Spread the word guys

[Coolidge]

I don't care what they do with "providing the internet". I'm talking about them censoring websites at their whim for any reason. That is not in bounds with simply providing access to the internet.

It it within the bounds and has been within the bounds for a lot longer than this 'net neutrality' has bee in effect. Any domain registrar or server can do the same thing with their service.

The Left shouldn't have control over what you see on the internet just like the ISP shouldn't have control over what you see and do on the internet.

People do have control over what you see on the Internet.

The person putting up the site has control
The domain registrar has control
The server has control
The government has contorl
The ISP has control

 

[Coolidge]

Except they do though. Government has to step in consistently and for good reason to regulate business. It happens all the time. For example, to prevent monopolies.

Except they don't. Internet is not a right or common good. It's a service that a completely independent company provides.

 

[Coolidge]

They are more than a middle man when they control what content you use the internet. What isn't theirs.

No, they're just the middle man. Again, they don't have direct control over the content. You saying that over and over again just makes it sound better.

Unbelievable. You are insane.

Cool. That 'insanity' is going to become the law again. I can't wait.

 

[Sammy Bananas]

It's service that a completely independent company provides.

Functionally (from the end users perspective) it really isn't if you don't have options.

And to your point about the increased cost to the business and charging more for it (ex. Netflix), I totally get. But seeing how most ISPs charge for data usage, I don't see why they need the ability the charge more to specific websites.

 

[IamStryker]

No, they're just the middle man. Again, they don't have direct control over the content. You saying that over and over again just makes it sound better.

They would be just the middle man if they just provided access like I have been saying. You on the other hand want them to be an overlord that can restrict access on anything for any reason. You have already admitted that you are ok with that although I haven no idea why.

The free market isn't going to magically help when there are only a few big ISP's. I only have one option so if they come horrible gougers on the content that they do not own then where do I go? You suggest move just to find another ISP?

They need some regulation.

 

[IamStryker]

It it within the bounds and has been within the bounds for a lot longer than this 'net neutrality' has bee in effect. Any domain registrar or server can do the same thing with their service.



People do have control over what you see on the Internet.

The person putting up the site has control
The domain registrar has control
The server has control
The government has contorl
The ISP has control

The person who owns the site? Gee I wonder why I am ok with that person having control over their website. Your arguments make no sense.

 

[MikalP]

"The FCC under Pai is handing over the internet to a few humongous gatekeepers who see the rest of us as products to be delivered to advertisers, not as citizens needing communications that serve democracy's needs," and that fuckin' idiot is making a technology based discussion about "YEAH BUT THE LEFT"

There is damn near universal agreeance that net neutrality is a good thing except for a couple of shit disturbers trying to make this about right vs left. When there are 25 million complaints filed about this vote, it isn't about right vs left. it's about democracy vs a bunch of greedy cuntbags.

 

[CatchnShoot]

You didn't make an actual argument. Why would I give you an argument? You said something about 'cunts' (love the substance and civility, by the way) and cried 'Trump regime'. Okay?

Comprehension challenged, AND triggered by the use of your hero's name.
Gotcha.

 

[Coolidge]

Comprehension challenged, AND triggered by the use of your hero's name.
Gotcha.

'Comprehension...' Do you have any actual concept of comprehension and reading skills? We know you don't know what an actual 'argument' consists of.

We're in agreement there. Trump is a self-indulgent buffoon; a glorified circus performer.

That's how I talk about all my 'heroes', of course.

 

[Coolidge]

The person who owns the site? Gee I wonder why I am ok with that person having control over their website. Your arguments make no sense.

Yes, the person who owns the website, as well the person who owns the registrar, the server, the provider, etc. A lot of people have control over what you see on the web. 'why I am ok' Well, you're not okay with the people that own the ISP technology having complete autonomy over their technology. You have argued that server/domain registrar should not be able to decide to take down a website. Why do you think you can tell people what they can and can not do with their own service? If you depend on their technology, then you play by their rules. Period.

