been a really diffficult one, and there has been a LOT of things brought into congress that are pretty horrifying. People are contacting their senators and stating their opinions in ways that we haven't in the decades gone past.

I've heard and read numerous accounts of how shocked some people are at how many calls they're getting. People are becoming more involved than they ever have. It's absolutely certain that some government representatives are gonna fuck off and do what they want (I live in alabama, I know ALL ABOUT people fucking off and doing what they want)... but if you get 2 phone calls a week, and suddenly that inflates to 130 phone calls a week all saying "DON'T SUPPORT THIS"... then you have to consider that for every person that is calling, there are thousands remaining silent.. thousands that you will upset by going against. Thousands that will be involved in reelecting you next time.

and man, this last election we had a few weeks ago? a LOT of districts flipped. a LOT of people are getting out and voting.

They have a lot of motivation to listen to us, especially when we tell them that it's a bad thing.

Don't discount the power of your voice.

and yes, they'll try again, and again and again, but we just need to keep saying NO. Because they're trying to wear us down. That doesn't mean we should just roll over and accept it.

Updated by anonymous

SnowWolf said:
Yes, actually.

And honestly, yes.

The last year's been a really diffficult one, and there has been a LOT of things brought into congress that are pretty horrifying. People are contacting their senators and stating their opinions in ways that we haven't in the decades gone past.

I've heard and read numerous accounts of how shocked some people are at how many calls they're getting. People are becoming more involved than they ever have. It's absolutely certain that some government representatives are gonna fuck off and do what they want (I live in alabama, I know ALL ABOUT people fucking off and doing what they want)... but if you get 2 phone calls a week, and suddenly that inflates to 130 phone calls a week all saying "DON'T SUPPORT THIS"... then you have to consider that for every person that is calling, there are thousands remaining silent.. thousands that you will upset by going against. Thousands that will be involved in reelecting you next time.

and man, this last election we had a few weeks ago? a LOT of districts flipped. a LOT of people are getting out and voting.

They have a lot of motivation to listen to us, especially when we tell them that it's a bad thing.

Don't discount the power of your voice.

and yes, they'll try again, and again and again, but we just need to keep saying NO. Because they're trying to wear us down. That doesn't mean we should just roll over and accept it.

I don't want to get my hopes up, because somehow, something always goes wrong. Sorry, just in a bit of a sour mood on something that happened 20 min ago, I'd rather not talk about it publicly -_-

Updated by anonymous

fox_whisper85 said:
Oh, then what do you suggest? Do tell, I'm just dying to know your solution. Governments have never cared for the people, regardless of who the POTUS is, and that's a fact. Comcast, Verizon, AT&T can all burn for all I care.

Do you honestly believe writing and calling our Senators, reps, etc, with our concerns is going to somehow stop this from being repealed? Even if it is stopped, how do you know these losers won't try again?

The same solution. If it worked last time, then it will work again. How do you think government workers got to their position? People voted for them. How do you think they can stay where they are at? The same voters have to vote for them. In order for them to stay in their position, they have to listen to their constituents. Your negativity is clouding your basic sense of logic.

Updated by anonymous

Waba said:
The same solution. If it worked last time, then it will work again. How do you think government workers got to their position? People voted for them. How do you think they can stay where they are at? The same voters have to vote for them. In order for them to stay in their position, they have to listen to their constituents. Your negativity is clouding your basic sense of logic.

In theory that's how it works. In practice they don't have to listen to all (or even most) of their constituents, they only need to listen to the percentage that vote for them. Even then, they know that they can take liberties with some issues and push through things that are unpopular as long as they don't lose their party voters and single-issue voters. Maybe it's still technically a gamble, but depending on the demographics of their voter base, it can be a pretty safe bet that their voters will care less about net neutrality and more about taxes, abortion, and keeping the other party out of office.

Updated by anonymous

fox_whisper85 said:
I don't want to get my hopes up, because somehow, something always goes wrong. Sorry, just in a bit of a sour mood on something that happened 20 min ago, I'd rather not talk about it publicly -_-

I hope whatever went wrong goes better. Sorry, though. *hugs, if you want 'em.*

But, for what it's worth, it has come up before and been struck down. a lot of things are being struck down lately. Just like the fights about "health care" and "tax plans"... It's a struggle, but we're doing good.

Updated by anonymous

Waba said:
The same solution. If it worked last time, then it will work again. How do you think government workers got to their position? People voted for them. How do you think they can stay where they are at? The same voters have to vote for them. In order for them to stay in their position, they have to listen to their constituents. Your negativity is clouding your basic sense of logic.

Well, I have anxiety issues and I'm not proud of it, my apologies. I just seriously fear what may or may not happen with what the government does, nothing more.

SnowWolf said:
I hope whatever went wrong goes better. Sorry, though. *hugs, if you want 'em.*

But, for what it's worth, it has come up before and been struck down. a lot of things are being struck down lately. Just like the fights about "health care" and "tax plans"... It's a struggle, but we're doing good.

I just want things to work out..that's all. Thank you.

Updated by anonymous

fox_whisper85 said:
Well, I have anxiety issues and I'm not proud of it, my apologies. I just seriously fear what may or may not happen with what the government does, nothing more.

I just want things to work out..that's all. Thank you.

You and me both, friend. You and me both. My blood pressures gone up literally 20 points over the last year. I'm... I came back here, I think, out of the need and want to exert some degree of order onto the universe. It seems silly, coming to the porn place because I want to tag things and argue about socks... but it makes me feel a little better, to know that I'm helping create a bit of order.

I can't change the USA. I can't change the world. but I can, at least, change part of the world around me. Just a little bit. It helps relax my anxiety.

We can only do as much as we can do. It doesn't help anyone if we give more than we have. Self care is SO important.

Updated by anonymous

Darou said:
it's rather ironic that they reason this is for the good of a competitive market when in fact it would lead to the oposite, enabling the possibility of a monopoly and making it harder for new services to be created, and last time I checked streaming services like hulu or Netflix are also corporations and they would be hurt by this so. Seems more like a polital motivation to hinder and censor progressive and liberal websites rather then economic backgrou

Nah it's just about the money. Ajit Pai is taking this opportunity to change the rules cause when he leaves the FCC he'll go back to working for Comcast or whoever and take in the hard $$$$ he will be making. Everyone else loses. Crony capitalism at work.

Though it will make it a lot easier for an ISP to shut out opinions they don't agree with if they wanted to. Which would affect liberal thought more than conservative thought. So unfortunately if youre a poor liberal sap like myself then it sucks.

