Net Neutrality BITCHESSS

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

Eulogy, if I can make a suggestion which goes just beyond this argument, you would do well to realize that for virtually any issue, there are more than two binarily-opposed positions which can be held.

i know being condescending is like your jam

But fuck off

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

I can't say I'm shocked that jczeroman supports a policy that disproportionately benefits rich people.

Let me reiterate.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

i know being condescending is like your jam

But fuck off

Sorry for telling you to fuck off. I'm trying to rein in my netphoria anger but sometimes it still spills out.

I think you're very wrong and that you're incapable of thinking in practical terms and that you bizarrely wear that flaw as a badge of honor

But I retract the "fuck off" part : /

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

Ok, so we all admit here that we are talking about a problem which does not exist in reality? Which is cool, but it's important we all understand this.

>>implying runaway capitalist abuse isn't a problem
>>2015
>>still on Adam Smith's balls

[Elphenor]

We saw what they did to Netflix to get more money out of them and went holy shit we're next and that's why the gov made rules to prevent it

[The Omega Concern]

Any supporters of the current legislation care to explain specifically why they do? Kinda tough to went it hasn't been released yet. They're likely still writing it and made it public to see the blowback from those who know the score and how to circumvent the coming FCC takeover of the internet.

The educated douchebags who thought they were being so clever spelling out their plans allow the FCC on the fly to cover those loopholes with the legislation. IOW, even the truthers got played by this.

It's all a big psy-op to eventually shut down Truther sites because in the last decade in particular, the powers that be have had the damdest time with their false flags getting exposed.

[Starla]

We need to shut those "truther" sites down because they're spreading dangerous misinformation and propagating irrational mythical thinking. In fact, we need to round the people up that run these sites and question them... maybe impose some jail time or hefty fines when they misbehave.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

It's all a big psy-op to eventually shut down Truther sites because in the last decade in particular, the powers that be have had the damdest time with their false flags getting exposed.

Alternative media IS the problem. It's creating division and distracting people from the truth. Do you honestly believe the government lies about everything? We need to get rid of all news stations and replace them with one state run television station that we can tune into to get our news. This would help clear up any misunderstandings and stop tea party types from dragging our country down further with their racist conspiracy nut job "news" like Breitbart, Alex Jones, Michael Savage etc. We really need to clean up the internet, starting with message forums and social media.

[Trotskilicious]

i wonder if he knows what psy op means at this point

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by Order 66

um.. it is a problem. why do you think telecoms were pouring millions into lobbyists and lawsuits. to keep the status quo?

Who is suggesting that the ISPs wanted this regulation? Of course they don't want it and of course they imagine that they will be able to charge a premium to sites like netflix, youtube, etc. That doesn't equate to the doomsday slippery-slope abstraction that several people here are using to justify their position.

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

I think you're very wrong and that you're incapable of thinking in practical terms and that you bizarrely wear that flaw as a badge of honor

I'm not sure what is "impractical" about arguing about the situation as it is *in reality* versus an imaginary world in which no one has internet access because it costs millions of dollars per user (not sure why barriers to internet access would be good for ISPs, but whatever...) and corporations censor half the content...

[Eulogy]

Are you familiar with cable television companies

[Eulogy]

And can you possibly present your opinions without being a condescending dick

Academics are pretty universally reviled for a reason. Congratulations on contributing to that.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Starla

Do you honestly believe the government lies about everything?

I think we all know Omega's answer to this question.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

Who is suggesting that the ISPs wanted this regulation? Of course they don't want it and of course they imagine that they will be able to charge a premium to sites like netflix, youtube, etc. That doesn't equate to the doomsday slippery-slope abstraction that several people here are using to justify their position.

the isps suggested this

stick to pie in the sky tgeoreticals, colin

[Elphenor]

Yeah those posts are nuts

[hnibos]

I think she was being sarcastic

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

And can you possibly present your opinions without being a condescending dick

Academics are pretty universally reviled for a reason. Congratulations on contributing to that.

