Support NeoGAF

[Epsilon-delta]

Oh okay.

Jeb is going to be a force to be reckon with, right. I heard the same about Romney and Ryan as well.

 

[Unknown One]

Get out and vote for sure. I wouldn't underestimate Republican voters.

 

[WillyFive]

I'd be more worried about companies and lobbysts trying to topple this down than Republicans voting to take it down; but it's true that opposition will come from all sides.

 

[JinjoUnchained]

Roads, man. Roads are the Internet. Cars are the computers that use those roads.

I've had this argument on GAF before about how roads do not all necessarily need to be public. Believe me, it won't go anywhere productive. So instead of flaming each other on this one, I'll see agree to disagree.

Does classifying the Internet as a utility suddenly give the government more ability to monitor and censor? I must have missed that part.

No, not on it's own. Utilities can either be publicly or privately administered, but in either case, it puts a good more in the domain of public oversight then it would be otherwise. So this is more a "slippery slope" argument. For the record, I'd have no problem with making internet usage a utility if it's not monitored and censored by either government or corporate interests. But I'm not so sure it will turn out that way.

 

[cackhyena]

Jeb is going to be a force to be reckon with, right. I heard the same about Romney and Ryan as well.

It's a lock. hucast21 told me so.

 

[Rebel Leader]

Has Google said anything yet? Google Fiber all over...

Spoiler

America's faces ;_; not Canada

Found it

https://takeaction.withgoogle.com/p...source=twitter&utm_campaign=20150226broadband

 

[brian577]

Does classifying the Internet as a utility suddenly give the government more ability to monitor and censor? I must have missed that part.

Section 223:
Whoever in interstate or foreign communications by means of a telecommunications device knowingly makes, creates, or solicits, and initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Not really sure if this applies to the ruling but it is part of the regulations for type II utilities.

 

[Epsilon-delta]

It's a lock. hucast21 told me so.

Jeb can't escape the family name and the association to his brother, but he's going to be a force to be reckon with.

People are going to vote in Hillary just for the fact that she's a woman.

 

[EatinOlives]

You're right, I shouldn't have limited it to personal cars. But the example of quadrupled gas prices would equally effect personal or company-owned cars. As for a statistical breakdown of who needs cars vs internet, I haven't done that kind of research so I'm not qualified to make any conclusions on that. It's more the point that, before and after the internet, there were many businesses that relied on cars without them being a utility. And that relationship worked fine without turning cars or gasoline into utilities.

I guess I'd put it this way, what's the real value of the internet? Making businesses and governments run more efficiently, or decentralizing information to the common man? Public figures are under much more pressure to act like decent human beings because the internet can quickly transmit news of their misdeeds. Human rights groups can more easily research and share information through the web and organize their campaigns. My concern is that if the government views the internet as a public utility, then the government or big businesses can start to suppress information that makes them look bad. It was my same concern with SOPA and PIPA before they were shut down. In other words, I'd be just as concerned with the FTC monitoring your internet access as I would with Verizon doing it. It comes down to who you're more worried about, the FTC and their censoring motive, or Verizon and their profit motive? There's no wrong answer, but I personally am more concerned about the FTC.

In an ideal world, we'd have easy access to Internet for businesses, students, and activists alike that respects free speech. The question is how to preserve that.

You're making up boogeymen. Full stop, you're talking nonsense right now.

What do you mean "suppress information that makes them look bad"? That's incredibly vague and says nothing. The FCC is going to "suppress" the internet if nude pictures of Tom Wheeler are leaked out? How do you know if they even have the ability to "suppress" information? What does "suppress" even mean? You mean somehow force telecom companies from terminating internet service from people? You mean somehow force the websites hosting that information from deleting it? You mean getting the FBI to bang on people's door and arrest them? Do you realize that the FCC doesn't have that kind of jurisdiction or power, that it's a federal regulations commission and not a criminal/surveillance government agency? Do you realize that classifying something as a utility, in no realm of reality, means that it'll give the government the power to suppress information?

There's so much wrong with what you're saying that it's mind-boggling. You're conflating the FCC with some ominous "THE GOVERNMENT" entity that will monitor and kill website with the flick of a switch. In other words, you're just making up stories and using those fantasies to base your opinions off of.

