NET NEUTRALITY ALERT! This site and many others are in immediate danger

[Sunshine Jesse]

It can't get worse for people like me. I express my views in the ballot box. Talking online sets the hounds on you. Hard to get worse than being labeled a Nazi for being right of Bernie sanders

 

---

 

Our gov isn't run by them. You should see where Silicon Valley and Wallstreet send their donations to in 2016

 

Today the corporate tax rate went up to 22% (from the 20% it was) to finance child tax credit. There is revolution in the air 

lol holy sheet

your ability to express your beliefs on a platform where you're not immediately shut down is under threat on a level far greater than what you experience now and yet you're too blinded by your short-term victim complex to see it

 

alright then

[VCR_CAT]

Same hold with Facebook and Reddit and most sites you normally call social media

 

Similar trend holds with major search engines

 

But I appreciate the goalpost move

 

Between this and your completely incorrect use of the "Strawman Fallacy", I'd say at this point you're just tossing out any sort of vaguely-smart sounding, argument-adjacent phrase you can come up with to get that gottem.

 

But no, I didn't move any goalposts; my main argument and stance has remained the same. There's always some platform online for people to posts views, and you honestly have to be pretty disgustingly explicit (advocate for genocide kinda degree) to really get yourself kicked out of everywhere. I know you've said you're a nationalist, but at no point have I ever regarded you as a nazi, because I know you don't stoop that low.

 

As for the platforms like Twitter and such, I'm pretty sure that cases of "People Get B& For Right Views" is probably a lot of exaggeration. Knowing those sorts of people, I'm willing to bet their behavior and conduct was enough to get them the actions they deserve regardless of their views, and then they take to the streets to scream about how it was because of one thing instead of the other. On here all you've cited was Mr. FCC Himself spouting whatever he wants to say just to get people to join his side, which as anyone would suspect of this guy, he gives a pretty flawed narrative of what's going on. Beyond that, you have suspicions backed by... really hearsay, where you go with what the alleged victims say and assume that to be the correct narrative because... it appeals to your pre-suppositions? I know you're capable of looking into this beyond latching on to the first thing you want to hear, dude.

 

And of course, going back to what I said before time and time again that you still don't listen to: Freedom of Speech is neither the driving force behind, nor the primary issue with, the removal of Net Neutrality. Don't think for a second that the FCC wants to do this for anything more than money. And while yeah yeah the removal of Net Neutrality has its technical effect on "FReEDoM of SpeECh", even with its removal it's EXTREMELY unlikely that any or all of the ISPs are going to have political views as their driving motivation for throttling speeds and connections over money. Social Media will be Social Media, news outlets will be news outlets, 4Chan will still be a steaming heap of trash, etc. The argument that removing Net Neutrality has its affect on freedom of speech is an argument of speculation and what-if's, based on an unlikely scenario and not on any grounded evidence. The tangible and extremely likely scenario that BECOMES the primary concern against the removal of net neutrality is the throttling of connections to arbitrarily up the prices of running an online business or service while also upping costs for consumers simultaneously. ISPs have already done this before, why do you think we have Net Neutrality in the first place?

 

The whole Freedom of Speech nonsense is just a big false-flag narrative spouted by people to try to make it about something that really isn't the big concern. You've got the FCC guys spouting its hokey "Twitter is a Totalitarian Regime" stories to try and convince people that they're doing what they're doing for reasons that aren't as bad as they actually are, and then you've got the people on one side buying into those hokey narratives hook-line-and-sinker either to think "YEAH, THAT IS WHY IT'S GOTTA GO!" or the people that buy into the false-flag and get distracted from what's really the big picture.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You moved the goalpost you evolved from

 

(1) discrimination doesn't happen

(2) to just find something else

(3) to c'mon twitter isn't a market stiffer there are other alternatives.

 

It doesn't really matter.  When did I misuse strawman...it's setting up an (il)logical counter pt designed to fail.