Updated by anonymous

Crazyc011 said:
Nah it's just about the money. Ajit Pai is taking this opportunity to change the rules cause when he leaves the FCC he'll go back to working for Comcast or whoever and take in the hard $$$$ he will be making. Everyone else loses. Crony capitalism at work.

Though it will make it a lot easier for an ISP to shut out opinions they don't agree with if they wanted to. Which would affect liberal thought more than conservative thought. So unfortunately if youre a poor liberal sap like myself then it sucks.

not really as others pointed out this is not first time this has been tried, new actor in the leadership/figurehead role but the actual power pushing the repeal is the same one as before, republican party leadership that are desperate in keeping the members of the other party and non-affiliated moderates suppressed and geting a cheap win. the is not about money because it would hit the economy hard as well. it benefits no one economically in the midterm/longterm. Any profit gained in the short term would be lost quickly again.

Updated by anonymous

Darou said:
not really as others pointed out this is not first time this has been tried, new actor in the leadership/figurehead role but the actual power pushing the repeal is the same one as before, republican party leadership that are desperate in keeping the members of the other party and non-affiliated moderates suppressed and geting a cheap win. the is not about money because it would hit the economy hard as well. it benefits no one economically in the midterm/longterm. Any profit gained in the short term would be lost quickly again.

but in a world of the broke, the one with one dollar is king

Updated by anonymous

Darou said:
not really as others pointed out this is not first time this has been tried, new actor in the leadership/figurehead role but the actual power pushing the repeal is the same one as before, republican party leadership that are desperate in keeping the members of the other party and non-affiliated moderates suppressed and geting a cheap win. the is not about money because it would hit the economy hard as well. it benefits no one economically in the midterm/longterm. Any profit gained in the short term would be lost quickly again.

Yeah, good point.

Updated by anonymous

Having net neutrality is good for content providers like Netflix and bad for ISPs. Not having net neutrality is good for ISPs and bad for content providers. As consumers, we really shouldn't have a dog in this race. There's been a ton of propaganda in favor of net neutrality though, so now everyone thinks it's the only thing standing between us and disaster. The horror stories about what's going to happen if we lose it are completely implausible. We didn't even have these rules in place until 2015. is going back to the way things were in 2014 really that scary?

I oppose net neutrality just on general principle. Letting the government set the rules for how businesses operate has never worked out well in the past. Why would this be the one time that they get things right? Why would this be the one time we manage to avoid regulatory capture and crony corporatism? A better idea than pressuring the federal government to create new rules in the form of net neutrality would be to pressure local governments to stop blocking ISPs from building new infrastructure and competing in new regions. With more competition, ISPs would be incentivized to give consumers what we want, lest we take our money and go elsewhere.

Updated by anonymous

Del_Coocnat said:
As consumers, we really shouldn't have a dog in this race.

Of course. Why would it matter to the consumer whether they can access sites like netflix, youtube, or e621, without paying extra to ISP or moving out since the ISPs in their region don't allow godless sites. Net neutrality it's clearly a case of liberal agenda. \s

Updated by anonymous

Del_Coocnat said:
Having net neutrality is good for content providers like Netflix and bad for ISPs. Not having net neutrality is good for ISPs and bad for content providers. As consumers, we really shouldn't have a dog in this race. There's been a ton of propaganda in favor of net neutrality though, so now everyone thinks it's the only thing standing between us and disaster. The horror stories about what's going to happen if we lose it are completely implausible. We didn't even have these rules in place until 2015. is going back to the way things were in 2014 really that scary?

I oppose net neutrality just on general principle. Letting the government set the rules for how businesses operate has never worked out well in the past. Why would this be the one time that they get things right? Why would this be the one time we manage to avoid regulatory capture and crony corporatism? A better idea than pressuring the federal government to create new rules in the form of net neutrality would be to pressure local governments to stop blocking ISPs from building new infrastructure and competing in new regions. With more competition, ISPs would be incentivized to give consumers what we want, lest we take our money and go elsewhere.

To start your assumption that we're all just consumers here falls flat. Anyone who takes commissions or otherwise sells goods and services is no longer just a consumer, they're running a business. To maintain their income both they and their customer base need unrestricted access to the apps and sites used to advertise, communicate, and sell. "Content providers" are not only major sites like Netflix (who will not be hurt regardless) but independent small businesses.

As far as going back to before net neutrality- the rule was put in place because abuse was happening. You had ISPs quietly blocking or slowing applications and websites they didn't like including file sharing programs, VOIP services (including Skype and FaceTime), and websites promoting labour strikes.

True, it's unlikely that most people using restricted apps and sites will both notice and know where to put the blame. If, say, connection Telegram is slowed down noticeably, the assumption of many users is going to be that it's an issue of the app itself. Meanwhile another chat app connected to the ISP is given priority. Now for someone selling commissions on Telegram, if everyone migrates to the ISP chat, it's a net neutral. But if each ISP has their own prioritized chat service and a different list of restricted services, the audience is going to be fractured and this will affect business.

Updated by anonymous

Del_Coocnat said:
A better idea than pressuring the federal government to create new rules in the form of net neutrality would be to pressure local governments to stop blocking ISPs from building new infrastructure and competing in new regions. With more competition, ISPs would be incentivized to give consumers what we want, lest we take our money and go elsewhere.

Well, I would maybe go with you, if not for my own internet history.

See, I live in a kinda rural area. I"m approximately 2 or 3 miles from the city limits of the nearest city. (let me be clear, I'm still pretty suburban out here: If I went out into my yard, I could hit about 2 or 3 of my neighbor's houses with thrown rocks.) ... said city is the county seat. We're part of a major metropolitan area, just on the edge of it. We're surrounded by rural areas further out from the major city, but we're still a big town over here.

What I"m saying is, we should have pretty good services out here.

We don't. about 8 years ago, I was stuck on *dial up internet*. It was government regulations that 'forced' us to have access to high speed internet.

Our 'high speed internet' was, as of 2 years ago, 6 Mb/s limited to 150GB downloaded per month.

Finally, just about 2 years ago, we finally got another option ( 100 Mb/s with no bandwidth cap, for basically the same price) and now I don't have to sweat about if I have enough bandwidth to watch youtube, or delay downloading a new game I bought until next month because, gosh, I just don't have the bandwidth for that.

