Net Neutrality moved to trash

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

If you think Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and others are platforms for free speech you are not only wrong, you are literally delusional. They are platforms where the terms of service reflect the politics of the management - which are all left leaning. That's why there "are" free speech platforms sprouting up (which in turn are getting attacked by mainstream leftist media outlets as promoting hate, bigotry, etc.. to destroy them before they take off.

There are right wing people I personally used to follow getting barred every day for "offenses" to terms of service I deem trivial and others promoting pedophilia, terrorism, overthrowing Trump, killing the first family etc.. that get a free pass despite me and others reporting them.

You can log on to Facebook and post literally anyrhing you want and it reach millions. That's free speech.

In any case this is not a partisan issue. This is a terms of service issue and which is better for the consumer. This method isn't...

Anyone who wants to make it a partisan issue is an idiot. 83% of people are against because it adds more variables to their bill.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Listen asshole I understand it quite well and regret getting into a debate with a person who thinks the earth is only 3000 years old.

If you could actually read I never said I have an issue paying more. Again you own bias is getting in the way of being rational.

What I have a problem with is telecoms charging me more for one byte than another because of what comes after the www.

If you actually go back through this thread I have flat out said countless times I have no issue paying for anything.

When it comes to understanding networks my father personally installed the one in my town so I have a slight bead on how the shit works.

If you don't care about paying more, then what's the difference if you pay Spectrum an extra $10 or keep the same bill and pay $10 to Youtube, Google, Twitter, Facebook etc...

As long as there is competition at the last mile (which there still is) and no one is slowing competitor traffic it's all good.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Listen asshole I understand it quite well and regret getting into a debate with a person who thinks the earth is only 3000 years old.

If you could actually read I never said I have an issue paying more. Again you own bias is getting in the way of being rational.

What I have a problem with is telecoms charging me more for one byte than another because of what comes after the www.

If you actually go back through this thread I have flat out said countless times I have no issue paying for anything.

When it comes to understanding networks my father personally installed the one in my town so I have a slight bead on how the shit works.

Take a deep breath...and now exhale slowly. Feelin' relaxed?

Firstly, I think the earth is older than 3,000 years old. From which of your orifices did you pull that number?

Secondly, if you have "no issue for paying for anything" then why do you have an issue for how you're charged for what you're paying? One way or the other, as the demand increases, costs will go up...unless, of course, you and your ilk get on the government dole and get subsidized for your playtime on the 'net because, after all, life is just so unfair...

And last but not least, did you daddy ever teach you how life works or were you too dull to understand him?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

You can log on to Facebook and post literally anyrhing you want and it reach millions. That's free speech.


In any case this is not a partisan issue. This is a terms of service issue and which is better for the consumer. This method isn't...

Anyone who wants to make it a partisan issue is an idiot. 83% of people are against because it adds more variables to their bill.

I realize there are many issues getting conflated, but you don't know what you are taking about on free speech. I'm telling you I've seen right wing/libertarian guys I personally followed get barred for nonsense and personally reported death threats that went undisciplined because of who was doing the threatening and who was threatened.

These are leftist organizations. They barely even hide their bias anymore.

[Dave Schwartz]

For the record, Facebook IS FREE SPEECH.

That is, it comes without COST.

But it is certainly not FREE as in OPEN and without limits.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

If you don't care about paying more, then what's the difference if you pay Spectrum an extra $10 or keep the same bill and pay $10 to Youtube, Google, Twitter, Facebook etc...

As long as there is competition at the last mile (which there still is) and no one is slowing competitor traffic it's all good.

Because the ultimate issue here isn't how much it costs. I've made this clear multiple times. I keep saying Data is Data because it doesn't matter if I use 20 gigs on this forum or 20 gigs on Netflix. To the ISP it makes absolutely ZERO difference.

Sure I'll use more bandwidth streaming but we also determine our speed when selecting our high speed package. Again it makes absolutely ZERO difference to them.

But now they can choose to charge you more or less depending not on speed or data but how you use it. This is simply a way for telecoms to charge more, filter our options, and harass content providers they feel they compete with. It does not make the market freer in fact it's the opposite.

Like my example to JR it's like going to buy ammo and having to pay different prices for how you plan to use it. Or having to pay more for a truck because you don't actually plan on pulling a trailer with it... it's much more similar to that than a supply/demand curve.

As far as free speech sorry but there are ****ing nutso's on both ends of the spectrum on the internet. It has nothing to do with that and speech on the internet is MUCH freer than it is in everyday America. Pointblankperiod.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

For the record, Facebook IS FREE SPEECH.

That is, it comes without COST.

But it is certainly not FREE as in OPEN and without limits.

Ding! Perfect!

I got suspended from Facebook because I was reported as being a spammer. I had no idea what they were talking about. When I appealed they released me after 48 hours with the explanation "we are unsure why the complaint was filed “ and they would not tell me who filed the complaint. I have 23 friends.......only about 5 participate with me. I assume a lot of there suspensions are automated

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

Ding! Perfect!

I got suspended from Facebook because I was reported as being a spammer. I had no idea what they were talking about. When I appealed they released me after 48 hours with the explanation "we are unsure why the complaint was filed “ and they would not tell me who filed the complaint. I have 23 friends.......only about 5 participate with me. I assume a lot of there suspensions are automated

It's not at all uncommon.

[reckless]

Originally Posted by reckless

But not freedom of thought or expression, especially conservative points of view.

The Obama Administration pulled this fast one -- the benign sounding 'Net Neutrality' law in his final year as President.

The lobbying Google villains had more documented visits to Obama during his last term than the number of visits by most high ranking Cabinet administrators.