 

[Ryuuroden]

You're right, I shouldn't have limited it to personal cars. But the example of quadrupled gas prices would equally effect personal or company-owned cars. As for a statistical breakdown of who needs cars vs internet, I haven't done that kind of research so I'm not qualified to make any conclusions on that. It's more the point that, before and after the internet, there were many businesses that relied on cars without them being a utility. And that relationship worked fine without turning cars or gasoline into utilities.

I guess I'd put it this way, what's the real value of the internet? Making businesses and governments run more efficiently, or decentralizing information to the common man? Public figures are under much more pressure to act like decent human beings because the internet can quickly transmit news of their misdeeds. Human rights groups can more easily research and share information through the web and organize their campaigns. My concern is that if the government views the internet as a public utility, then the government or big businesses can start to suppress information that makes them look bad. It was my same concern with SOPA and PIPA before they were shut down. In other words, I'd be just as concerned with the FTC monitoring your internet access as I would with Verizon doing it. It comes down to who you're more worried about, the FTC and their censoring motive, or Verizon and their profit motive? There's no wrong answer, but I personally am more concerned about the FTC.

In an ideal world, we'd have easy access to Internet for businesses, students, and activists alike that respects free speech. The question is how to preserve that.

Since when have companies with stockholders looking for the biggest paycheck ever had the consumers interest at heart? The suppression argument is totally a straw-man argument because you would have to rip apart a bunch more constitutional rights to even get that. Its a system of checks and balances. The Right likes to push any change as if its going to cause mass tyranny of an oppressor, when for that to happen you actually are going to have to make some constitutional amendments which would no way conceivably happen due to all the votes and hoops that you have to jump through (Only one amendment has been made in the last century that took away freedoms and that was reversed (prohibition)) Before you say America spies on its citizens, don't ignore the fact that whenever that shit comes out its gets shut down by the courts because its illegal. Not to go to far off topic but its kinda humorous that for all the privacy issues the right wing tries to raise, it sure likes to know what goes on in our bedrooms and who we marry and so on.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I've had this argument on GAF before about how roads do not all necessarily need to be public. Believe me, it won't go anywhere productive. So instead of flaming each other on this one, I'll see agree to disagree.

No, not on it's own. Utilities can either be publicly or privately administered, but in either case, it puts a good more in the domain of public oversight then it would be otherwise. So this is more a "slippery slope" argument. For the record, I'd have no problem with making internet usage a utility if it's not monitored and censored by either government or corporate interests. But I'm not so sure it will turn out that way.

Not all roads are public, though...

Also, being private entities certainly did not stop the NSA from monitoring Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc. users.

 

[cackhyena]

Jeb can't escape the family name and the association to his brother, but he's going to be a force to be reckon with.

People are going to vote in Hillary just for the fact that she's a woman.

Um, his family name is partly what he will cash in on. I can't tell if you're joking, or if you are willfully ignoring the legions of republicans that want someone as hard right as Bush back in the White House.

 

[ParityBit]

My concern is prices. My regulated electric bill went up 35+ % this January 1st. I only have one choice for electric .

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Section 223:
Whoever in interstate or foreign communications by means of a telecommunications device knowingly makes, creates, or solicits, and initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Not really sure if this applies to the ruling but it is part of the regulations for type II utilities.

Link to the full text of what you're talking about please.

Um, his family name is partly what he will cash in on. I can't tell if you're joking, or if you are willfully ignoring the legions of republicans that want someone as hard right as Bush back in the White House.

Seems like a pretty poor argument in his favor, honestly. We're not talking about local constituencies as we were with the seats in Congress. Do you think that going full right wing neocon mode and appealing to the evangelicals and racists is a legitimate strategy for winning the presidency today?

 

[FyreWulff]

I love how Brietbart points out Nipplegate as an example of FCC's meddling..


... which was persued because the FCC was under the control of Brietbart's conservative base at the time.

 

[Coriolanus]

The very concept of a "human right" is that there are certain rights we'd have in a natural state that should be preserved when we move to a society.

Ahm... no?

 

[linkboy]

I love how Brietbart points out Nipplegate as an example of FCC's meddling..


... which was persued because the FCC was under the control of Brietbart's conservative base at the time.

That's because conservative's are never at wrong, it's always the liberal's fault, not if, and or butts about it.

 

[JinjoUnchained]

You're making up boogeymen. Full stop, you're talking nonsense right now.