Competition's a great idea. It honestly is. (I've never been happier than when a new grocery store moved into town and started competing with the local walmart) But the problem is, companies fight over cities. Companies fight over densely populated urban areas where expanding into a new area can lead to thousands of new customers. Us outside the cities? Nope. Our original ISP still calls us up every couple of weeks and tries to convince us to buy their services again. They haven't improved anything. They don't care about us. We're not 'worth' upgrading anything for.

After all, for everyone who switched like we did, you've got a ton of people who didn't know, were unaware what he difference was, or just didn't want to change, because they understand what they're working with with the old company.

*shrugs*

I'd be all for it, if I thought that most of us had a choice. I, technically, have a choice. I could go back to the slow, crappy internet with the tight bandwidth cap. But that's not really competition, is it?

Updated by anonymous

I contacted my representatives. 1 of the 3 I spoke with said they would defend net neutrality, and another said they would consider it (and I'm still going to be calling them every day). The last one hasn't responded, but I'm still going to light up their phone lines every day until December 14th.

The point is that this is the most danger that the Internet has been in since it was created. Why wouldn't you pull out all of the stops to defend something that is so dear to you?

People laugh at me, sure....but so many others are beginning to hear about this. If they pass this, it won't be because people didn't take a stand. I just hope that our representatives will actually choose to give a shit.

Updated by anonymous

Do people think all the fear-mongering and sensationalism is going to help at all?

Updated by anonymous

fox_whisper85 said:
Do people think all the fear-mongering and sensationalism is going to help at all?

Yes. Because it has.

People a few years ago never called senators, never thought to participate. These days, we are. we're spreading information, we're making things known.

There is no single source of information for people these days. there is no six o'clock news everyone watches, or morning newpaper that everyone reads. We're spread out. We all have our different news sources we trust, and there is news from around the world pouring in.

Any single post, or article may reach some people, but it won't reach everyone.

And if only some people know about something, others say "well I've never heard about that.." and decide it's not important.

We say these thigns over and over again because it's important to give everyoen the chance to hear the message. Because we can't control if you've heard about it once, or 1000 times. We can't control if who you heard it from. We can't control the message you heard was spun either.

We repeat it to make sure you hear it. I was chatting with a lady early who hadn't heard about this stuff. She has an online store. Not everyone heard about these things. I was talking with my uncle who'd only heard the 'official' statement about how it was a great thing that would help everyone.. It didn't take long to point out the other half and he seemed pretty horrified by it.

It's annoying, I know. I hate seeing the same messages over and over again. But it's *important..

Updated by anonymous

fox_whisper85 said:
Do people think all the fear-mongering and sensationalism is going to help at all?

Sitting on our asses and doing nothing will help us more, you say?

Updated by anonymous

Volphied said:
Sitting on our asses and doing nothing will help us more, you say?

Do you think those in power will listen to us?

Updated by anonymous

DelurC said:
While siting on asses, no.

So what if we voice our concerns and they still don't listen, what then?

Updated by anonymous

fox whisper, those in power do listen, because the sustainability of their power or money depends on the satisfaction of the people. Of course 1 person in many cases wont effect much but a vocal group will and it only takes 1 person to create such a group. The other key is persistence, if they dont listen then you follow thru and boycott or have them elected out of office and campaign for it... among other things...

Do you have a agenda in parroting pointlessness?

Updated by anonymous

fox_whisper85 said:
So what if we voice our concerns and they still don't listen, what then?

When those that are chosen to serve the people do not serve the people, appropriate course of action is to remove them.

Updated by anonymous

I've been watching this thread very closely, trying to avoid saying something that's already been said, but I do have to agree with both sides of the argument here (as in, e621). Nothing's going to change if we sit around on our asses, but at the same time, the government's got a bad track record for ignoring it's constituents.

What that means is that we need to get louder. I wrote a couple of letters to my governors back in 2015 about net-neutrality, and I just got some static boilerplate response back every time. Seriously, the same letter with same exact wording each time. I've tried to talk to Dean Heller [R] and Harry Reid [D]. Mr Reid seemed very interested in passing the law, whereas Mr Heller was not.

If I weren't so busy job-hunting, I would be doing what IndigoHeat is doing.

Updated by anonymous

DelurC said:
When those that are chosen to serve the people do not serve the people, appropriate course of action is to remove them.

If it were only that easy.

Updated by anonymous

Darou said:
fox whisper, those in power do listen, because the sustainability of their power or money depends on the satisfaction of the people. Of course 1 person in many cases wont effect much but a vocal group will and it only takes 1 person to create such a group. The other key is persistence, if they dont listen then you follow thru and boycott or have them elected out of office and campaign for it... among other things...

Do you have a agenda in parroting pointlessness?

You would be surprised just how little electives actually care about the goals that working class people have to go though. You know, being completely detached from the daily struggles of others and all. Moreover, their support is often not solely from common people, but large powerful entities like big business that can finance and directly support political movements.

Also, I don't really care about net neutrality anyway. Verizon already arbitrarily adds funds to a ludicrously high bill anyway, so either we limit what we use or get rid of it entirely. I've gone years without internet with mixed results so I'm pretty sure we'll survive.

Updated by anonymous

20-Shades-Of-Faux-Pa said:
I've been watching this thread very closely, trying to avoid saying something that's already been said, but I do have to agree with both sides of the argument here (as in, e621). Nothing's going to change if we sit around on our asses, but at the same time, the government's got a bad track record for ignoring it's constituents.

What that means is that we need to get louder. I wrote a couple of letters to my governors back in 2015 about net-neutrality, and I just got some static boilerplate response back every time. Seriously, the same letter with same exact wording each time. I've tried to talk to Dean Heller [R] and Harry Reid [D]. Mr Reid seemed very interested in passing the law, whereas Mr Heller was not.

If I weren't so busy job-hunting, I would be doing what IndigoHeat is doing.

To be frank, I'm not doing as much as some other people are doing at this moment. I just make a phone call a day and mention it wherever (and whenever) it's appropriate. I'm not going to be taking part in the protests because of work, but I'd really love to.

Updated by anonymous

fox_whisper85 said:
If it were only that easy.

Only the easy type of activism and protesting is OK with you. At least that's how it appears from observing you wallow in misery in this thread.

Updated by anonymous

Aanyi said:
I've gone years without internet with mixed results so I'm pretty sure we'll survive.

Those times are in the past. Did you know that schools as low as elementary up to universities revolve their schoolwork around the internet? In fact, a big lot of courses and majors are required to use the internet exclusively (i.e. tech majors like computer science, graphic designers, etc). Students, or just people in general, shouldn't have to pay an extra shiny penny just to learn, and they already do with how costly tuition/bills are. As technology advances forward, so does the majority of people.

