FCC votes to undo net neutrality protections despite public protests

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 134
    so called "Facts"
    Prove your claim or don’t make it.
    a collection of random points
    Prove your claim or don’t make it.
    in order to justify a conclusion that he had already reached
    Oh? You’re sure of this?
    a conclusion that is not based on truth or logic
    Prove your claim or don’t make it.
    by debating him point by point I would be lending credence to
    That’s literally not how anything, anywhere works. Except in the liberal mind, of course. Because under scrutiny, a belief may be found to be “wrong” in a way that even a liberal can’t ignore. Oh, sure, he could–AND WILL–keep repeating said belief LONG after it is proven wrong. But the responses he will get from his opponent–and others–after being proven wrong differ from those from before. I’m sure you’re noticing this already. The responses thereafter cause him to have emotions. Bad ones. They make him feel like he might not be the “bastion of moral superiority” he knows he is. The responses aren’t what he wants, so the emotion he feels is bad. But bad emotions are bad; the things that cause them are bad. Therefore being told he is wrong–which causes bad emotions–is bad, therefore he avoids being told he is wrong by never saying what he believes (so he can never be scrutinized and proven wrong), therefore he is never wrong.

    Ta da.
    lies and propaganda
    Prove, claim, don’t, etc. Keep it up.
    An analogy might be:  If I were a neo-Nazi
    Cute, kiddo. Very droll. Very Godwin.
    ...starting with a conclusion and backing into the facts to prove it is not a legitimate argument.  It's bull.
    Good thing I didn’t do that, then, huh? Now how about you stop embarrassing yourself and substantiate your proven false beliefs. Or let’s look at it a different way. Let’s look at what is, ostensibly, your belief, given your support of ISP registration under Title II. By what right, law, or metric does the government have the power to control the Internet, censor its contents, and restrict the number, means, and personage of the companies created to provide access thereto to the general public?

    You won’t answer. This all seems very familiar somehow…
    magman1979
  • Reply 102 of 134
    a laundry list
    Only insofar as the topic of discussion is concerned. If you’re trying to claim “gish gallop” or some such, you’ll have to do better than that.
    cherry picked
    Prove your claim or don’t make it. What is missing from this data set that changes the assessment I have posted?
    distorted
    Prove your claim or don’t make it. What is incorrect in this data set that changes the assessment I have posted?
    right wing
    Truth is neither left nor right. Truth is, and it is outside human experience, emotion, or feelings. No matter how much your programming tells you otherwise, truth is objective–not subjective.
    propaganda
    Prove your claim or don’t make it. This one is particularly onerous and ironic, as the topic of discussion is the classification–by the left–of all non-leftist thought as “propaganda,” and here you are proving me right.
    …and you want somebody to go through it and prove to you that it is nonsense. Really?
    It’s… your claim. It’s up to you to prove… your claim. I quoted portions of US law. This is objective fact. I cited these statements with the actual laws in question. You claim these laws are conspiracy theories. You claim these laws are cherry picked (despite the laws relating directly to the topic of discussion). You claim the laws are distorted, despite being quoted verbatim. You claim the conclusion drawn from the laws is right-wing, despite the US Constitution being the metric against which the conclusion was drawn. I realize you marxists think that the Constitution is inherently “right-wing” these days, but relativism does not a factual ideology make.

    You claim my statements are wrong. It is now your turn to provide citations which refute my statement. That’s how discourse works. Your thought-terminating clichés don’t work on me or on anyone else sane. Saying, “Conspiracy theory!” doesn’t mean you “win”; it means you admit you have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of the operation of the US government or even of what a ‘conspiracy’ is. I’d tell you to look up the modern source of the phrase “conspiracy theory” (Hint: it was the CIA’s invention to discredit anyone who went against their narrative or even directly exposed it… not so much a hint as the straight up source itself), but you’re quite plainly what Yuri Bezemov would call a “useful idiot”–so far demoralized by your own propaganda that you literally, physically cannot–and will not–accept objective truth until the proverbial (literal) boot kicks down your door.