 

All I'm saying is that the free speech angle is MY primary consternation, and the one I think others should prioritize 

[VCR_CAT]

You moved the goalpost you evolved from

 

(1) discrimination doesn't happen

(2) to just find something else

(3) to c'mon twitter isn't a market stiffer there are other alternatives.

 

It doesn't really matter.  When did I misuse strawman...it's setting up an (il)logical counter pt designed to fail.

 

All I'm saying is that the free speech angle is MY primary consternation, and the one I think others should prioritize 

 

At this point you're either misinterpreting my arguments, or you're seriously not reading or thinking things through.

 

1) I never said this. I probably said that the current state doesn't violate the first amendment, because it doesn't. That's not an incorrect statement, it's called a Terms of Service, genius. That's not me saying "DISCRIMINATION NEVER HAPPENS", that's me acknowledging how things work.

 

2) Yes you can find alternative platforms. Anyways how is this a "moved goalpost" from 1)?

 

3) how is this a moved goalpost from 2)? Isn't this just another way of saying "Just find an alternative"?

 

And you said I made a strawman of you... when I said Pai is just spouting out whatever he wants to say just to appeal to a certain "angery conservative" subset. I wasn't referring to you at all, at no point did I even create a representation of your point, or even his point, to knock down. Again, I'm pretty sure you're just saying these things to try and pull a "HA, GOTTEM."

 

 

And honestly, the free speech angle really shouldn't be your primary concern. You're choosing an option that doesn't ACTUALLY address your concern, at all, in fact would at the least be the same as things are now, if not the unlikely much, much worse. At no point does it actually make things better, because the ideal you want things to be ("public internet") would be two steps back from being accomplished by taking the stance you took. You're being willfully ignorant to the real issues at hand to really just die on a pointless hill.

 

This has nothing to do with me being "Ha wow I beat im in a debate look at me bois". If you enjoy using the internet and want to do so without being throttled or charged through the nose for no good reason, I'd encourage you to rethink why you took the position you took, who you think actually benefits from this act and who it affects and harms, do some research into what it does, and come to a conclusion using your own education to see what's right or wrong in this situation.

 

Because right now, you chose your primary concern to be the thing that the FCC isn't really focusing on "fixing" (because removing net neutrality doesn't do anything positive in that avenue), and the thing that isn't even going to be what's primarily changing with its removal (prices, the market, speed and efficacy of internet, and the ability to smaller upstart businesses, services, and content creators to have an equal opportunity to make a name and a livelyhood for themselves-- all of these changes shifting entirely to benefit the fat pockets of ISPs and nobody else).

[mido9]

It doesn't really matter whether you agree with it or not when this was essentially already happening before Net Neutrality was put in place. ISPs have a long, dark history of arbitrarily throttling websites and services unless they paid through the nose. ISPs have also historically directly blocked the services of other companies because they competed with their own. ISPs have done this and more without the strictness of Net Neutrality to keep them in place, and even Verizon has come out and directly said that the only thing keeping them from favoring some content providers over others is... Net Neutrality itself. You can talk about how much infrastructure is needed to run those services, but if companies like Verizon are directly favoring certain providers over others, then it becomes next to impossible for any start-up companies or smaller business to actually compete or do anything, while those bigger services are still paying through the nose to keep their ISPs happy so they can maintain these positions. That's not good for anyone, because it's not a matter of "We need more money to run our equipment"; it's a matter of "We just simply want more money" while also killing competition and forcing customers to pay more for no good reason.

 

What you're talking about sounds fine and dandy, but that's just not how it's worked in the past, and that's definitely not how it would play out if it happened. The elevated costs and blockages for other companies and services don't have to do with costs for "Running the Tubes". The server infrastructure to run these services are owned and maintained by those companies themselves; Netflix will work with their own servers, Google will work with their own servers, etc. Not the ISPs.