Updated by anonymous

The FCC as well as Pai have deliberately chosen to altogether ignore all comments sent their way. They're dead set on taking Net Neutrality from the USA to make more money.
You have to get your representatives, people in congress or whoever's one step above the damn FCC to give them a slap and kick them in the balls. The FCC's only afraid of legal action, and I believe you all have the right to have some powerful figure take legal action against them for taking away some of your basic rights as American citizens. That's right. The Internet nowadays is a crucial mean for people to inform themselves and express themselves, no matter how niche some consider it. No Net Neutrality, no expression and information. That's basically censorship, taking your freedom away.
Is there nothing you can do to get the law to punch the FCC in the face ?
I think there is.

I live in France and Net Neutrality is vastly supported by our own non-evil equivalent of the FCC here, the ARCEP.
However if y'all in the United States lose Net Nutella I won't be able to visit sites like e621 that will most likely fucking die, and the long distance relationships I maintain with people in the USA that I really care about will be most likely impossible to go on proper as they'll have to pay mountains of money they don't have to stay in touch with me.

Don't let them do this.

Updated by anonymous

Volphied said:
Only the easy type of activism and protesting is OK with you. At least that's how it appears from observing you wallow in misery in this thread.

And the fun part is that it's never easy. If you want to get shit done, you have to battle through it and get it done. Nothing is easy. People taking their time out of their day to bring attention to an issue that needs addressing. And I loathe the popular notion that "protesters don't have jobs". Not everyone has a job that is full-time, 9-to-5, or even daily.

Updated by anonymous

Waba said:
Those times are in the past. Did you know that schools as low as elementary up to universities revolve their schoolwork around the internet? In fact, a big lot of courses and majors are required to use the internet exclusively (i.e. tech majors like computer science, graphic designers, etc). Students, or just people in general, shouldn't have to pay an extra shiny penny just to learn, and they already do with how costly tuition/bills are. As technology advances forward, so does the majority of people.

Sucks to be them, then.

Even throughout my teen years we had to cut off the net because we couldn't afford it; it was a luxury that we didn't really have enough money for and we ended up fine. Besides, why should I feel like that I have to protect the cesspit that is the internet anyway? To be brutally honest, it has done nothing to academically help me in any useful way except make learning even more ridiculous than it already is. Maybe we'll actually go back to the more tactful days of using horrendously expensive textbooks and being self-reliant instead of going to wikipedia because science is too hard. Maybe we'll actually grow from it and society as a whole will have to adapt to the loss of instant information and have to use their own brains to think critically again, but that's just me.

Updated by anonymous

Volphied said:
Only the easy type of activism and protesting is OK with you. At least that's how it appears from observing you wallow in misery in this thread.

And what have you been doing to stop this, exactly?

Updated by anonymous

Aanyi said:
Sucks to be them, then.

Even throughout my teen years we had to cut off the net because we couldn't afford it; it was a luxury that we didn't really have enough money for and we ended up fine. Besides, why should I feel like that I have to protect the cesspit that is the internet anyway?

I really...

"I don't need it, so no one else does" isn't a very good arguement. Or at least, it's a horrifically selfish one.

I live in Alabama. My dad lives in Hawaii. My favorite uncle lives in Maine. My favorite aunt? California. Facebook's been pretty great, as far as letting me keep up with my family. I sure as hell haven't been able to go back and visit. I've bought christmas presents for my nieces and nephews via amazon. I *sell* my own books via amazon. Most of my reading? you guessed it. Amazon and other web outlets.

The internet IS pretty awful. Yeah, I've been there. I've seen the shitty parts. I lost a dear friend to the crappy part of the internet because people bullied him. I decided, after that happened, to cut that shit out of my life and y'know what? it works. You don't have to be a part of the shitty spaces if you don't want to be. My internet usage is generally pretty benevolent--except for the parts where I'm hearing about the shit going on in real life. And y'know what? my Alabama news papers and alabama news outlets aren't going to give me news that is relevant to me.

I mean. The internet isn't a requirement for life. Neither is TV, newspapers, radio or anything like that. All we *really* need is food, water and shelter, after all. We could go back to a hunter gatherer society. But once we start collecting together in permanent groups, we're going to start sharing news, gossip, rumours and information. and y'know what? tha'ts pretty cool. BUt we want ways to share this with others-- media forms. media can be controlled. Science leads to technological advances. Great. and that leads to the internet, which is the great communication tool.

it's what lets people in little towns without libraries look up youtube videos of actual real tigers and read about bugs, and why rainforests are neat. My lttle niece spends more time on the internet looking up information about ecology and animals than I ever did, and I lived in the library and was basically born a furry and treasured all bajillion issues of ranger rick I owned. She knows SO MUCH more than I ever did because she doesn't have access to just the dozen tiger books the library has, she has the world of knowledge before her fingertips. I thought I knew what every animal was was I was 10. She was chattering happily about Kinkajous to me the other day. I'd never heard of a kinkajou until a few years ago.

The internet can be fantastic, man. I want to protect it so I can talk to my family, look up doggo pictures, let my niece learn about exotic mammals and decide that she, a little girl, wants pet rats and pet snakes, and that she doesn't want a fancy Persian cat, but wants a little moggie from the shelter because there are homeless pets out there, and how she discovered that spiders are really pretty and aren't actually terrifying.

We don't need the internet to live. But it makes my life better. I can live without it--of course I can. but it makes my life *better*.

To be brutally honest, it has done nothing to academically help me in any useful way except make learning even more ridiculous than it already is. Maybe we'll actually go back to the more tactful days of using horrendously expensive textbooks and being self-reliant instead of going to wikipedia because science is too hard. Maybe we'll actually grow from it and society as a whole will have to adapt to the loss of instant information and have to use their own brains to think critically again, but that's just me.

wikipedia's great when you don't have the basis of information. I found myself wondering 'how the hell do sailboats even work? surely they are just bound to the whims of the wind? How does a boat go back and forth across an ocean if that's true??" ... thanks wikipedia for breaking that answer down for me, in a brief but effective way that answered my question without me having to remember it long enough to reach the library and look it up, and cross reference several different terms to try and understand what's going on.

Instant information isn't a bad thing. we do lack critical thinking, but oh honey.

Oh honey.

we have never, ever, ever as a society all known how to think critically.

