Yeah as we all know free market-based economies have historically been failures while government-controlled economies always work very wellremember: don't trust any argument that's main point is 'the market will sort itself out'
This isn’t about socialism. Also, I didn’t feel like the post said don’t ever say “the market will sort itself out”; just don’t make that your main argument; for one, it just shows a lack of understanding of what Internet availability looks like in the US (especially rural areas, where you’re gonna have at best one high-speed provider)Yeah as we all know free market-based economies have historically been failures while government-controlled economies always work very well
Yeah, remember back when Rockefeller Oil, Carnegie Steel, and the railroad conglomorates basically ran the entirety of the country? Just because the market is free doesn't mean consumers will be adequately protected.Yeah as we all know free market-based economies have historically been failures while government-controlled economies always work very well
The american health care system is a free market and look how well that's going. Sometimes you need government regulation.Yeah as we all know free market-based economies have historically been failures while government-controlled economies always work very well
Do you like Netflix? Would you like it if your internet company slowed down your Netflix or blocked it completely until you paid another fee, in addition to you paying for internet service & paying for a Netflix subscription? How about if you could get Hulu just fine, but Netflix is throttled instead?Can someone explain to me in plain English how this will negatively affect the average American?
ISPs in the USA are NOT free market. That ship has sailed long ago.Yeah as we all know free market-based economies have historically been failures while government-controlled economies always work very well
236. Transparency, competition, antitrust, and consumer protection laws achieve similar benefits as conduct rules at lower cost. The effect of the transparency rule we adopt is that ISP practices that involve blocking, throttling, and other behavior that may give rise to openness concerns will be disclosed to the Commission and the public.846 As the Commission found in the Open Internet Order, “disclosure increases the likelihood that broadband providers will abide by open Internet principles, and that the Internet community will identify problematic conduct and suggest fixes . . . thereby increas[ing] the chances that harmful practices will not occur in the first place and that, if they do, they will be quickly remedied.”847
mutual victory as these are the exact same thingsome plucky isps, or an alliance of the biggest corporations in the world? Yeah, I thought so, too.
Where's the evidence of this? I have no doubt these people exist, but they are an extreme minority in this scenario. I mean, seriously, when a good chunk of fucking /pol/ is questioning the actions of their god king Trump, that should show you that this is serious. Again, there really are people who buy into unregulated capitalism and "the market will solve itself" (which is horse shit), but they are not this huge, dangerous group, at least not when it comes to NN.average republican voters believe in ted cruz's free market nonsense or just don't care enough to fight it.
This "vigilance" and "immediate response" are the exact reasons why I consider it highly unlikely the FCC's proposal will gain any legal traction. From state lawsuits, to condemnation from our #1 trade partner Canada, who even STRENGTHENED their laws as an act of defiance, which is insane considering they have their own cable monopoly (basically 2 companies controlling everything).even an attempt to wage war on information and class should be met with vigilance and immediate response. i don't care if the actual threat of it is minuscule. the threat and attempt is what matters.
NN disappearing when there have already been a multitude of attempts to take it down since its inception in 2015, every single one of which has failed? NN disappearing when countries like India and the aforementioned Canada have improved their laws in just the past few years? K E Kin the future it wouldn't shock me at all to see net neutrality completely erased.
There might not be evidence of a libertarian majority, but you certainly can't use internet message boards as an indicator of political opinions either.Where's the evidence of this? I have no doubt these people exist, but they are an extreme minority in this scenario. I mean, seriously, when a good chunk of fucking /pol/ is questioning the actions of their god king Trump, that should show you that this is serious. Again, there really are people who buy into unregulated capitalism and "the market will solve itself" (which is horse shit), but they are not this huge, dangerous group, at least not when it comes to NN.
This "vigilance" and "immediate response" are the exact reasons why I consider it highly unlikely the FCC's proposal will gain any legal traction. From state lawsuits, to condemnation from our #1 trade partner Canada, who even STRENGTHENED their laws as an act of defiance, which is insane considering they have their own cable monopoly (basically 2 companies controlling everything).