What do you mean "suppress information that makes them look bad"? That's incredibly vague and says nothing. The FCC is going to "suppress" the internet if nude pictures of Tom Wheeler are leaked out? How do you know if they even have the ability to "suppress" information? What does "suppress" even mean? You mean somehow force telecom companies from terminating internet service from people? You mean somehow force the websites hosting that information from deleting it? You mean getting the FBI to bang on people's door and arrest them? Do you realize that the FCC doesn't have that kind of jurisdiction or power, that it's a federal regulations commission and not a criminal/surveillance government agency? Do you realize that classifying something as a utility, in no realm of reality, means that it'll give the government the power to suppress information?

There's so much wrong with what you're saying that it's mind-boggling. You're conflating the FCC with some ominous "THE GOVERNMENT" entity that will monitor and kill website with the flick of a switch. In other words, you're just making up stories and using those fantasies to base your opinions off of.

You can easily look at China, North Korea, or any number or countries that block internet usage as a means of censorship or repression. It's quite common. "It couldn't happen tomorrow" is not valid because these sorts of things happen incrementally. It's like saying back in 1999 that the Patriot Act could never happen because that's not the world we live in. Stuff happens, the world changes, and people overreact. My opinion is that you have to guard against that and be vigilant about your liberties at every step. There's no "kill the internet" switch at the FCC, FTC, White House, or wherever today, but it could develop into a North Korea like situation here over time if people let it.

Again, I'm less concerned about Verizon censoring me than the FCC.

Not all roads are public, though...

Also, being private entities certainly did not stop the NSA from monitoring Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc. users.

Exactly. Is this the kind of behavior you want to encourage by making internet usage and supply more visible in the regulatory domain? Sure it happened before, but do you want to go further down that road?

Not to go to far off topic but its kinda humorous that for all the privacy issues the right wing tries to raise, it sure likes to know what goes on in our bedrooms and who we marry and so on.

Yup, and they're assholes for doing that. I definitely don't want those idiots to be the face of opposition to net neutrality.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

You can easily look at China, North Korea, or any number or countries that block internet usage as a means of censorship or repression. It's quite common.

Did you actually think before typing that? I mean, really?

You're comparing the United States to China and North Korea?

Everything is so fundamentally different, I don't even know where to begin.

it could develop into a North Korea like situation here over time if people let it.

You mean like how "the people" gave an outcry in favor of net neutrality?

What do you care about the people if you're not willing to respect the decision that has been made here and instead give all of the benefit of the doubt to corporations despite having no logical reason to do?

 

[Epsilon-delta]

Um, his family name is partly what he will cash in on. I can't tell if you're joking, or if you are willfully ignoring the legions of republicans that want someone as hard right as Bush back in the White House.

I can also say you're willfully ignoring the legions of Democrats who remember it was his brother that put this country into Iraq and Afghanistan because God told him to, and Jeb hiring the same people from his brother's foreign policy team.

We'll see in November 2016.

 

[Ryuuroden]

You can easily look at China, North Korea, or any number or countries that block internet usage as a means of censorship or repression. It's quite common. "It couldn't happen tomorrow" is not valid because these sorts of things happen incrementally. It's like saying back in 1999 that the Patriot Act could never happen because that's not the world we live in. Stuff happens, the world changes, and people overreact. My opinion is that you have to guard against that and be vigilant about your liberties at every step. There's no "kill the internet" switch at the FCC, FTC, White House, or wherever today, but it could develop into a North Korea like situation here over time if people let it.

Again, I'm less concerned about Verizon censoring me than the FCC.

Yeah guess what, those didn't develop over a period of bloody time. There were massive civil wars that lead to the communist side winning, lots of death etc AND they come from a culture that has never known democracy but thousands of years of outright rulers. Bit of a different situation there. AND fuck it, that's only the beginning of the differences. I don't even need to continue though, that should be plenty.

 

[Elfforkusu]

You can easily look at China, North Korea, or any number or countries that block internet usage as a means of censorship or repression. It's quite common. "It couldn't happen tomorrow" is not valid because these sorts of things happen incrementally. It's like saying back in 1999 that the Patriot Act could never happen because that's not the world we live in. Stuff happens, the world changes, and people overreact. My opinion is that you have to guard against that and be vigilant about your liberties at every step. There's no "kill the internet" switch at the FCC, FTC, White House, or wherever today, but it could develop into a North Korea like situation here over time if people let it.

Again, I'm less concerned about Verizon censoring me than the FCC.