Is it worse today than it was a few decades ago? hard to say. we're all pretty biased on the matter. Would we benefit from being taught different things? absolutely. Standardized education as we teach it now is pretty shitty up and down across the board. It wasn't much better when I was a kid. It wasn't better when my dad was a kid (he's the one who got to high school before some one realized he couldn't read.) My husband's grandpa couldn't read at all. He dropped out after 3rd grade to go work. Did people before have a better understanding of how people work back then? Maybe!

But I can tell you that every generation has felt like society is dying, that things were better in the past. "smartphones are killing society, internet is killing society, MTV is killing society, rock music, television, movies, telephones, magazines, newspapers, books...!" ... it's always been this way and it always will. Even if you teach people to think, some people won't.

But, dude. if you'd like a better you, you could always just get off the internet yourself. I mean... you're *here*... with us. ... on the internet. You may even be happier for it! and if so, that's great :) I wish you all the best. But I'd like it if you could please try and support me and my world, which is better and more connected with the internet. Or at the very least, my little niece who's internet education is far richer than what her disinterested, underfunded public school teachers are giving her.

Updated by anonymous

Aanyi said:
Sucks to be them, then.

Even throughout my teen years we had to cut off the net because we couldn't afford it; it was a luxury that we didn't really have enough money for and we ended up fine. Besides, why should I feel like that I have to protect the cesspit that is the internet anyway? To be brutally honest, it has done nothing to academically help me in any useful way except make learning even more ridiculous than it already is. Maybe we'll actually go back to the more tactful days of using horrendously expensive textbooks and being self-reliant instead of going to wikipedia because science is too hard. Maybe we'll actually grow from it and society as a whole will have to adapt to the loss of instant information and have to use their own brains to think critically again, but that's just me.

The very fact that you are accessing this site, on the internet, for *free, yet you don't care about the issue is pure arrogance.

Also, using Wikipedia is always an automatic fail on assignments since high school.

Updated by anonymous

Waba said:
The very fact that you are accessing this site, on the internet, for *free, yet you don't care about the issue is pure arrogance.

Also, using Wikipedia is always an automatic fail on assignments since high school.

It's a privilege that I know can be taken away from me at anytime. Having this mentality is moreso the result of apathy since I'm aware of the volatility the internet has and not particularly out of arrogance.

SnowWolf said:
I really...

"I don't need it, so no one else does" isn't a very good arguement. Or at least, it's a horrifically selfish one.

It was moreso a display of my contempt of the behavior on the internet more than anything else. I realize that the internet itself is a great tool when used in a way that benefits everyone involved, but it isn't. Obviously this doesn't detract from the advantages of the internet as a whole, but if the general environment of it wasn't as hostile as it is, I would probably be more inclined to defend net neutrality rather than do nothing.

Have a lot more I can say about this, but I'm tired as fuck so a condensed version of how I feel about it will do for now.

Updated by anonymous

Aanyi said:
Sucks to be them, then.

Even throughout my teen years we had to cut off the net because we couldn't afford it; it was a luxury that we didn't really have enough money for and we ended up fine. Besides, why should I feel like that I have to protect the cesspit that is the internet anyway? To be brutally honest, it has done nothing to academically help me in any useful way except make learning even more ridiculous than it already is. Maybe we'll actually go back to the more tactful days of using horrendously expensive textbooks and being self-reliant instead of going to wikipedia because science is too hard. Maybe we'll actually grow from it and society as a whole will have to adapt to the loss of instant information and have to use their own brains to think critically again, but that's just me.

Because we adapted so well with all the other great purges of information.

Updated by anonymous

Aanyi said:
Sucks to be them, then.

Even throughout my teen years we had to cut off the net because we couldn't afford it; it was a luxury that we didn't really have enough money for and we ended up fine. Besides, why should I feel like that I have to protect the cesspit that is the internet anyway? To be brutally honest, it has done nothing to academically help me in any useful way except make learning even more ridiculous than it already is. Maybe we'll actually go back to the more tactful days of using horrendously expensive textbooks and being self-reliant instead of going to wikipedia because science is too hard. Maybe we'll actually grow from it and society as a whole will have to adapt to the loss of instant information and have to use their own brains to think critically again, but that's just me.

Every time I go to the library most of the books there on the topics I'm interested in are from the 1970s or earlier. Depending on the subject, you have to take old information with a grain of salt. They're also mixed in with books promoting creationism and homeopathy and assorted other pseudoscience. If you don't already have a basic knowledge of the topic going into it, the library is as poor a tool as just plunking in words in bing, except bing will at least give you information published in the last three years. And if your interests/research topic is even more obscure than mine are, well, hope you have gas money, you're probably going to need to travel.

Here's something that libraries currently have access to though- online academic journal databases. Instant access to peer-reviewed, current, and relevant information. They're excellent resources, but they require the internet to work. There's no way without these online databases that public and school/university libraries could afford enough subscriptions to journals to replace them. There's also the issue of storage, cataloging, and actually being able to find the damn paper you're looking for that help to give online databases an edge.

Sure, this really isn't applicable to most people, but it's still a massive loss of information.

Updated by anonymous

regsmutt said:
Every time I go to the library most of the books there on the topics I'm interested in are from the 1970s or earlier. Depending on the subject, you have to take old information with a grain of salt. They're also mixed in with books promoting creationism and homeopathy and assorted other pseudoscience.

Of especial note is that ANY information is only as good as the author writing it, and in a library, you don't generally know anything about them.

I live in the Deep South. This thing happened here, a long ways back. The Civil War. We all know about that shit.

But what fewer people know about is the "Lost Cause"... Wherein, the heroic struggle of the confederacy is endorsed. Wherein, the role of slavery in the civil war was minimized, and slavery was held as a kind and generous practice. Wherein, the north was demonized compared to the righteous south. WHo tried to steal the south's good and holy way of life in the name of greed.

Let me be blunt: This stuff is revisionism. This stuff is why we, down here, celebrate "Robert E. Lee/Martin Luther King Day" instead of MLK day. (Arizona celebrates MLK/Civil Rights day, for contrast). This stuff is taught in schools, in *textbooks* and explains an awful lot of recent and current events. The libraries, for a time, would deny people access to books with 'pro-north' text.

They controlled what people could get access to.

And this, ultimately comes full circle, doesn't it?

When you let people decide what you can or can't have access to, you let them control what you know. You let them give you facts. You let them create their own truths.

Updated by anonymous

20-Shades-Of-Faux-Pa said:
Oh lordy lord, the big orange meanie and pajeet are goins to sentsore my interweb.