    I will repeat: You claim my statements are wrong. It is now your turn to provide citations which refute my statements and my citations. That’s how discourse works.
    You are living in an Alternative Right Wing Universe and spewing right wing propaganda consisting of cherry picked and distorted so called facts.   Rather than relying on others to correct your delusions, you should do some research on your own....  You might even enjoy reality.
    OMFG, TS made legitimate, factual points in support of his statement, and all you have is to associate it with political left/right wing views and disregard all the facts he posted based on that false assumption?

    Trump voter?
    "Factual Points"?   That's hilarious!
    No, he provided a laundry list of cherry picked, distorted and unrelated "facts" compiled in order to support his right wing ideology.   But, if you choose to believe his right wing nonsense, then I guess those so called "factual points" of his will make you feel better...  For myself, I'll stick to reality...
    So basically, you've just illustrated, yet again, that everything I just stated about you is correct, and that you're so blinded by political right / left BS that you subconsciously associate everything with a political agenda, and dismiss whatever doesn't agree with your said political viewpoints, which I may ad, are idiotic.
    tallest skil
  • Reply 103 of 134
    cgWerks said:
    GeorgeBMac said:
    As you imply, his laundry list of so called "Facts" is simply a collection of random points collected in order to justify a conclusion that he had already reached -- a conclusion that is not based on truth or logic but rather which "team" he supports and/or his ideology.  As such, by debating him point by point I would be lending credence to lies and propaganda.  I choose not to do that.

    An analogy might be:  If I were a neo-Nazi, I could easily come up with a laundry list of "facts" that proved how much good Hitler did for 1930's Germany and the benefits of eugenics and the cleansing of society of inferior humans such as jews, autistics and those with a learning disability.  But, starting with a conclusion and backing into the facts to prove it is not a legitimate argument.  It's bull.

    Well, no I wouldn't say it's a random collection. It was a set of data leading towards a conclusion. You can disagree with the conclusion, of course. Just like people present a set of data they believe leads to a conclusion of, say, evolution, trickle-down-economics, or global warming. But, others might disagree with those conclusion based on a different interpretation of the data. Or, poke a hole in the data. Or, present some alternative data.

    re: analogy - Well, what you've presented there is a representation of what happened which aligns nicely with a particularly worldview. The problem is we (societies with an alternate set of morality) deemed it 'bad' instead of 'good'... based on a different worldview. You didn't pick a set of facts that paints a false picture, just a picture you and I don't like. It's actually a pretty accurate picture.

    And, as I said, I don't expect you're going to comb through it point by point with refutations. But, what about it do you think is 'right-wing' or 'conspiracy theory'? Are you aware of what the USA has been doing under the Patriot Act (both in terms of foreign policy, or domestic spying)? A lot of this stuff is pretty proven even if you don't want to face it. It hardly takes conspiracy theory.

    What is more in question, IMO, is whether it is 'good' or not... kinda like your Hitler analogy. Maybe it's best for us if the government covertly takes down foreign governments to keep our economy and energy more stable, and hurts competing nations' interests? Maybe it's best for us if our own government spies on us to help keep 'order'? Maybe it's best for us if the government shapes our education system and puts right-think ideas into future generations so we're more likely to go along with Science™ instead of free-thought (which could go wrong)?

    But, that's not 'right-wing' or 'conspiracy theory,' it's a difference of ideology, worldview, and approach. Once you admit that, then we can debate whether it's good or bad, and agree or disagree. But, there is too much there to be simply dismissed.... with, 'oh, that is nuts so I don't have to engage it.'
    You need to re-read what I wrote again.  What I wrote and what you are saying I wrote are very different.  If that was intentional on your part -- then Congratulations!  Nice Spin!
  • Reply 104 of 134
    nickx91 said:
    Congress might alter the decision but I don't think that would happen soon. Come to think of it without net neutrality, imo, the worst monopoly would be present in regions where there are less options of ISPs. 
    It was the lack of competition stemming from corrupt deals between single service providers and lawmakers to build out cable infrastructure that caused the original problem. Exclusivity thanks to politics bred a cycle of monopolistic corruption that remained for decades.
    edited December 2017 tallest skilcgWerksdasanman69
  • Reply 105 of 134
    nickx91 said:
    Congress might alter the decision but I don't think that would happen soon. Come to think of it without net neutrality, imo, the worst monopoly would be present in regions where there are less options of ISPs. 
    It was the lack of competition stemming from corrupt deals between single service providers and lawmakers to build out cable infrastructure that caused the original problem.
    We see this repeated everywhere with such efficiency, repetition, and similarity that those who still cling to the utter delusion of “simple government incompetence,” “happenstance,” and/or “misplaced intentions” (borne on the wings of the “live and let live” mindset) can be dismissed as being mentally ill at best and collaborators at worst.