Exactly. Is this the kind of behavior you want to encourage by making internet usage and supply more visible in the regulatory domain? Sure it happened before, but do you want to go further down that road?

What makes you think Title II gives the FCC this fearsome censorship power?

 

[A_Gorilla]

You can easily look at China, North Korea, or any number or countries that block internet usage as a means of censorship or repression. It's quite common. "It couldn't happen tomorrow" is not valid because these sorts of things happen incrementally. It's like saying back in 1999 that the Patriot Act could never happen because that's not the world we live in. Stuff happens, the world changes, and people overreact. My opinion is that you have to guard against that and be vigilant about your liberties at every step. There's no "kill the internet" switch at the FCC, FTC, White House, or wherever today, but it could develop into a North Korea like situation here over time if people let it.

Again, I'm less concerned about Verizon censoring me than the FCC.



Exactly. Is this the kind of behavior you want to encourage by making internet usage and supply more visible in the regulatory domain? Sure it happened before, but do you want to go further down that road?

Have any legitimate argument? Sorry, but Appealing to Fear and Slippery Slope are not one, they're logical fallacies.

 

[cackhyena]

I can also say you're willfully ignoring the legions of Democrats that remember it was his brother that put this country into Iraq and Afghanistan because God told him to, and Jeb hiring the same people from his brother's foreign policy team.

We'll see in November 2016.

I hope you're right, but until that day, I'mma sweat every now and then.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Exactly. Is this the kind of behavior you want to encourage by making internet usage and supply more visible in the regulatory domain? Sure it happened before, but do you want to go further down that road?

So... with a lack of regulation, terrible things happened and somehow completely unrelated regulations will make those terrible things happen even more?

Allow me to also point out that the NSA and FCC are not the same organization.

 

[linkboy]

Yeah guess what, those didn't develop over a period of bloody time. There were massive civil wars that lead to the communist side winning, lots of death etc AND they come from a culture that has never known democracy but thousands of years of outright rulers. Bit of a different situation there. AND fuck it, that's only the beginning of the differences. I don't even need to continue though, that should be plenty.

I'm still dumbfounded that those words were put together to form those sentences.

Now if he wanted a better argument, South Korea would have been the better fit. Sure, they have the fast internet and it's government regulated, but they also censor (most porn sites are blocked).

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I'm still dumbfounded that those words were put together to form those sentences.

Now if he wanted a better argument, South Korea would have been the better fit. Sure, they have the fast internet and it's government regulated, but they also censor (most porn sites are blocked).

It's still a dumb argument considering the country's history and the fact that it was a military dictatorship for a long time even after the ceasefire with the north.

 

[LCGeek]

You can easily look at China, North Korea, or any number or countries that block internet usage as a means of censorship or repression. It's quite common. "It couldn't happen tomorrow" is not valid because these sorts of things happen incrementally. It's like saying back in 1999 that the Patriot Act could never happen because that's not the world we live in. Stuff happens, the world changes, and people overreact. My opinion is that you have to guard against that and be vigilant about your liberties at every step. There's no "kill the internet" switch at the FCC, FTC, White House, or wherever today, but it could develop into a North Korea like situation here over time if people let it.

Between this and your utility argument I'm convinced you don't understand this issue. I'm not speaking as another poster I'm speaking as someone who has experience in networks and is being certified in various aspects to do it professionally. Why others haven't shredded your arguments technically is beyond me and this happening is just tin foil hat bs. Legally they don't have this power and no way to grab at it in such a fashion.

 

[linkboy]

It's still a dumb argument considering the country's history and the fact that it was a military dictatorship for a long time even after the ceasefire with the north.

True, never said it was a good argument (I agree with you, it's not), just that the way their internet is setup fits the bill more then North Korea.

For the record, I'm in South Korea using an South Korean ISP (LG U+) on an American military base.

Either way, something like that can't happen in the US due to the way the government is setup (the Judicial branch would shoot it down before it even gets passed).

 

[EatinOlives]

You can easily look at China, North Korea, or any number or countries that block internet usage as a means of censorship or repression. It's quite common. "It couldn't happen tomorrow" is not valid because these sorts of things happen incrementally. It's like saying back in 1999 that the Patriot Act could never happen because that's not the world we live in. Stuff happens, the world changes, and people overreact. My opinion is that you have to guard against that and be vigilant about your liberties at every step. There's no "kill the internet" switch at the FCC, FTC, White House, or wherever today, but it could develop into a North Korea like situation here over time if people let it.