I admit that years of being an academic have sucked out all the patience I used to have for the most repetitive/formulaic parts of arguments. No doubt this comes across as condescending. I'm afraid that you get trained to argue this way, probably because vitriolic arguments are about the only thing that make academic conferences worth attending.

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

the isps suggested this

stick to pie in the sky tgeoreticals, colin

Ok, then. I guess I should pick the (stupid) slippery-slope counter-argument that fits the binary discourse that everyone wants to have:

net neutrality is good bad because the corporations government will make it cost more and censor it.

[jczeroman]

I realize it's *crazy*, but I don't like either the government or the corporations having power...

[Trotskilicious]

professor, without knowing precisely what the danger is would you say its time for our readers to crack each others heads open and feast on the goo inside?

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

Ok, then. I guess I should pick the (stupid) slippery-slope counter-argument that fits the binary discourse that everyone wants to have:

net neutrality is good bad because the corporations government will make it cost more and censor it.

EVERYTIME YOU SAY THIS IT PROVES YOURE NOT FUCKING GETTING IT

jesus fuck man

[Trotskilicious]

have you read anything about this or are you just assuming you know all about it?

[Order 66]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

I realize it's *crazy*, but I don't like either the government or the corporations having power...

the internet being a public utility doesn't really give the government any "power" over it

[Trotskilicious]

i love how his slippery slope argument re govt "control" over the net is terrible but were foolish chicken littles if we dont think telecoms should play favorites with websites and content providers

[Trotskilicious]

further who the fuck its the third alternative? swansonet local ethernet cable in now in as many as five pawnee homes

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by Order 66

the internet being a public utility doesn't really give the government any "power" over it

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

i love how his slippery slope argument re govt "control" over the net is terrible but were foolish chicken littles if we dont think telecoms should play favorites with websites and content providers

I was not making that statement in reference to NN. I'd like to think the size 100 statement I DID make about NN makes it clear that I don't think NN is about "government power" or "government control". I think I've made it clear that I think it is about picking one section of big business type elites instead of a different section of big business type elites.

But again, everyone here seems to want to have the asinine (and largely pointless) government vs. business argument. I just want to discuss things for what they are.

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

EVERYTIME YOU SAY THIS IT PROVES YOURE NOT FUCKING GETTING IT

I'm glad to discuss what *is*. Tell me what I'm missing.

[Order 66]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

everyone here seems to want to have the asinine (and largely pointless) government vs. business argument

where in the thread is anybody arguing this? seems like you're arguing with a bunch a strawmen for the sake of arguing

[Trotskilicious]

and hes still losing that argument lol

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by Order 66

where in the thread is anybody arguing this? seems like you're arguing with a bunch a strawmen for the sake of arguing

Half the thread is framed around the idea of state vs. capitalism, govt. vs. business, etc.

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Oh wait, that would blow.

But y'know...government evil, corporations good, because free market.

Originally Posted by Eulogy

And if anyone were to actually open a superhighway for cancer researchers it would be the motherfucking government

Someone just kill me

Originally Posted by Tchocky

B...but Net Neutrality = Big government, and big government BAD!

Originally Posted by Elphenor

The selective skepticism is so weird. Total trust in ISP's to do the right thing unregulated but no faith in the government whatsoever to do almost anything ever

Originally Posted by duovamp

When have businesses every pushed the limits of morality to abuse people and squeeze every last single hard-earned penny out of them? Come on guys.

Originally Posted by duovamp

Why have laws that prevent poisoning people? Businesses would never do that.

Originally Posted by duovamp

Why have laws that prevent abusing workers? Businesses would never do that.

Originally Posted by Eulogy

This is a very weak "free market solutions!!" argument

Look at cable television. Should the Internet be like that?

Originally Posted by duovamp

>>implying runaway capitalist abuse isn't a problem
>>2015
>>still on Adam Smith's balls

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Government should not regulate the web; ISPs should.

~ Every anti-NN argument on my Facebook feed so far in a nutshell.

Originally Posted by Elphenor

Well duh the market should always regulate itself the invisible hand

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

i love how his slippery slope argument re govt "control" over the net is terrible but were foolish chicken littles if we dont think telecoms should play favorites with websites and content providers