Come on guys, just look at who wants to keep Net Neutrality. We have a lot of liberals, liberal news outlets, liberal foundations, Commiefornia based tech firms and Google.

So what do we know about the people at Google?
-They're pro political correctness.
-They're pro censorship.
-They're basically anti first amendment.

Fuck Google

So Google and liberals are suppose to keep the internet from being censored? That's the most retarded thing I ever heard in my life. The only thing that is going to happen, is Obama's EO will be repealed. The EO was passed just to help Commiefornia based tech firms like Facebook, Netflix and Google/Youtube. These companies send a shitload of information and the ISP's can barely keep up. More money needs to be invested in the ISP's infrastructure and the tech companies just don't want to pay for the massive amount of data they send. It's literally all about money.

Updated by anonymous

SnowWolf said:

But what fewer people know about is the "Lost Cause"... Wherein, the heroic struggle of the confederacy is endorsed. Wherein, the role of slavery in the civil war was minimized, and slavery was held as a kind and generous practice. Wherein, the north was demonized compared to the righteous south. WHo tried to steal the south's good and holy way of life in the name of greed.

Both sides demonized each over and romanticized certain aspects of the war.

Let me be blunt: This stuff is revisionism.

So is saying the war was just fought over ending slavery. It was really over state rights. Yes, slavery was one of those rights but it doesn't detract from the fact the southern people felt like they're rights were being abused by the North. This is one of the reasons why alot of American people(not just southerners) still fly the Confederate flag. It's used as a symbol of rebelling against oppression and not letting no god damn yank how to live your life. That and its our heritage.

This stuff is why we, down here, celebrate "Robert E. Lee/Martin Luther King Day" instead of MLK day.

I'm from the west coast and that's how I celebrate it.
>Arizona celebrates MLK/Civil Rights day, for contrast
:(

This stuff is taught in schools, in *textbooks* and explains an awful lot of recent and current events. The libraries, for a time, would deny people access to books with 'pro-north' text.

They controlled what people could get access to.

And this, ultimately comes full circle, doesn't it?

When you let people decide what you can or can't have access to, you let them control what you know. You let them give you facts. You let them create their own truths.

I'm sorry you were brainwashed into feeling guilt over your ancestry/heritage but it doesn't mean you should only want a leftist revision of history taught to brainwash other people.

Updated by anonymous

ThoughtCrime said:
Both sides demonized each over and romanticized certain aspects of the war.

This is truth in any war.

This next quote is from a bit further down in your post, but it's a faster bit to reply to:

I'm from the west coast and that's how I celebrate it.
>Arizona celebrates MLK/Civil Rights day, for contrast
:(

For one.. why is 'civil rights' day a frowny face? Like, I'm trying really hard to think about why celebrating equality is a bad thing. Especially on a day dedicated to a man who tried to bring that equality to reality.

For two...

No you don't. At least, not at a State level. Alabama and Mississippi are the only places that do Lee/King Day. Virginia did Lee-Jackson-King day, until Lee-Jackson day was moved in 2000. Arkansas had King/Lee, until they moved Lee day. Everywhere else does King day, except arizona and New Hampshire, which also celebrates civil rights. (NH actually celebrated Idaho recognizes Human Rights. Everywhere else celebrates King day.

That said, You may, of course, celebrate Robert E. Lee's birthday on your own.

So is saying the war was just fought over ending slavery. It was really over state rights. Yes, slavery was one of those rights but it doesn't detract from the fact the southern people felt like they're rights were being abused by the North. This is one of the reasons why alot of American people(not just southerners) still fly the Confederate flag. It's used as a symbol of rebelling against oppression and not letting no god damn yank how to live your life. That and its our heritage.

I'm sorry you were brainwashed into feeling guilt over your ancestry/heritage but it doesn't mean you should only want a leftist revision of history taught to brainwash other people.

It's not my heritage. I'm not from 'these parts'. I come from rather far away and the closest *my* ancestry comes from is Maryland, and quite bluntly, that half of my family's never cared much about me. I grew up in Hawaii. These are not my people.

But I mean, I guess you know better than I do? I mean, I'm only married to a history major, who has extensively studied the topic and came to the conclusion that what he was taught by his family, favorite teachers, and local society was wrong. *shrug* I don't guess his masters degree means much. I'm sure I just have misunderstood our long, extensive conversations about the matter. The civil war wasn't really emphasized much over in Hawaii, you see. While he was learning about the civil war, I was learning about the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and how we became an American Territory. But, ffft. What do I know?

Updated by anonymous

ThoughtCrime said:
Come on guys, just look at who wants to keep Net Neutrality. We have a lot of liberals, liberal news outlets, liberal foundations, Commiefornia based tech firms and Google.

So what do we know about the people at Google?
-They're pro political correctness.
-They're pro censorship.
-They're basically anti first amendment.

Fuck Google

So Google and liberals are suppose to keep the internet from being censored? That's the most retarded thing I ever heard in my life. The only thing that is going to happen, is Obama's EO will be repealed. The EO was passed just to help Commiefornia based tech firms like Facebook, Netflix and Google/Youtube. These companies send a shitload of information and the ISP's can barely keep up. More money needs to be invested in the ISP's infrastructure and the tech companies just don't want to pay for the massive amount of data they send. It's literally all about money.

Finally! Somebody with actual common sense in this thread! I've feel like i'm the few people in this thread who actually supports this repeal to Net Neutrality, in fact, i'm pretty excited about this move.

I Just like how liberals think that this move will "censor there beliefs" when, in fact Net Neutrality Gave the free pass for the Major Social Media sites to censor conservative belief, causing the internet to go a downward spiral of Mass ecochambers and "don't trigger muh feefees!" and any of that SJW bullshit. Net Neutrality is the MOST anti-free speech policy you can have on the internet.

And i just laugh when these liberals claim they are for internet free speech when we have seen TIME and TIME again that SJWs and feminazis have the WORST track record of internet free speech. But they'll totality allow racism against whites and sexism against males. Nope! That's totally fine for them.

If it wasn't for Net Neutrality, SJWs wouldn't been able to do the shit that they've done, with Gamergate and the likes. Getting ride of Net Neutrality will help bring back REAL internet free speech! Trump seems to be the only person that has a his head screwed on correctly on this issue. I'm so excited that we no longer have to deal with those SJWs and those AntiFa on the internet soon. It's about time!

Maybe Trump can apply this FCC policy on the "mainstream Media" too, that would also be great. Until then, i'll be happy that this Finally happen. I don't care that anybody else says this will be terrible, they're probably just another SJW sympathizers anyways.