Again, I'm less concerned about Verizon censoring me than the FCC.



Exactly. Is this the kind of behavior you want to encourage by making internet usage and supply more visible in the regulatory domain? Sure it happened before, but do you want to go further down that road?

Again, making up boogeymen. And incessantly engaging in logically-bankrupt slippery slope and appeal-to-fear arguments.

I'm trying to figure where you're "guarding against and being vigilant about your liberties", because you're not really doing it here. I mean, not only in the fact that you're jumping from "net neutrality" to "government censorship" and intentionally glossing over what would even have to happen to get you from one to the other. It's also the fact that you're here on a message forum saying "maybe" and "but if...". That's not "defending" or "being vigilant" of anything. If the FCC is giving you this much worry, what are you doing about the NSA? You do know they're breaching "your liberties" every second of every day, right?

You can't simply say "net neutrality is bad because it MIGHT lead to the FCC suppressing information", and your reasoning is "I dunno when, where, what, why, or how it might happen, but it might, at some point, through some way, gradually, possibly, maybe, so therefore it's a good concern to have". No, it isn't. You're just making up reasons to be wary of labeling the internet as a public utility. In fact, you're not even making up reasons, you have no reasons to make up and you're just throwing everything and the kitchen sink as a reason to be anxious about it. Is it a terrorist attack? Is it the secret rise of communism? Is it information leaking that makes the FCC "look bad"? Who knows?!?!?! It might happen so I don't like this!!!

If you choose to be more comfortable with companies that have time and time again engaged in grossly-anti consumer practices like Verizon, because deep in your heart you just BELIEVE they won't censor your freedom, that's your prerogative. But you need to understand you're not basing absolutely anything you're saying on any concrete fact or perception of reality whatsoever. Everything is just strictly your "gut feelings" and your "maybes".

EDIT: SOPA and PIPA were the two proposed pieces of legislation that would give the government control over information and censorship powers, proposed by media content providers for the sole purpose of continuing their silly "war on piracy". Not a government agency but a bunch of businesses. Guess what? There was a major outcry against it and the bills where shot down.

And you probably don't know this, but this entire Title II classification happened because Verizon, the bastion of goodness and purveyor of freedom everywhere, sued the FCC to maintain "internet fastlanes", a way to discriminate information and place it in a higher priority on its networks than others. And yet you genuinely believe they wouldn't ever start censoring information.

 

[Chichikov]

You can easily look at China, North Korea, or any number or countries that block internet usage as a means of censorship or repression. It's quite common. "It couldn't happen tomorrow" is not valid because these sorts of things happen incrementally. It's like saying back in 1999 that the Patriot Act could never happen because that's not the world we live in. Stuff happens, the world changes, and people overreact. My opinion is that you have to guard against that and be vigilant about your liberties at every step. There's no "kill the internet" switch at the FCC, FTC, White House, or wherever today, but it could develop into a North Korea like situation here over time if people let it.

Again, I'm less concerned about Verizon censoring me than the FCC.

This has nothing to do with net neutrality though.
If the US wanted it can put an internet filter just like China, with or without net neutrality (and some people in congress want this, you know, to protect the poor children and record labels).

This is an unrelated issue, all net neutrality does is guarantee that the internet continue to work like it always did.
And if you really want to make a slippery slope argument, there are much stronger candidates like the DMCA and the Patriot Act.

 

[JinjoUnchained]

Yeah guess what, those didn't develop over a period of bloody time. There were massive civil wars that lead to the communist side winning, lots of death etc AND they come from a culture that has never known democracy but thousands of years of outright rulers. Bit of a different situation there. AND fuck it, that's only the beginning of the differences. I don't even need to continue though, that should be plenty.

I never said that we're the same as NK or China, but cited them as examples as to how the state can control internet usage. It's a fallacy to state that we can't have state control over the internet because we're not the same structurally as countries that do it. The world is dynamic, not static. It would be very plausible for a representative democracy to slowly ease it's peaceful law-abiding society to de facto government management of internet services. Step one: declare it a utility. Step two: declare it a human right. Step three: declare that because internet usage is such an important human right, that it must be monitored by a new cabinet department. Step four: create a revolving door between ISPs and the new cabinet department. And so on...