 

 

Because you don't "pay for websites". That's not how ANY of this works. You pay for data plans; how much data per period of time that you upload/download and what speeds you would like to go with it to suit your needs. You're not "Paying for Websites", you're paying to use the internet. When you gas up your car, you're not paying to use all those roads, you're paying to keep your car running for however long and far you need. That's how the system works NOW, and how fairly and well those companies price their services depends on the buyer's own wisdom in what service they choose.

 

But without Net Neutrality with a system where you're paying to use different websites and services, that changes a lot, because now, for no reason, you're not just paying gas. Now you're paying separate tolls to use different roads, and for someone like Grandma who only needs to go to a couple places that may be all fine and dandy, but for the much larger majority who uses the internet to a much greater degree for various personal and business uses, now they have to pay more to use the internet the same as they have before.

It's not arbitrary, it's done because many of the sites that got throttled caused huge lag spikes, such as netflix, league of legends worlds finals, skype when it came out, etc. Even one random episode of House of Cards HD being released can lag the internet a lot, and netflix alone accounts for almost 40% of internet bandwidth in the USA.

 

Also, even if small businesses can't compete with the increased cost of internet after the repeal you have to remember that the reduced cost they're getting is coming specifically out of the pockets of people who don't want the product, it's a direct internet subsidy and if you can't make do without it you're not worth being in business as it is.

 

Also, the servers are all owned by the respective businesses, but the bandwidth(and wires) needed to move them are almost all on the ISPs, and even if you're buying gas on your own there's still limited road space.

 

You ARE paying for the roads, you need them, everyone can use the roads, but if they don't want enormous traffic jam and 56kb/s permanently they still have to pay to build more or bigger roads(or maintain them), and of course the cost has to go more to the people who use twenty trucks a day rather than a cycler, and there is no way it is fine for them both to spend the same.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The strawman was saying that the only people discriminated against are Nazis. Logically that's still stupid. But you'll win on pathos by deriding everyone as Nazis

[VCR_CAT]

The strawman was saying that the only people discriminated against are Nazis. Logically that's still stupid. But you'll win on pathos by deriding everyone as Nazis

 

Then you might want to read a bit closer. I neither said, meant, or inferred a generalization of the right side as "Nazi's", and I definitely didn't mean to call you a nazi.

 

 

And because I don't have the patience to figure out quoting different things on different pages with a trackpad, I get to reply to Mido this way instead (sorry for the lack of convenience for having your post here as well). But anyways, that doesn't quite check out, because again, you're not "paying for websites". Under Net Neutrality, all data is treated as equal; data is data is data, be it video, photo, etc. You're paying to use the internet, that's what's going on with a data payment. If you use all the data in your data plan for a month, then you paid for the websites you used, not for the ones you didn't.

 

And yeah, you're right that people who use the internet more and generate more traffic should pay more, because they do pay more, because that's how it works. There are different data plans; getting a plan with an ISP isn't just a single-option "Alright here's the standard plan that everyone gets regardless". No, if you have higher demands for speed and amount of data, there are separate plans for that that have a higher cost than those that are smaller with slower speeds.

 

I think your misconception is that "Net Neutrality" is some sort of "Everyone pays the same" kinda deal, which it isn't? Net Neutrality means there's no distinguishing between data; data is data is data. How much you need and fast you need it depends on your data plan. Already not everyone pays the same, because if you need more then you need a data plan that gives more which means you pay more.

 

But removing Net Neutrality means removing the standard that all data is treated equally. It means that, on top of the standard charges for how much data you use, now you're paying for what kind of data you use, and for a lot of people that would mean paying for extra packages for really no good reason. The only effect that data has on a network is how much and how fast, not what kind. Nobody should be paying for what kind of data they're using, just how much they need to use. That's where the pointless, arbitrary costs come in, that's where a lot of business are introduced with additional costs because, even if they're not as big as Google or Netflix and aren't having that sort of impact on the network, they need to pay to make themselves a part of what's going on and actually survive, if they can survive.