 

[Coolidge]

They would be just the middle man if they just provided access like I have been saying. You on the other hand want them to be an overlord that can restrict access on anything for any reason. You have already admitted that you are ok with that although I haven no idea why.

That's exactly what they're doing. Providing access. You're under this strange delusion that you have the authority to dictate how that access is provided. That's just not the case. 'restrict access on anything for any reason' So can a service like Youtube. A lot of people depend on Youtube for their livelihood. There's competition between companies and creators within the Youtube platform. Perhaps the government should step in and ensure that Youtube isn't pulling any shenanigans. Why stop at service providers?

The free market isn't going to magically help when there are only a few big ISP's. I only have one option so if they come horrible gougers on the content that they do not own then where do I go? You suggest move just to find another ISP?

That's an issue with the federal/local government. It shouldn't be so difficult for people to start up new ISP's. Government intervention in the market is one of the main reasons why there's a lack of options in certain areas.

They need some regulation.

I know you believe that. I happen to disagree.

 

[Sicarii]

No, just mature enough and smart enough to understand that government shouldn't be allowed to dictate to providers. You sound extremely emotional, by the way.

Dude, are you really smart though? By dissing this post you are allowing the government and ISP to dictate what is shown to us online. Support net nuetrality

 

[TravisFrowne]

I already own a copy on VHS, I’m good...

Wow, almost a Faber chin.

 

[IamStryker]

That's exactly what they're doing. Providing access.

No their job is to provide access to the internet. Not pick and choose the websites to give access to. How you don't see that is beyond me. You are either lying on purpose or completely delusional.

You're under this strange delusion that you have the authority to dictate how that access is provided. That's just not the case. 'restrict access on anything for any reason' So can a service like Youtube. A lot of people depend on Youtube for their livelihood. There's competition between companies and creators within the Youtube platform. Perhaps the government should step in and ensure that Youtube isn't pulling any shenanigans. Why stop at service providers?

Again your arguments make no sense. Youtube owns youtube. They can do whatever they want with youtube. ISP's do not own the internet nor the websites on the internet. There is a clear difference there. Open your eyes.

 

[Coolidge]

No their job is to provide access to the internet. Not pick and choose the websites to give access to. How you don't see that is beyond me. You are either lying on purpose or completely delusional.

And that's exactly what they're doing. You obviously have problems comprehending the difference between controlling the way something is accessed (through their service, not the others, mind you) and actually controlling that something.

Again your arguments make no sense. Youtube owns youtube. They can do whatever they want with youtube. ISP's do not own the internet nor the websites on the internet. There is a clear difference there. Open your eyes.

It makes perfect sense. Youtube owns Youtube, and the ISPs own the technology/service that you want government to regulate/control. 'do not own the Internet' They don't claim to.

 

[IamStryker]

And that's exactly what they're doing. You obviously have problems comprehending the difference between controlling the way something is access and actually controlling that something.

You must be trolling. There is no other explanation.

 

[Coolidge]

You must be trolling. There is no other explanation.

Crying 'troll' is not an argument. It's the last refuge for an intellectual lightweight.

 

[IamStryker]

Crying 'troll' is not an argument. It's the last refuge for an intellectual lightweight.

Hence why I have already given arguments. You are either a troll or retarded.

Giving access to the internet and directly controlling the internet are two completely different things. Why you are ok with them controlling the internet is mind boggling.

 

[Coolidge]

Dude, are you really smart though? By dissing this post you are allowing the government and ISP to dictate what is shown to us online. Support net nuetrality

No.

'the government and ISP to dictate' This is an issue of the government dictating to a business what they can and can not do with their own service. And stop it with the fear-mongering. If you were genuinely concerned about censorship of online content, then you should be more worried about all of the left-wing initiatives going on.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...es-from-facebook-google-twitter-idUSKBN16N2YI

 

[Coolidge]

Hence why I have already given arguments. You are either a troll or retarded.

You gave arguments and I countered each and every one of them. They were all moronic.