Again, this is all hypothetical, but sometime you need to think hypothetically about what could happen. Like some have stated, ISPs can easily screw us over too and misuse our personal information. It's a big problem and we should be vigilant about that too. But, personally, I'm less worried about that then losing the internet as check against corruption.

 

[Armaros]

No, not on it's own. Utilities can either be publicly or privately administered, but in either case, it puts a good more in the domain of public oversight then it would be otherwise. So this is more a "slippery slope" argument. For the record, I'd have no problem with making internet usage a utility if it's not monitored and censored by either government or corporate interests. But I'm not so sure it will turn out that way.

You know without hardcore evidence.

A slippery slope argument is just a slippery slope fallacy.

"It could happen somehow" is not evidence and is just generic fearmongering, which is another fallacy in logical arguments.

 

[A_Gorilla]

I never said that we're the same as NK or China, but cited them as examples as to how the state can control internet usage. It's a fallacy to state that we can't have state control over the internet because we're not the same structurally as countries that do it. The world is dynamic, not static. It would be very plausible for a representative democracy to slowly ease it's peaceful law-abiding society to de facto government management of internet services. Step one: declare it a utility. Step two: declare it a human right. Step three: declare that because internet usage is such an important human right, that it must be monitored by a new cabinet department. Step four: create a revolving door between ISPs and the new cabinet department. And so on...

Again, this is all hypothetical, but sometime you need to think hypothetically about what could happen. Like some have stated, ISPs can easily screw us over too and misuse our personal information. It's a big problem and we should be vigilant about that too. But, personally, I'm less worried about that then losing the internet as check against corruption.

I say again: Appealing to Fear and Slippery Slope are not arguments, they are logical fallacies.

Try Again.

 

[Ryuuroden]

True, never said it was a good argument (I agree with you, it's not), just that the way their internet is setup fits the bill more then North Korea.

For the record, I'm in South Korea using an South Korean ISP (LG U+) on an American military base.

Either way, something like that can't happen in the US due to the way the government is setup (the Judicial branch would shoot it down before it even gets passed).

yeah which is why I mentioned a hell of a lot more would have to change involving constitutional amendments and such before even such a event was even possible. Everyone should know how hard it is to make a constitutional amendment.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I never said that we're the same as NK or China, but cited them as examples as to how the state can control internet usage. It's a fallacy to state that we can't have state control over the internet because we're not the same structurally as countries that do it. The world is dynamic, not static. It would be very plausible for a representative democracy to slowly ease it's peaceful law-abiding society to de facto government management of internet services. Step one: declare it a utility. Step two: declare it a human right. Step three: declare that because internet usage is such an important human right, that it must be monitored by a new cabinet department. Step four: create a revolving door between ISPs and the new cabinet department. And so on...

Again, this is all hypothetical, but sometime you need to think hypothetically about what could happen. Like some have stated, ISPs can easily screw us over too and misuse our personal information. It's a big problem and we should be vigilant about that too. But, personally, I'm less worried about that then losing the internet as check against corruption.

Is this concern trolling? I've never clearly understood the term, but I think this might be it.

Just so much nonsense in here, it's exasperating to try to find a starting point from which to pick it apart.

I think I'll just defer the post from EatinOlives and quietly disengage.

 

[K.Sabot]

So when can I bitch to my provider about their intentional throttling of my connection at certain times of the day? Can they still do that?

 

[Ryuuroden]

Is this concern trolling? I've never clearly understood the term, but I think this might be it.

Just so much nonsense in here, it's exasperating to try to find a starting point from which to pick it apart.

I think I'll just defer the post from EatinOlives and quietly disengage.

I think I agree with you. Not going to continue to waste my time on this anymore, lol. It's pretty obvious anyways that nothing more really needs to be said to it because no legitimate points have been made. Everything said has already been dismantled as nonsense.

 

[EatinOlives]

I never said that we're the same as NK or China, but cited them as examples as to how the state can control internet usage. It's a fallacy to state that we can't have state control over the internet because we're not the same structurally as countries that do it. The world is dynamic, not static. It would be very plausible for a representative democracy to slowly ease it's peaceful law-abiding society to de facto government management of internet services. Step one: declare it a utility. Step two: declare it a human right. Step three: declare that because internet usage is such an important human right, that it must be monitored by a new cabinet department. Step four: create a revolving door between ISPs and the new cabinet department. And so on...