Updated by anonymous

404OilDrum said:
Finally! Somebody with actual common sense in this thread!

That's funny, they only make sense if they're a Trump supporter like you. So, you don't support Net Neutrality only because liberals support it? That is the most idiotic and petty reason I've seen yet. What's with you and your party's obsession with liberals? You'd rather let the burn instead of helping it just to spite liberals. Pathetic.

Updated by anonymous

404OilDrum said:
Finally! Somebody with actual common sense in this thread! I've feel like i'm the few people in this thread who actually supports this repeal to Net Neutrality, in fact, i'm pretty excited about this move.

I Just like how liberals think that this move will "censor there beliefs" when, in fact Net Neutrality Gave the free pass for the Major Social Media sites to censor conservative belief, causing the internet to go a downward spiral of Mass ecochambers and "don't trigger muh feefees!" and any of that SJW bullshit. Net Neutrality is the MOST anti-free speech policy you can have on the internet.

And i just laugh when these liberals claim they are for internet free speech when we have seen TIME and TIME again that SJWs and feminazis have the WORST track record of internet free speech. But they'll totality allow racism against whites and sexism against males. Nope! That's totally fine for them.

If it wasn't for Net Neutrality, SJWs wouldn't been able to do the shit that they've done, with Gamergate and the likes. Getting ride of Net Neutrality will help bring back REAL internet free speech! Trump seems to be the only person that has a his head screwed on correctly on this issue. I'm so excited that we no longer have to deal with those SJWs and those AntiFa on the internet soon. It's about time!

First off you do not have to be a liberal to oppose a repeal, people among both sides of the aisle and foreigners are opposing or critizing the rehashed move by republican leadership in repealing NN.

I also find it ironic that you say social media censors thru NN when in fact the freedom allowed thru NN is exsactly what trump benefited from when he campaigned for president, the thru NN unregulated social media you criticize is what got trump his electoral followers and popularity, in a time of polarized liberal and conservative news media...

Updated by anonymous

Waba said:
That's funny, they only make sense if they're a Trump supporter like you. So, you don't support Net Neutrality only because liberals support it? That is the most idiotic and petty reason I've seen yet. What's with you and your party's obsession with liberals? You'd rather let the burn instead of helping it just to spite liberals. Pathetic.

Before you go and start calling conservatives "idiot", "petty", and "pathetic", i want you to answer me these questions:

Who wants to censor free speech in the name of "political correctness"?
Who keeps making the rhetoric that whites are "racist" and that males are "rapist" when they say something they disagree with?
Who Has been basically letting in terrorist in to fight against "islamaphobia"?
Who has been making the rhetoric that one should be punished if they assumed somebodies gender?
Who has been making laws that have discriminate males and whites? and the like?
Who has been demonizing gamers and youtubers as "bigots"?
Who has been accusing people of being "nazis" and "rapist" when they say something they don't agree with?
Who has Been making the rhetoric calling for violence against certain groups of people for being "Bigots"?
Who has been cleansing their history and demonizing their own country?
Who hasn't been paying interest in the working class?
Who has been spreading lies throughout media?
Who has been making the YouTube demonetizations?
Who has demonized christmas?
Who has made a picture of Trumps disembodies head?
Who has called Trumps YOUNGEST son: "a future mass shooter"?
Who has demoralized a person for wearing a shirt?
Who has made a bad reboot movie in the name of "feminism"?
WHO has basically broken the law in the State Department? (you SHOULD know this one)

I know that's a lot of questions, but if your answer isn't "Liberals" then i got bad news for you...

Updated by anonymous

404OilDrum said:
WHO has basically broken the law in the State Department? (you SHOULD know this one)

This is the only entry in that list I'm not familiar with. Can you provide a link?

Updated by anonymous

404OilDrum said:
If it wasn't for Net Neutrality, SJWs wouldn't been able to do the shit that they've done, with Gamergate and the likes.

So you agree that if it wasn’t for NN then free speech would be squashed.

Thank you for establishing that, lol.

PS. I’m not an SJW, but free speech is free speech no matter whose mouth is making the speech.

Updated by anonymous

Crazyc011 said:
So you agree that if it wasn’t for NN then free speech would be squashed.

Thank you for establishing that, lol.

PS. I’m not an SJW, but free speech is free speech no matter whose mouth is making the speech.

Your not a SJW? Earlier in this thread you called yourself a "poor liberal sap", while victimizing yourself in the process.

You can laugh all you want, but it won't change the FACTS. Facts are facts, regardless if it's "politically incorrect".

Updated by anonymous

404OilDrum said:
Your not a SJW? Earlier in this thread you called yourself a "poor liberal sap", while victimizing yourself in the process.

Not all liberals are SJWs.

Updated by anonymous

404OilDrum said:
Finally! Somebody with actual common sense in this thread!

Is that what that nonsense was? Huh, guess I didn't get the memo.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I've feel like i'm the few people in this thread who actually supports this repeal to Net Neutrality, in fact, i'm pretty excited about this move.

Yes. Yes you are one of the very few right-ists who are pushing for this political takeover machine of a repeal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I Just like how liberals think that this move will "censor there beliefs" when, in fact Net Neutrality Gave the free pass for the Major Social Media sites to censor conservative belief, causing the internet to go a downward spiral of Mass ecochambers and "don't trigger muh feefees!" and any of that SJW bullshit. Net Neutrality is the MOST anti-free speech policy you can have on the internet.

I don't think you understand what net neutrality truly is... For your records, here it is, directly from the man who coined the term.

Tim Wu, Columbia University media law professor said:
The basic principle behind a network anti-discrimination regime is to give users the right to use non-harmful network attachments or applications, and give innovators the corresponding freedom to supply them... Basic economic theory suggests that operators have a long-term interest coincident with the public: both should want a neutral platform that supports the emergence of the very best applications. However the evidence suggests the operators may have paid less attention to their long-term interests than might be ideal... The argument for network neutrality must be understood as a concrete expression of a system of belief about innovation, one that has gained significant popularity over last two decades.

Oh, and about that gripe about Liberals? ("don't trigger muh feefees!")

First Amendment said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In short, people are allowed to say whatever they want. Oh, and also...

Facebook Community Standards said:
To help balance the needs, safety, and interests of a diverse community, however, we may remove certain kinds of sensitive content or limit the audience that sees it.

Can't have everyone who hates Muslims jumping on Facebook to plot their next attack of a Mosque, and before you say that's an extreme example, people have found worse excuses to commit horrendous acts of terrorism .