 

And you're giving ISPs way too much credit, because those throttles aren't being put in place for network performance. The hits against Skype and VOIPs wasn't because of network effects, it's because they saw those programs as competing with their cellphone services and didn't want that. They did that with Google Wallet to try to push their own version, and they've done it and tried to do it with other apps and services. They've done this before, and they've said they'll do it again if it wasn't for Net Neutrality. So now suddenly you have a situation where the big companies that have greater influence and control over these services can throttle and actively hurt competition while giving their own services the best possible usage, for really no reason beyond eliminating competition and making more money. That, in no way, is anywhere near good for anyone but themselves.

 

This isn't to make the internet "better", this isn't so people "don't pay for what they don't use". It's fatcat companies trying to control these services more, to make bigger profits at the expense of others, and nothing more.

[Phantom Roxas]

So, Twitter actually refused to delete anti-Muslim tweets because they wanted people to see "every side of the issue."

 

https://twitter.com/cnni/status/936298944958787585

 

What's that about Twitter censoring voices?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

So, Twitter actually refused to delete anti-Muslim tweets because they wanted people to see "every side of the issue."

 

https://twitter.com/cnni/status/936298944958787585

 

What's that about Twitter censoring voices?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/09/marsha-blackburn-twitter-ad-243607

 

A sitting congressman. Twitter doesn't have the balls to go up against the president, but sadly the rest of us don't have the capital to scare them

 

Bannon already wants to nationalize Google and other industries. Twitter is not stupid to get on Trump's bad side

 

---

 

One of those videos was of actually radical Muslims throwing kids off buildings, the person was later executed for multiple muders in Egypt

 

The other was a confirmed ISIS preacher

 

I'm glad you're defending these folks Roxas

Then you might want to read a bit closer. I neither said, meant, or inferred a generalization of the right side as "Nazi's", and I definitely didn't mean to call you a nazi.

You made it seem like the only people Twitter and other sides were shutting down were Nazis

 

(1) Even if that was true, it's not ok

(2) It's not true. 

 

I don't think you've ever called me a Nazi

[Phantom Roxas]

I'm glad you're defending these folks Roxas

 

You're putting words in my mouth. You are not at all talking about anything I actually said. You had an issue with Twitter silencing certain viewpoints, and I showed that Twitter actively refused to do so. How about you actually participate in the discussion actually being held rather than making up talking points, and then responding as if that was what I said?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You're putting words in my mouth. You are not at all talking about anything I actually said. You had an issue with Twitter silencing certain viewpoints, and I showed that Twitter actively refused to do so. How about you actually participate in the discussion actually being held rather than making up talking points, and then responding as if that was what I said?

I showed you a clear example of where Twitter was bold enough to silence a sitting lawmaker in the United states for a view that half the county holds (being Pro-life). The only reason they didn't shut down the tweets by the far right British Party was because the President of the United states had RT'd them, and removing them would only martyrize the cause.

 

The bigger concern here might be you implying that this was casual Islamophobia being pushed when 2/3 of those three videos were in fact radical Jihadists. So tell me, should tweets highlighting the dangers of Jihadist Islam be taken down?

[Phantom Roxas]

I showed you a clear example of where Twitter was bold enough to silence a sitting lawmaker in the United states for a view that half the county holds (being Pro-life). The only reason they didn't shut down the tweets by the far right British Party was because the President of the United states had RT'd them, and removing them would only martyrize the cause.

 

The bigger concern here might be you implying that this was casual Islamophobia being pushed when 2/3 of those three videos were in fact radical Jihadists. So tell me, should tweets highlighting the dangers of Jihadist Islam be taken down?

 

Trump made Islamophobia a major part of his campaign platform. I've seen a very interesting dissonance between his responses to domestic terrorism between him being all too eager to scapegoat Muslims every chance he gets, and generalizes the people, and he used Britain First to vindicate his point of view. They gave a reason for why they didn't shut down the tweets, and their reason contradicts what you argued about their motives.