Again, this is all hypothetical, but sometime you need to think hypothetically about what could happen. Like some have stated, ISPs can easily screw us over too and misuse our personal information. It's a big problem and we should be vigilant about that too. But, personally, I'm less worried about that then losing the internet as check against corruption.

I know you genuinely believe your "steps" are some kind of concrete proof as to how we might go from "public utility" to "government censorship", but I'd like to let you know that it isn't. You're making up scenarios. It doesn't matter how logical you think they might be, they're still fantasy scenarios with no basis on reality.

I can do the same. I can go from "net neutrality" to "chocolate-covered sentient teddy bears beating you senseless". I can go from one to the other if I keep making up scenarios and ending in "and so on".

 

[clav]

They won't interfere with pricing, so it kinda sounds like nothing is really going to change.

ISPs know this, too.

Remember the endgame is bringing municipal broadband into the playing field.

 

[JinjoUnchained]

Again, making up boogeymen. And incessantly engaging in logically-bankrupt slippery slope and appeal-to-fear arguments.

I'm trying to figure where you're "guarding against and being vigilant about your liberties", because you're not really doing it here. I mean, not only in the fact that you're jumping from "net neutrality" to "government censorship" and intentionally glossing over what would even have to happen to get you from one to the other. It's also the fact that you're here on a message forum saying "maybe" and "but if...". That's not "defending" or "being vigilant" of anything. If the FCC is giving you this much worry, what are you doing about the NSA? You do know they're breaching "your liberties" every second of every day, right?

You can't simply say "net neutrality is bad because it MIGHT lead to the FCC suppressing information", and your reasoning is "I dunno when, where, what, why, or how it might happen, but it might, at some point, through some way, gradually, possibly, maybe, so therefore it's a good concern to have". No, it isn't. You're just making up reasons to be wary of labeling the internet as a public utility. In fact, you're not even making up reasons, you have no reasons to make up and you're just throwing everything and the kitchen sink as a reason to be anxious about it. Is it a terrorist attack? Is it the secret rise of communism? Is it information leaking that makes the FCC "look bad"? Who knows?!?!?! It might happen so I don't like this!!!

If you choose to be more comfortable with companies that have time and time again engaged in grossly-anti consumer practices like Verizon, because deep in your heart you just BELIEVE they won't censor your freedom, that's your prerogative. But you need to understand you're not basing absolutely anything you're saying on any concrete fact or perception of reality whatsoever. Everything is just strictly your "gut feelings" and your "maybes".

It's not based on nothing, there is a long history of government and corporate censorship in America. Whatever the form of media at the time, be it newspapers, books, films, there have been powerful interests who have attempted to suppress "inconvenient" information up to the current day. It's simply human nature for some entrenched in power to behave that way. It's why we still have the ACLU.

So call it a "gut feeling" or a "maybe" if you want, I view it as a historically substantiated suspicion. We could have used people with historically substantiated suspicions in 2005 when the mortgage bubble was building, instead of the prevailing wisdom of "that's a boogieman, there's no evidence for that happening".

I know you genuinely believe your "steps" are some kind of concrete proof as to how we might go from "public utility" to "government censorship", but I'd like to let you know that it isn't. You're making up scenarios. It doesn't matter how logical you think they might be, they're still fantasy scenarios with no basis on reality.

I can do the same. I can go from "net neutrality" to "chocolate-covered sentient teddy bears beating you senseless". I can go from one to the other if I keep making up scenarios and ending in "and so on".

No, I don't, that's the point of a hypothetical, it's projection about what could possibly happen. The steps were merely a plausible scenario, but again hypothetical.

 

[pompidu]

It's not based on nothing, there is a long history of government and corporate censorship in America. Whatever the form of media at the time, be it newspapers, books, films, there have been powerful interests who have attempted to suppress "inconvenient" information up to the current day. It's simply human nature for some entrenched in power to behave that way. It's why we still have the ACLU.

So call it a "gut feeling" or a "maybe" if you want, I view it as a historically substantiated suspicion. We could have used people with historically substantiated suspicions in 2005 when the mortgage bubble was building, instead of the prevailing wisdom of "that's a boogieman, there's no evidence for that happening".



No, I don't, that's the point of a hypothetical, it's projection about what could possibly happen. The steps were merely a plausible scenario, but again hypothetical.