    “Prices are too high!”
    “The Federal Reserve is a private institution which lends currency to the government at interest. Your income taxes exist solely to pay this private organization for doing something that it cannot constitutionally do. The hyperinflation of the US dollar since the Fed’s founding has caused its purchasing power to completely collapse.”
    “WE SHOULD HAVE THE GOVERNMENT RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE SO THAT THE POOR AND ‘WORKING CLASS’ CAN BUY THINGS THEY WANT!”
    “…”

    “Tuition is too expensive!”
    “Tuition prices have risen roughly 1,500% since the 1970s, because government loans–created through taxpayer dollars–allow universities to assume “ability to pay” on the part of registrars.
    “WE SHOULD HAVE THE GOVERNMENT GIVE EVERYONE FREE COLLEGE!”
    “…”

    “Insurance is too expensive!”
    “The industry is mired in regulation, corruption, and price inflation due to expectations of insurance–and consequent “ability to pay”–on the part of the doctors and the patients.”
    “WE SHOULD HAVE THE GOVERNMENT MAKE IT ILLEGAL NOT TO HAVE INSURANCE!”
    “…”

    “The Internet isn’t being improved!”
    “Government has colluded with ISPs to provide local and regional monopolies. The ISPs agree not to compete with one another, and so throughput never increases and prices never drop.”
    “WE SHOULD HAVE THE GOVERNMENT TAKE OVER THE INTERNET AND ALSO MAKE THE BAD PEOPLE WHO SAY THINGS THAT HURT MY FEELINGS BE BANNED!”
    “…”
    cgWerksSpamSandwich
  • Reply 106 of 134
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    nickx91 said:
    Congress might alter the decision but I don't think that would happen soon. Come to think of it without net neutrality, imo, the worst monopoly would be present in regions where there are less options of ISPs. 
    It was the lack of competition stemming from corrupt deals between single service providers and lawmakers to build out cable infrastructure that caused the original problem.
    We see this repeated everywhere with such efficiency, repetition, and similarity that those who still cling to the utter delusion of “simple government incompetence,” “happenstance,” and/or “misplaced intentions” (borne on the wings of the “live and let live” mindset) can be dismissed as being mentally ill at best and collaborators at worst.

    “Prices are too high!”
    “The Federal Reserve is a private institution which lends currency to the government at interest. Your income taxes exist solely to pay this private organization for doing something that it cannot constitutionally do. The hyperinflation of the US dollar since the Fed’s founding has caused its purchasing power to completely collapse.”
    “WE SHOULD HAVE THE GOVERNMENT RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE SO THAT THE POOR AND ‘WORKING CLASS’ CAN BUY THINGS THEY WANT!”
    “…”

    “Tuition is too expensive!”
    “Tuition prices have risen roughly 1,500% since the 1970s, because government loans–created through taxpayer dollars–allow universities to assume “ability to pay” on the part of registrars.
    “WE SHOULD HAVE THE GOVERNMENT GIVE EVERYONE FREE COLLEGE!”
    “…”

    “Insurance is too expensive!”
    “The industry is mired in regulation, corruption, and price inflation due to expectations of insurance–and consequent “ability to pay”–on the part of the doctors and the patients.”
    “WE SHOULD HAVE THE GOVERNMENT MAKE IT ILLEGAL NOT TO HAVE INSURANCE!”
    “…”

    “The Internet isn’t being improved!”
    “Government has colluded with ISPs to provide local and regional monopolies. The ISPs agree not to compete with one another, and so throughput never increases and prices never drop.”
    “WE SHOULD HAVE THE GOVERNMENT TAKE OVER THE INTERNET AND ALSO MAKE THE BAD PEOPLE WHO SAY THINGS THAT HURT MY FEELINGS BE BANNED!”
    “…”
    ROFL... 
    ... So the government is the source of all evil huh?
    .......  Life must be pleasant in that simple little bubble you live in....  
  • Reply 107 of 134
    So the government is the source of all evil huh?
    You can’t respond without a strawman, so I’ll just dig your hole deeper.

