Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

Net Neutrality


  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#41
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,961 posts
  • LocationLondon

 

Wat.

 

I don't understand the argument you are making. It doesn't make sense. Please elaborate, with more detail. You seem to be against companies restricting your Internet – yet at the same time, you oppose net neutrality? Eh?



#42
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,222 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

 

 

Wat.

 

I don't understand the argument you are making. It doesn't make sense. Please elaborate, with more detail. You seem to be against companies restricting your Internet – yet at the same time, you oppose net neutrality? Eh?

 

It's very simple. I can be personally against something without wanting to use government guns to force other people not to do it.

 

For example, I think weed is disgusting and don't have a very high opinion of those who consume it, but at the same time, I'm opposed to the government taking weed smokers away at gunpoint and locking them up.


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#43
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,197 posts

 

 

It's very simple. I can be personally against something without wanting to use government guns to force other people not to do it.

 

Yet, you don't object to use of government guns to protect private property rights?


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#44
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,222 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

 

 

 

It's very simple. I can be personally against something without wanting to use government guns to force other people not to do it.

 

Yet, you don't object to use of government guns to protect private property rights?

 

I have a right to my property. I don't have a right to control someone else's property.


  • eacao likes this

Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#45
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,197 posts

Yet, none of us have a right to net nuetrality.  Furthermore, government use of force to protect "owners" of Internet Service Providers is acceptable to you?


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#46
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,222 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

Yet, none of us have a right to net nuetrality.  Furthermore, government use of force to protect "owners" of Internet Service Providers is acceptable to you?

Why should we have a right to control the property of others (ISPs in this case).

 

No, government-enforced monopolies should be banned too. But this so-called "net neutrality" is a step away from that. It's a step in the wrong direction. More government is never, ever the solution.


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#47
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,197 posts

FCC Commissioner Begs Nation to Stop GOP Colleagues From Killing Net Neutrality

 

https://www.commondr...-net-neutrality

 

Introduction:

 

After one commissioner called the FCC's newly-released plan to roll back net neutrality "worse than one could imagine," a second commissioner is now calling voters to make sure the proposal by Republican Chairman Ajit Pai does not go through.

 

In a Los Angeles Times op-ed published Thursday—entitled "I'm on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality"—Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel points to the overwhelming public support for net neutrality and the ongoing questions about validity of anti-net neutrality public comments submitted to FCC, as well as what appear to be tens of thousands of missing comments. "If the idea behind the plan is bad, the process for commenting on it has been even worse," she writes.

 

Rosenworcel decries Pai's plan as "a lousy idea. And it deserves a heated response from the millions of Americans who work and create online every day."

Killing net neutrality, she adds, means

 

your broadband provider could carve internet access into fast and slow lanes, favoring the traffic of online platforms that have made special payments and consigning all others to a bumpy road. Your provider would have the power to choose which voices online to amplify and which to censor. The move could affect everything online, including the connections we make and the communities we create.

 

This is not the internet experience we know today. Americans should prevent the plan from becoming the law of the land.

makearuckus-savenetneutrality.jpg?itok=2

 

Net neutrality supporters hold signs in front of the White House.

(Photo: Joseph Gruber/Flickr/cc)


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#48
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,197 posts

Net Nuetrality and the Drive to Censor the Internet

 

https://www.wsws.org...5/pers-n25.html

 

Introduction:

 

(World Wide Socialist Website) Wednesday’s move by the Trump administration to end net neutrality marks a milestone in the offensive by the US government and major corporations to put an end to the free and open internet, paving the way for widespread government censorship of oppositional news and analysis.

 

Under the current law, upheld by numerous court decisions and reaffirmed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 2015, companies that provide internet access to users, known as internet service providers (ISPs), cannot block or impede their users’ access to any website or service.

 

But the draft proposal published by FCC chairman Ajit Pai Wednesday, and expected to sail through the approval process next month, would put an end to the decades-long treatment of internet services as a public utility, allowing the internet monopolies Comcast, Charter, AT&T and Verizon full ability to block, throttle and promote internet traffic at will.

This will allow them to block or limit access to websites, such as the World Socialist Web Site, WikiLeaks and other sources of politically critical news, entirely at their discretion, as well as peer-to-peer file sharing networks, which were used by news outlets to bypass censorship in the past.

 

The ending of net neutrality will also have a substantial economic impact. By scrapping most government regulation of the internet giants, the ISPs will be able to use their monopoly power to jack up prices for consumers. While most people will be relegated to a slow and largely censored internet, the ability to communicate information freely will be reserved for those who can pay exorbitant premium rates.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#49
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,222 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

You know you can't win by just posting a bunch of news, right?


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#50
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,222 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

You know you can't win by just posting a bunch of news, right?


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#51
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,197 posts

Maybe not.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#52
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,197 posts

Or maybe I do not have to in order to win.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#53
Ewolf20

Ewolf20

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts
  • LocationColumbia,sc

You know you can't win by just posting a bunch of news, right?

although that is true to some extent, there is a way. eventually, it will come back.



#54
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,222 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

 

You know you can't win by just posting a bunch of news, right?

although that is true to some extent, there is a way. eventually, it will come back.

 

I love how you completely miss the context.


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#55
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,222 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

Or maybe I do not have to in order to win.

Two can play this game. 5069.


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#56
BasilBerylium

BasilBerylium

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 548 posts
  • LocationArgentina

George-Costanza-Eating-Popcorn.gif?ssl=1


  • Unity likes this

#57
Ewolf20

Ewolf20

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts
  • LocationColumbia,sc
I like debate, but this does not seem healthly at all.

#58
BasilBerylium

BasilBerylium

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 548 posts
  • LocationArgentina

I like debate, but this does not seem healthly at all.

Most debates are like this in FT



#59
Ewolf20

Ewolf20

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts
  • LocationColumbia,sc

and it sucks.


  • BasilBerylium likes this

#60
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,197 posts

 

 

You know you can't win by just posting a bunch of news, right?

although that is true to some extent, there is a way. eventually, it will come back.

 

I love how you completely miss the context.

 

I love how you fail to realize that there is more than one context.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users