NN disappearing when there have already been a multitude of attempts to take it down since its inception in 2015, every single one of which has failed? NN disappearing when countries like India and the aforementioned Canada have improved their laws in just the past few years? K E K
What exactly makes you think it won't get past the senate? 1) breaking from partisan support is much more of a death sentence than supporting an unpopular bill that is also supported by your donors and biggest lobbying corporations. 2) Many senators are not up for reelection any time soon. In fact, in 2018 only 8 republicans are actually up for reelection. Of the 33 senators that are up for midterms, 23 are Democrat and 2 are Independent that almost certainly will vote against the bill. That you think net neutrality will be the straw that turncoats some republicans to go against the herd and not support pedophilia or obstruction of justice with respect to the russia investigation is laughable. The state lawsuits will eventually stop it possibly but it would more than likely end up being a case that goes all the way to the Supreme Court on whether this sort of blatant anti-populist order is constitutional or not, but even then you have to remember that the current right wing regime has stacked the courts with other right wing "in the pocket" judges that are simply placeholders to stop any progressive movement for the coming decades. No matter what the will of the people is, it falters before the will of the judiciary branch unless the people actually get active, in the streets French Revolution style.Anyone who seriously thinks Ajit Pai's plan will make it through Congress and the countless lawsuits is delusional and insane. This was a terrible plan, yes, completely anti-consumer, yes, but I'm not worried at all, because there is basically little to no chance of this even getting past the senate. Congress is corrupt to hell, yes, but they still need to get re-elected, and they already fucked up with healthcare. This is an issue many people are going to be paying close attention to in the next couple of months, and some congressmen may even see this as their opportunity to politically save face after the aforementioned health care fiasco. And if this somehow makes it through congress, the lawsuits will stop it. Who would win: some plucky isps, or an alliance of the biggest corporations in the world? Yeah, I thought so, too.
1. I am perfectly aware that the U.S. does not have to listen to other countries. The way PDC phrased it made it seem like he was saying that in the future, net neutrality will be wiped off the face of the earth. Sorry for the confusion.What exactly makes you think it won't get past the senate? 1) breaking from partisan support is much more of a death sentence than supporting an unpopular bill that is also supported by your donors and biggest lobbying corporations. 2) Many senators are not up for reelection any time soon. In fact, in 2018 only 8 republicans are actually up for reelection. Of the 33 senators that are up for midterms, 23 are Democrat and 2 are Independent that almost certainly will vote against the bill. That you think net neutrality will be the straw that turncoats some republicans to go against the herd and not support pedophilia or obstruction of justice with respect to the russia investigation is laughable. The state lawsuits will eventually stop it possibly but it would more than likely end up being a case that goes all the way to the Supreme Court on whether this sort of blatant anti-populist order is constitutional or not, but even then you have to remember that the current right wing regime has stacked the courts with other right wing "in the pocket" judges that are simply placeholders to stop any progressive movement for the coming decades. No matter what the will of the people is, it falters before the will of the judiciary branch unless the people actually get active, in the streets French Revolution style.
You act as if because India or Canada or the UN doing something has any impact on what a right wing controlled America will do, when in reality most supporters of conservatism would praise literally doing the opposite of India / Canada / UN for "sticking it to those globalist bastards and doing things the American way WOOOOO RIC FLAIR." Your naivete in response to the courts protecting against net neutrality is funny, despite lower courts currently being stacked against any sort of progressive movement and specific measures being taken in the repealment to prevent states' from setting up their local net neutrality laws (so much for states' rights lol....). Lastly, PDC's point was not that all republicans are all supporters of Adam Smith's free market bullshit but more that mixed in with those who actually buy into it are those who are simply apathetic enough or uninformed enough to not care. Voter apathy is a very real problem (and I'm certain I need no actual source for this as its common knowledge...) and most people simply aren't going to care that we might lose the internet we know and love. You really think if net neutrality is repealed that conservatives (aka the largest armed civilian militia available......) are going to march en masse to protect their furry porn and the_donald memes?
In the short term, maybe, In the grand scheme of things, no. This just forces kids to go out and play more which will drop the suicide rate in the long term. But again thats under the assumption that ISPs will increase their prices that much.Because of Net Neutrality leaving I've developed a SERIOUS question that I want to ask in this thread. A large number of adolescents are depressed and find comfort on the internet talking to people who share the same background and sometimes even the same situations they are in. Because some families or adolescents won't be able to afford some websites due to whatever reason. I ask you do you think there will be slight increase in suicide of Adolescent children because of this?
The Internet causes as much depression as it cures. Smogon is a good environment for LGBT and mental disorder crowd generally, but the internal politics and cliques that exist don't do anyone any favors. Social Media in particular makes depression much worse because everybody else you went to high school with looks like they're ALWAYS doing something cool when they are really not. But it gives the illusion that they are, and for a depressed or anxious person it only makes them who is unhappy with their life feel worse.Because of Net Neutrality leaving I've developed a SERIOUS question that I want to ask in this thread. A large number of adolescents are depressed and find comfort on the internet talking to people who share the same background and sometimes even the same situations they are in. Because some families or adolescents won't be able to afford some websites due to whatever reason. I ask you do you think there will be slight increase in suicide of Adolescent children because of this?