    Every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say we want no religion at all. We object to state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain. – Frederic Bastiat

    lol
    Life must be pleasant in that simple little bubble you live in....   
    Irony.
    cgWerksSpamSandwich
  • Reply 108 of 134
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,843member
    GeorgeBMac said:
    ROFL...  
    ... So the government is the source of all evil huh?
    .......  Life must be pleasant in that simple little bubble you live in....  
    We humans are the source of evil. The government is made up of humans.
    Our founders put a system in place to minimize that evil.
    We've tosses much of that out the window, and are either too apathetic to do anything about it, or too amused with shiny things to care.
    Unless we correct that, it's only going to get worse.
    dasanman69
  • Reply 109 of 134
    cgWerks said:
    GeorgeBMac said:
    ROFL...  
    ... So the government is the source of all evil huh?
    .......  Life must be pleasant in that simple little bubble you live in....  
    We humans are the source of evil. The government is made up of humans.
    Our founders put a system in place to minimize that evil.
    We've tosses much of that out the window, and are either too apathetic to do anything about it, or too amused with shiny things to care.
    Unless we correct that, it's only going to get worse.
    Keep going!
    Right wing ideology is hilarious!  Little circles of self-perpetuating delusion masquerading as "logic"
  • Reply 110 of 134
    So the government is the source of all evil huh?
    You can’t respond without a strawman, so I’ll just dig your hole deeper.

    Every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say we want no religion at all. We object to state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain. – Frederic Bastiat

    lol
    Life must be pleasant in that simple little bubble you live in....   
    Irony.
    You need to be careful...  DaffyDon is exposing your so called logic to actual scrutiny beyond the echo chamber of right wing propaganda sites.  Your little bubble could pop at anytime now...
  • Reply 111 of 134
    Little circles of self-perpetuating delusion masquerading as "logic”
    Irony.
    You need to be careful...  DaffyDon is exposing your so called logic to actual scrutiny beyond the echo chamber of right wing propaganda sites.  Your little bubble could pop at anytime now…
    You’re neurologically incapable of responding to my post or staying on topic, and now that you’ve devolved into complete irrelevant nonsense, we can say the thread’s over. “Net neutrality” is gone, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it, and humanity is better off for it being gone. Run along now.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 112 of 134
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    Little circles of self-perpetuating delusion masquerading as "logic”
    Irony.
    You need to be careful...  DaffyDon is exposing your so called logic to actual scrutiny beyond the echo chamber of right wing propaganda sites.  Your little bubble could pop at anytime now…
    You’re neurologically incapable of responding to my post or staying on topic, and now that you’ve devolved into complete irrelevant nonsense, we can say the thread’s over. “Net neutrality” is gone, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it, and humanity is better off for it being gone. Run along now.
    Why are you so defensive of your right wing talking points?  
    Well, they are nonsense.   But you look silly when you get all huffed up and defensive when somebody points out that they have no basis in reality -- except that Alternate Reality that DaffyDon lives in called FauxNews.
    singularity
  • Reply 113 of 134
    Why are you so defensive
    Why can you not defend your claims?
    …of your right wing talking points?
    Fact is not right wing.
    Well, they are nonsense.
    Great argument. I guess you win now.
    But you look silly when you get all huffed up and defensive
    More irony. More projection.
    FauxNews.
    The liberal station? What does that have to do with objective fact that you, alone, are painting as right-wing talking points when you can’t substantiate any of your own statements or refute any of mine? Run along now.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 114 of 134
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,839member
    Back in the ole days on page 4, I posted about how this is actually a forward-looking decision by the FCC, given that 5G internet is poised to bring competition to the home ISP space across the U.S., and there's no reason for the government to micro-manage the Net given this fact.

    But some people can't simply debate facts, and would prefer to pretend to be fighting a "vast right-wing conspiracy" instead.