 

I'd go into more detail about the Islamic people, but it's clear that you're changing the subject and moving the goalposts, so I would like to stick to the topic at hand.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Well you're just flat out wrong about Twitter as I explained in the first part

 

You desire to call everything, "Islamophobia" is a separate issue that needs addressing

 

"an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something"

 

I don't see calling out Jihadists as irrational

 

---

 

 

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2017/11/29/man-accused-threatening-kill-congressman-over-net-neutrality/907653001/

 

New York man is charged for threatening to kill a GOP congressman and his family if he didn't support net neutrality.

[mido9]

I think your misconception is that "Net Neutrality" is some sort of "Everyone pays the same" kinda deal, which it isn't? Net Neutrality means there's no distinguishing between data; data is data is data. How much you need and fast you need it depends on your data plan. Already not everyone pays the same, because if you need more then you need a data plan that gives more which means you pay more.

It's fine, I really don't like specific quoting anyway, it takes too long and give me headaches.

Also, treating data equally and NN includes not being able to build fast lanes or slow lanes for specific websites, or giving one business more wires than another. In fact, paid prioritization is one of the biggest complaints NN-supporters have with ISPs. It means you need to build equal wires for many things, but since fast internet needs a lot of wires there will have to be either shared wiring(lag) or more wires(more costs on everyone). And since you can't give netflix a premium/ask it to pay more, it will be either of them.

[Dad]

Everyone stay on topic.  Islamaphobia is not nor should it be a part of this topic.  I'll only ask once that you take any of those discussions to their appropriate threads in debates.

[VCR_CAT]

Twitter doesn't have the balls to go up against the president, but sadly the rest of us don't have the capital to scare them

 

Well, one contractor did, but it was on his last day.

 

 

 

You made it seem like the only people Twitter and other sides were shutting down were Nazis

 

(1) Even if that was true, it's not ok

(2) It's not true. 

 

I don't think you've ever called me a Nazi

 

I did not mean to make it sound like that; my intention was to say that the FCC was attempting to appeal to "Angery Conservatives"; I didn't mean nazi's, and I didn't mean the people being shut down. I meant the people that are getting up-in-arms over things like that. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

 

Also, to be clear: I do not think all right-wing people are nazi's. Just like any political angle, there's people on both sides who are being venomous and counter-productive to any conversation, just as there are those with thought-out and intelligent points.

 

 

 

It's fine, I really don't like specific quoting anyway, it takes too long and give me headaches.

Also, treating data equally and NN includes not being able to build fast lanes or slow lanes for specific websites, or giving one business more wires than another. In fact, paid prioritization is one of the biggest complaints NN-supporters have with ISPs. It means you need to build equal wires for many things, but since fast internet needs a lot of wires there will have to be either shared wiring(lag) or more wires(more costs on everyone). And since you can't give netflix a premium/ask it to pay more, it will be either of them.

 

I've heard in the past of Netflix having to pay a bit of a premium regardless, but I'm not sure if that's the case still or under Net Neutrality, I would need to look it up.

 

And the thing is, as technology advances and the things we do on the internet go with it, there's going to be taxing high-demand services like Netflix in use, and ISPs are going to be stupid to not build up their infrastructure (or, hopefully, just make the group jump to fibre optic like they should). And even without net neutrality, it's not the taxing services like Netflix that are going to be paying for those infrastructure upgrades; realistically everyone well, and as I mentioned before people are going to be paying more regardless if Net Neutrality is thrown out. Either way, their infrastructure will upgrade because people will want faster, better internet, and a business would be stupid to keep things the same while competitors upgrade. If the concern is "But I don't want to pay as much", having Net Neutrality will be friendly to the consumer either way, while also encouraging equal opportunity business growth.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Well, one contractor did, but it was on his last day.

 

 

 

 

I did not mean to make it sound like that; my intention was to say that the FCC was attempting to appeal to "Angery Conservatives"; I didn't mean nazi's, and I didn't mean the people being shut down. I meant the people that are getting up-in-arms over things like that. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

 

Also, to be clear: I do not think all right-wing people are nazi's. Just like any political angle, there's people on both sides who are being venomous and counter-productive to any conversation, just as there are those with thought-out and intelligent points.