Tinfoilhat.jpg

 

[BlastProcessing]

I'm sure the internet isn't the only thing that would make you go out of business if you didn't have access to it tomorrow. I don't know your business, of course, but what would happen if gasoline prices quadrupled due to natural disasters or if commercial airlines were all grounded? Are car fuel and airline tickets utilities?

Not trying to sound insensitive about your business, but trying to make the point that there are many many things we all need to do our job or run our business that could go away at any time. And people don't like to think about it because it's frightening, but that fear shouldn't cause us to label every daily need a utility or "human right". My concern is that doing that dilutes the meaning of those terms.

... but the Government does regulate Air travel and Gas. The EPA's forced removal of Lead from gas is one of the single most important health achievements of the 20th century.

And where the hell would commercial air travel be without the FAA?

 

[Fenderputty]

Again, making up boogeymen. And incessantly engaging in logically-bankrupt slippery slope and appeal-to-fear arguments.

I'm trying to figure where you're "guarding against and being vigilant about your liberties", because you're not really doing it here. I mean, not only in the fact that you're jumping from "net neutrality" to "government censorship" and intentionally glossing over what would even have to happen to get you from one to the other. It's also the fact that you're here on a message forum saying "maybe" and "but if...". That's not "defending" or "being vigilant" of anything. If the FCC is giving you this much worry, what are you doing about the NSA? You do know they're breaching "your liberties" every second of every day, right?

You can't simply say "net neutrality is bad because it MIGHT lead to the FCC suppressing information", and your reasoning is "I dunno when, where, what, why, or how it might happen, but it might, at some point, through some way, gradually, possibly, maybe, so therefore it's a good concern to have". No, it isn't. You're just making up reasons to be wary of labeling the internet as a public utility. In fact, you're not even making up reasons, you have no reasons to make up and you're just throwing everything and the kitchen sink as a reason to be anxious about it. Is it a terrorist attack? Is it the secret rise of communism? Is it information leaking that makes the FCC "look bad"? Who knows?!?!?! It might happen so I don't like this!!!

If you choose to be more comfortable with companies that have time and time again engaged in grossly-anti consumer practices like Verizon, because deep in your heart you just BELIEVE they won't censor your freedom, that's your prerogative. But you need to understand you're not basing absolutely anything you're saying on any concrete fact or perception of reality whatsoever. Everything is just strictly your "gut feelings" and your "maybes".

Seems like an exhausting perspective to carry through life.

 

[gcubed]

Seems like an exhausting perspective to carry through life.

And you wonder why they turn so bitter

 

[JinjoUnchained]

Anyway, I'm done with the dog-piling for the night, I have other things I need to do, but I wouldn't have a problem continuing like this otherwise. I've stated my opinion and fully disclosed that much of what I've stated is concern about possible future problems, not necessarily what would happen tomorrow. If some people in here have a problem with that kind of argumentation, then there's really no point of discussing further. I know proponents of net neutrality here want the internet to be accessible and support freedom of expression in the future and I want the same, so it's probably best to leave it at that.

 

[Armaros]

ISPs know this, too.

Remember the endgame is bringing municipal broadband into the playing field.

Which they just preempted two states from banning municipal broadband.

 

[Stinkles]

Anyway, I'm done with the dog-piling for the night, I have other things I need to do, but I wouldn't have a problem continuing like this otherwise. I've stated my opinion and fully disclosed that much of what I've stated is concern about possible future problems, not necessarily what would happen tomorrow. If some people in here have a problem with that kind of argumentation, then there's really no point of discussing further. I know proponents of net neutrality here want the internet to be accessible and support freedom of expression in the future and I want the same, so it's probably best to leave it at that.

Of course people have a problem with baseless straw men. Learn a book.

 

[BoboBrazil]

Found it

https://takeaction.withgoogle.com/p...source=twitter&utm_campaign=20150226broadband

This is awesome. Hopefully we get a choice of broadband providers including google. People should have choice of provider just like for electricity.

 

[A_Gorilla]

Anyway, I'm done with the dog-piling for the night, I have other things I need to do, but I wouldn't have a problem continuing like this otherwise. I've stated my opinion and fully disclosed that much of what I've stated is concern about possible future problems, not necessarily what would happen tomorrow. If some people in here have a problem with that kind of argumentation, then there's really no point of discussing further. I know proponents of net neutrality here want the internet to be accessible and support freedom of expression in the future and I want the same, so it's probably best to leave it at that.

Please comeback when you have more to offer us besides strawmen, concern trolling, and logical fallacies.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.