--------------------------------------------------------------------

And i just laugh when these liberals claim they are for internet free speech when we have seen TIME and TIME again that SJWs and feminazis have the WORST track record of internet free speech. But they'll totality allow racism against whites and sexism against males. Nope! That's totally fine for them.

And I just laugh when conservatives automatically think that because a liberal attempts to advocate for equal civil rights that they're a far-left feminist who wants to enslave men , or a whiny let's-hold-hands-and-cry-in-the-middle-of-the-freeway SJW . Are there people out there that fit into those categories? Sure. But you should be going after them, not this law that protects the interests of the American public.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

If it wasn't for Net Neutrality, SJWs wouldn't been able to do the shit that they've done, with Gamergate and the likes.

Gamergate controversy said:
Beginning in August 2014, supporters of the Gamergate movement targeted several women in the video game industry, including game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, as well as feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian. After Eron Gjoni, Quinn's former boyfriend, wrote a disparaging blog post about her, #gamergate hashtag users falsely accused Quinn of an unethical relationship with journalist Nathan Grayson. Harassment campaigns against Quinn and others included doxing, threats of rape, and death threats. Gamergate supporters claimed unethical collusion between the press and feminists, progressives, and social critics. These concerns have been dismissed by commentators as trivial, conspiracy theories, groundless, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics.

I'm guessing you're falling into that group of people who don't want to believe that anything happened, but let's not get too far into that topic. That topic was very controversial from the word go.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Getting ride of Net Neutrality will help bring back REAL internet free speech! Trump seems to be the only person that has a his head screwed on correctly on this issue. I'm so excited that we no longer have to deal with those SJWs and those AntiFa on the internet soon. It's about time!

Getting ride of Net Neutrality will help bring back REAL internet free speech!

...we no longer have to deal with those SJWs and those AntiFa on the internet soon.

...will help bring back REAL internet free speech!

...we no longer have to deal with...

You see where I'm going with this, right?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe Trump can apply this FCC policy on the "mainstream Media" too, that would also be great.

Censorship in Germany, section Nazi Germany (1933–1945) said:
The aim of censorship under the Nazi regime was simple: to reinforce Nazi power and to suppress opposing viewpoints and information... Hitler outlined his theory of propaganda and censorship in Mein Kampf.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Until then, i'll be happy that this Finally happen. I don't care that anybody else says this will be terrible, they're probably just another SJW sympathizers anyways.

Yep, I totally didn't present two articles that make both extreme feminists and SJWs look awful. I'm totally a SJW Sympathizer. \s

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Whew... that was a lot of debunking... I need something to drink. brb.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

404OilDrum said:
Before you go and start calling conservatives "idiot", "petty", and "pathetic", i want you to answer me these questions:

With pleasure.

Who wants to censor free speech in the name of "political correctness"?

Extreme feminists and SJWs who contradict themselves on a daily basis, and don't represent the liberal community as a whole.

Who keeps making the rhetoric that whites are "racist" and that males are "rapist" when they say something they disagree with?

Extreme feminists who contradict themselves on a daily basis, and don't represent the liberal community as a whole.

Who Has been basically letting in terrorist in to fight against "islamaphobia"?

Apparently the FAA for not checking every Islamic person's ID to see if they have a "Terrorist" sticker on it. Oh wait. That doesn't exist.

Who has been making the rhetoric that one should be punished if they assumed somebodies gender?

Extreme feminists who contradict themselves on a daily basis, and don't represent the liberal community as a whole.

Who has been making laws that have discriminate males and whites? and the like?

... what? A little context would be appreciated.

Who has been demonizing gamers and youtubers as "bigots"?

Other gamers and YouTubers.

Who has been accusing people of being "nazis" and "rapist" when they say something they don't agree with?

Extreme feminists who contradict themselves on a daily basis, and don't represent the liberal community as a whole.

Who has Been making the rhetoric calling for violence against certain groups of people for being "Bigots"?

Extreme feminists and SJWs who contradict themselves on a daily basis, and don't represent the liberal community as a whole.

Who has been cleansing their history and demonizing their own country?

Cleansing? People who would rather not remember what awful things that our country has done to people. Demonizing? Anyone who aren't wearing their rose-tinted glasses.

Who hasn't been paying interest in the working class?

How long before the white working class realizes Trump was just scamming them? said:
During the campaign, Trump made two kinds of promises to those white working class voters. One was very practical, focused on economics. In coal country, he said he’d bring back all the coal jobs that have been lost to cheap natural gas (even as he promotes more fracking of natural gas; figure that one out). In the industrial Midwest, he said he’d bring back all the labor-intensive factory jobs that were mostly lost to automation, not trade deals. These promises were utterly ludicrous, but most of the target voters seemed not to care.

Not technically an answer, as I don't have one, but more of a rebuttal.

Who has been spreading lies throughout media?

Both sides of the political spectrum.

Who has been making the YouTube demonetizations?

YouTube.com and corporations who don't want their content shown on "non-ad-friendly" (yeah, bullshit) videos.

Who has demonized christmas?

Athiests

Who has made a picture of Trumps disembodies head?

Kathy Griffin, who I want to point out that she no longer sorry for posing with it.

Who has called Trumps YOUNGEST son: "a future mass shooter"?

Katie Mary Rich, a Comedian for Saturday Night Live.

Who has demoralized a person for wearing a shirt?

Extreme SJWs who contradict themselves on a daily basis, and don't represent the liberal community as a whole, and if you're getting demoralized from somebody crying at you for wearing a shirt, then your belief in the talking Cheeto must not be that strong. My belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and all his holy appendages is stronger than that.

Who has made a bad reboot movie in the name of "feminism"?

That's subjective, but let's just play along.
Feminists who don't represent the liberal community as a whole.

WHO has basically broken the law in the State Department? (you SHOULD know this one)

You want me to say Senator and Former First Lady Hillary Clinton, right? Okay, I'll give you that.
Hillary Clinton, who has made no open statements about the Net Neutrality repeal motion, and has nothing to do with the perpetuation of the first amendment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I know that's a lot of questions, but if your answer isn't "Liberals" then i got bad news for you...

If your answer isn't "Liberals" for every answer, then I got good news for you: you know how to use the internet to look up facts.

404OilDrum said:
...You can laugh all you want, but it won't change the FACTS. Facts are facts, regardless if it's "politically incorrect".

Huh. You claim that your false truths are "facts", but then choose not to provide any kind of proof. Did someone say fake news?

Updated by anonymous