 

 

 

 

I've heard in the past of Netflix having to pay a bit of a premium regardless, but I'm not sure if that's the case still or under Net Neutrality, I would need to look it up.

 

And the thing is, as technology advances and the things we do on the internet go with it, there's going to be taxing high-demand services like Netflix in use, and ISPs are going to be stupid to not build up their infrastructure (or, hopefully, just make the group jump to fibre optic like they should). And even without net neutrality, it's not the taxing services like Netflix that are going to be paying for those infrastructure upgrades; realistically everyone well, and as I mentioned before people are going to be paying more regardless if Net Neutrality is thrown out. Either way, their infrastructure will upgrade because people will want faster, better internet, and a business would be stupid to keep things the same while competitors upgrade. If the concern is "But I don't want to pay as much", having Net Neutrality will be friendly to the consumer either way, while also encouraging equal opportunity business growth.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/30/trump-twitter-account-deactivated-bahtiyar-duysak

 

"Ex-Twitter worker who 'admires' Trump says he was behind account deactivation" it was an accident 

[SkaterTheDJWolf]

Well, it’s December 14th, and my Internet is slowing down. That may be because someone else is using it, but if you ask me,the FCC has repealed net neutrality.

[ABC Gun]

Well, it’s December 14th, and my Internet is slowing down. That may be because someone else is using it, but if you ask me,the FCC has repealed net neutrality.

 

You wouldn't know it if your internet was slowing down from your ISP until it was too late, plus their not just going to slow everyone's Internet at once because that would be to obvious ​and would cause panic which would then lead to the big ISPs losing tons of money at once. Watch this video from The Jimmy Dore Show about how small towns are fighting for net neutrality.

 

[VCR_CAT]

Well, it’s December 14th, and my Internet is slowing down. That may be because someone else is using it, but if you ask me,the FCC has repealed net neutrality.

 

The preliminary vote to repeal did pass 3-2, however the bill still needs some final readings and has to go to court before it can really be put into effect. So, if it does go that way, it's not there yet.

[HulkTySSJ2]

This is idiotic... Internet has become a needed tool in modern young adult life.
It SHOULD be FREE at this day in age. We already pay high electric bills...

[ABC Gun]

This is idiotic... Internet has become a needed tool in modern young adult life.

It SHOULD be FREE at this day in age. We already pay high electric bills...

 

You know why Ajit Pai did this right; Verizon paid for it and the Republicans just have to sheet on Obama's legacy because how dare a black man become President of the United States for 2 terms.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

and the Republicans just have to sheet on Obama's legacy because how dare a black man become President of the United States for 2 terms.

Okay I wasn't gonna jump in this at all but this is just so disgustingly biased, generalizing, and untrue. Certainly there are some people who had issue with Obama because he was black but this is the worst argument to use and using it for anything you deem "against Obama" is terrible.

[ABC Gun]

Okay I wasn't gonna jump in this at all but this is just so disgustingly biased, generalizing, and untrue. Certainly there are some people who had issue with Obama because he was black but this is the worst argument to use and using it for anything you deem "against Obama" is terrible.

 

I also said Verizon paid for it, that's not biased it is absolutely true. I know not all Republicans hated Obama, but a lot of them in the Senate and House did, and Trump has an ego that won't allow someone else to have any accomplishments to their name especially if that person previously had the same job he has. I've talked to Republican voters where I live, online, and in my family and a lot of them agree with what I said because they've seen enough evidence for themselves.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I also said Verizon paid for it, that's not biased it is absolutely true. I know not all Republicans hated Obama, but a lot of them in the Senate and House did, and Trump has an ego that won't allow someone else to have any accomplishments to their name especially if that person previously had the same job he has. I've talked to Republican voters where I live, online, and in my family and a lot of them agree with what I said because they've seen enough evidence for themselves.

Starting with one truth doesn't excuse a lie that follows. And hating him isn't the same as hating him for being a black president, that's the issue I have with the statement.