    I suppose it's still beneficial, if only to show the newer owners why Political Outsider was a necessary sub-forum on this board.
    tallest skil
  • Reply 115 of 134
    frank777 said:
    I suppose it's still beneficial, if only to show the newer owners why Political Outsider was a necessary sub-forum on this board.
    As long as political content isn’t posted otherwise, it’s totally fine not to have a politics subforum. I don’t support or oppose its lack of existence.
    5G internet is poised to bring competition to the home ISP space across the U.S.
    I’m too old and jaded to be optimistic about this. I see the telecoms (of which only four really exist) with single digit gigabyte data caps on plans costing two or three times what I’m paying for home Internet now and I get antsy. I also don’t like how they’ve handled data in the past. They’ve been caught (or just outright state in their EULA/ToS) that they watch everything you do and will serve up lower quality images, lower quality video, etc. It’d be really nice if they stopped being what they are, but hey. Glad you’re excited, though. More power to you.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 116 of 134
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,843member
    GeorgeBMac said:
    Keep going!
    Right wing ideology is hilarious!  Little circles of self-perpetuating delusion masquerading as "logic"
    What's right-wing about that?

    GeorgeBMac said:
    You need to be careful...  DaffyDon is exposing your so called logic to actual scrutiny beyond the echo chamber of right wing propaganda sites.  Your little bubble could pop at anytime now...
    How is 'Daffy Don' representing what I or Tallest Skil are talking about? I didn't vote for him. The Republican party is a total mess. I'm conservative, not right-wing.

    frank777 said:
    Back in the ole days on page 4, I posted about how this is actually a forward-looking decision by the FCC, given that 5G internet is poised to bring competition to the home ISP space across the U.S., and there's no reason for the government to micro-manage the Net given this fact.
    I think we responded. If 5G comes and can actually deliver speed and *quantity* of data at an affordable price.... bring it. I'm doubtful. And, while it requires less 'to the door' infrastructure, there is still infrastructure involved. For example, here in Canada we have two wireless players (broken into 3 or 4 companies, depending on where you live). It's still pretty much the same situation as wire based cable/telco.
  • Reply 117 of 134
    Why are you so defensive
    Why can you not defend your claims?
    …of your right wing talking points?
    Fact is not right wing.
    Well, they are nonsense.
    Great argument. I guess you win now.
    But you look silly when you get all huffed up and defensive
    More irony. More projection.
    FauxNews.
    The liberal station? What does that have to do with objective fact that you, alone, are painting as right-wing talking points when you can’t substantiate any of your own statements or refute any of mine? Run along now.
    Well, you're right about one thing, facts are NOT right wing...   Right wingers prefer Alternative Facts. 
    singularity
  • Reply 118 of 134
    cgWerks said:
    I'm conservative, not right-wing.


    Huh?
    ... ROFL...
  • Reply 119 of 134
    Well, you're right about one thing, facts are NOT right wing...   Right wingers prefer Alternative Facts. 
    No one gives a shit about your relativism. Fact is objective no matter what your feelings say.
    GeorgeBMac said:
    Huh?
    What the fuck could possibly have been confusing about what he said? I’m sure he’ll explain it to you. I’m right-wing and a conservative, just not a Republican.
  • Reply 120 of 134
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    gatorguy said:
    Check back in a year to see if the sky has fallen.  I predict that the doom and gloom predictions will not come to pass.  I hope I'm right, but time will tell.
    Completely agree. All these doom and gloom scenarios aren't going to happen. 
    So you agree with Pai and now with their hands untied we should instead see signs of innovation from the ISP's over the next year? I would ask you as I did an earlier poster: In what way do you see this benefitting you personally?
    I deleted that comment since I didn't notice my other one showed up. I'll respond anyway though since first comment is basically the same thing. I'm taking a wait and see approach. There are antitrust laws and I know some say they won't do anything, but that remains to be seen. Personally, Net Neutrality didn't affect me either way. My area still has only one ISP and that didn't change with Net Neutrality. Speed and cost hasn't changed either so that's why I'm taking a wait and see approach to this issue. 

    EDIT: I wanted to add I'm on Verizon so I'll wait and see if they do anything or not. 
    I don't think you understand Net Neutrality 
Sign In or Register to comment.