The law was anything but 'net neutral' ... it was meant for the government to pick winners and losers -- and in Obama's case it was for Google, Facebook, Twitter and the other purveyors of free speech and totalitarianism -- such as the George Soros-funded Tech Left Coalition companies.

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

This is absolute nonsense. The sources you are citing are the greatest platforms of free speech ever created. I can post something there and reach MILLIONS if I so choose.

If anything this will strengthen their hand as they are already established platforms.

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

No.

This isn't a left/right issue. This is major Telecoms stacking the deck in their favor to make more money. This isn't anything other than crony capitalism where the consumer loses.

AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon win. Consumers lose.

You want the real answer why Net Neutrality is a big deal? Why it's crony capitalism? ...

Wow, how it must feel to be a traveller down the slippery slope of double talk and confused perspectives...

When this thread began I was the first (and only) one to say the repeal of Net Neutrality was good because it was only about crony capitalism -- the government picking winners and losers. The uber liberal Tech Left coalition of companies wanted NN -- and after millions donated to Obama and Democrats in 2016 we got 'Net Neutrality' -- written by the lobbyists from Google, Amazon, Soros, et al.

Yet, you said all this was nonsense. You said it was all about data. Data has nothing to do with NN, just as the Affordable Care Act lacked both care and affordability and had nothing to do with health care.

Net Neutrality was all about left wing Too Big To Fail totalitarians such as Facebook and Google controlling the flow of information while stifling conservative and libertarian thought, and they got it thanks to the Obama administration giving them its seal of approval.

So now, many pages later into this thread, you now say it's all about crony capitalism -- with the telecoms and ISPs sticking it to the consumer. Thanks for agreeing with me for a change.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by reckless

Wow, how it must feel to be a traveller down the slippery slope of double talk and confused perspectives...

When this thread began I was the first (and only) one to say the repeal of Net Neutrality was good because it was only about crony capitalism -- the government picking winners and losers. The uber liberal Tech Left coalition of companies wanted NN -- and after millions donated to Obama and Democrats in 2016 we got 'Net Neutrality' -- written by the lobbyists from Google, Amazon, Soros, et al.

Yet, you said all this was nonsense. You said it was all about data. Data has nothing to do with NN, just as the Affordable Care Act lacked both care and affordability and had nothing to do with health care.

Net Neutrality was all about left wing Too Big To Fail totalitarians such as Facebook and Google controlling the flow of information while stifling conservative and libertarian thought, and they got it thanks to the Obama administration giving them its seal of approval.

So now, many pages later into this thread, you now say it's all about crony capitalism -- with the telecoms and ISPs sticking it to the consumer. Thanks for agreeing with me for a change.

Huh?!?

So you're okay with telecoms and ISPs sticking it to the consumer? Facebook and Google aren't telecoms.

How does Net Neutrality allow Facebook and Google to control the flow information? NN doesn't deal with them at all. What it does is prevent an ISP from charging you more for using whatever website it deems fit even though the actual good you are purchasing from them isn't any different.

This has nothing to do with liberal or conservative viewpoints. It's about $.

Say you owned two companies and wanted to advertise on a bill board. One business sells widgets and the other trinkets. The owner of the billboard says it will cost $100 to advertise the trinket business but the widget one it's going to charge you $125 for... That's what the repeal of NN allows your ISP to do just instead of billboards it's websites.

[davew]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

You can log on to Facebook and post literally anyrhing you want and it reach millions. That's free speech.

In any case this is not a partisan issue. This is a terms of service issue and which is better for the consumer. This method isn't...

Anyone who wants to make it a partisan issue is an idiot. 83% of people are against because it adds more variables to their bill.

Yes, unless the censors are political hacks and lower likes and keep some things off their front page trending crap....

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...servative-news

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by davew

Yes, unless the censors are political hacks and lower likes and keep some things off their front page trending crap....

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...servative-news

"Leon Wolf, an author at Redstate, one of the publications listed by the Gizmodo interviewees as having been targeted for exclusion, said he had not seen evidence of the kind of tampering mentioned by Gizmodo. “I watch our Facebook stats very closely,” Wolf told the Guardian."

Your article.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by davew

Yes, unless the censors are political hacks and lower likes and keep some things off their front page trending crap....

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...servative-news

And if this is really that concerning to you now content providers like the evil Google, Netflix, and Facebook can give kickbacks to ISPs and wireless providers for UNLIMITED access. Ironically those were some of the first cases the FCC went after when NN was passed.

They're big enough. They can afford it.

[Tom]

Facebook is hardly free speech to anyone posting conservative ideas.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Because the ultimate issue here isn't how much it costs. I've made this clear multiple times. I keep saying Data is Data because it doesn't matter if I use 20 gigs on this forum or 20 gigs on Netflix. To the ISP it makes absolutely ZERO difference.

Sure I'll use more bandwidth streaming but we also determine our speed when selecting our high speed package. Again it makes absolutely ZERO difference to them.

But now they can choose to charge you more or less depending not on speed or data but how you use it. This is simply a way for telecoms to charge more, filter our options, and harass content providers they feel they compete with. It does not make the market freer in fact it's the opposite.

Like my example to JR it's like going to buy ammo and having to pay different prices for how you plan to use it. Or having to pay more for a truck because you don't actually plan on pulling a trailer with it... it's much more similar to that than a supply/demand curve.

As far as free speech sorry but there are ****ing nutso's on both ends of the spectrum on the internet. It has nothing to do with that and speech on the internet is MUCH freer than it is in everyday America. Pointblankperiod.

Be sure to let us know when you come up with a real world example of an ISP upcharging for how their services are used.

Meanwhile...(what is this: Day Three without NN?) and all is still well in the wild, wooly web.