Board 8 > So that Net Neutrality vote is happening now right?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Im sure going to miss going here for free.
---

it sucked when we had to pay to come here before the law was passed in 2015
---

I already got my PM from Sballen saying I need to pony up $4500 to vote in the next contest
---

MZero11 posted...

it sucked when we had to pay to come here before the law was passed in 2015

It sucks that ISPs have wised up to just how evil they can be when the protections are removed
---

GG we had a good run
---

MZero11 posted...

it sucked when we had to pay to come here before the law was passed in 2015

There was a reason that these laws were passed in the first place. Remember when one ISP (Verizon?) tried throttling Netflix if it didn't pony up more cash?
---

And remember, this is all so the current FCC chairman can bail at the end of his stay and go work for Verizon for a big wad of money. Murrica
---

Regaro posted...

MZero11 posted...

it sucked when we had to pay to come here before the law was passed in 2015

It sucks that ISPs have wised up to just how evil they can be when the protections are removed

So the cause is because of paranoia?
---

wow, i tuned in to the statements

the entire crowd is salivating to repeal these regulation, and laughing like hyenas

this guy's statement is basically "nothing will change, but it'll just mysteriously save money for ISPs"
---

the fact that this guy somehow thinks he knows what every corporation will do (he- and i'm paraphrasing as best i can- says "no company would ever choose to suffer the PR nightmare of throttling, so throttling will never throttle anyway") shows he is clearly at their behest
---

banananor posted...

wow, i tuned in to the statements

the entire crowd is salivating to repeal these regulation, and laughing like hyenas

this guy's statement is basically "nothing will change, but it'll just mysteriously save money for ISPs"

https://gizmodo.com/ajit-pai-thinks-youre-stupid-enough-to-buy-this-crap-1821277398

from last night
---

NFUN posted...

There was a reason that these laws were passed in the first place. Remember when one ISP (Verizon?) tried throttling Netflix if it didn't pony up more cash?

You mean the throttling they did this year? How about Tmobile's plan that gives free data to certain sites which you can still buy today?

The laws were not passed in response to anti-neutral behavior and are not used to stop anti-neutral behavior.
---

So wouldn't the solution be harsher net neutrality laws rather than none if you feel there still isn't neutrality?
---

The laws were not passed in response to anti-neutral behavior and are not used to stop anti-neutral behavior.

But Trevor Noah said...
---

Tomba42 posted...

So wouldn't the solution be harsher net neutrality laws rather than none if you feel there still isn't neutrality?

If you believe that laws are the solution to the problem then yes. Everyone arguing against the repeal should additionally be arguing for much heavier stricter laws to actually get the effect that they want. (Obviously they won't get the effect but that never stopped anyone.)
---

Welp
---

Ahh crap
---

3-2 to pass, along party lines
---

http://reason.com/blog/2017/12/14/government-is-the-cause-ofnot-the-soluti
---

Here comes the throttling.

But how many y/o, red?
---

foolm0r0n posted...

The laws were not passed in response to anti-neutral behavior and are not used to stop anti-neutral behavior.

Yes they were passed in response to anti-neutral behavior.

For example, the throttling of services like Netflix and Skype.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Tomba42 posted...

So wouldn't the solution be harsher net neutrality laws rather than none if you feel there still isn't neutrality?

If you believe that laws are the solution to the problem then yes. Everyone arguing against the repeal should additionally be arguing for much heavier stricter laws to actually get the effect that they want. (Obviously they won't get the effect but that never stopped anyone.)

I think that laws against murder and theft are the reason every Walmart in America isn't filled with gunfire right now, yes. There's a difference between optimism and naivety. Without laws we get warlords. Laws are important because everyone on Earth isn't a beautiful angel.
---

It will be interesting to see how the vote in Congress goes. A few Republicans have already stated that they don't support a repeal, so hopefully this falls by the wayside.
---

Laws are important because everyone on Earth isn't a beautiful angel.

Who decides what the laws are?
---

Dancedreamer posted...

Yes they were passed in response to anti-neutral behavior.

For example, the throttling of services like Netflix and Skype.

Netflix and Skype didn't even exist when neutrality laws started being discussed
---

Theoretically, people in government elected by the people. Is this a perfect solution? No. As someone the Internet can't verify the source for said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest."

We try to vote people in who will share our goals and policies, and vote people out in the future who don't. Certain things like "Don't shoot people in the head" are usually easier to agree on, while others aren't.

But Anarchy is a mess and too much degregulation just leads to unchecked greed. I mean, think of it this way, you think I'm completely full of shit right now. Would you trust ME with an ISP? You're trusting a lot of people who might be as full of shit as you think I am with a lot of power right now.
---

Tomba42 posted...

There's a difference between optimism and naivety

And somehow the one who thinks a piece of paper is preventing everyone from murdering each other isn't the naive one....?

I'll remind you that murder still happens, warlords still exist, and net neutrality is still violated. How many more papers will it take?
---

But Anarchy is a mess

Can you point to any non-fictional examples of anarchy that are a mess?
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Laws are important because everyone on Earth isn't a beautiful angel.

Who decides what the laws are?

the people.

the people collectively got together and formed a government.
---

smuffin is an anarchist now?
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Tomba42 posted...

There's a difference between optimism and naivety

And somehow the one who thinks a piece of paper is preventing everyone from murdering each other isn't the naive one....?

I'll remind you that murder still happens, warlords still exist, and net neutrality is still violated. How many more papers will it take?

No, it's actually the police force and judicial system and prisons and repercussions and shit that tend to keep the crime rate lower than "everyone takes what he can gets" to "some people commit crimes anyway".

I'm not seeing how "crime still exists" means that making it easier to commit more crime will somehow stop crime.
---

Tomba42 posted...

We try to vote people in who will share our goals and policies, and vote people out in the future who don't

The FCC is an appointed executive agency who you cannot vote for. Why should they get control of the internet?
---

NowItsAngeTime posted...

So the cause is because of paranoia?

Wow literally go fuck yourself ange you passive aggressive piece of cow shit.
---

I am not sure
Did it pass? is it still outgoing? what next? I don't get this
---

if you read anything, it passed, but will eventually be challenged in courts.
---

In some cases we vote for people who appoint people sure, but if you want to say that the FCC should have to have its membership voted in that's a totally different issue that I'd be willing to consider. Maybe they should be. You could be right about that.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

But Anarchy is a mess

Can you point to any non-fictional examples of anarchy that are a mess?

Can you point to any non-fictional examples that AREN'T?
---

They voted to repeal, 3-2

There are already lawsuits being filed so the process isn't done yet
---

Tomba42 posted...

No, it's actually the police force and judicial system and prisons and repercussions and shit that tend to keep the crime rate lower than "everyone takes what he can gets" to "some people commit crimes anyway".

Ok well you said it was the law before

Tomba42 posted...

In some cases we vote for people who appoint people sure, but if you want to say that the FCC should have to have its membership voted in that's a totally different issue that I'd be willing to consider. Maybe they should be. You could be right about that.

The point is you're saying that Ajit Pai deserves to control the internet because he has been appointed in that position. But he is also the one destroying the internet. And he needs more power in order to prevent himself from destroying it.

It just makes no sense. Either be for the system or be against it.
---

Honestly if you really are truly advocating anarchy I'm not certain how to discuss a more centrist less extreme issue like Net Neutrality with you.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

The point is you're saying that Ajit Pai deserves to control the internet because he has been appointed in that position. But he is also the one destroying the internet. And he needs more power in order to prevent himself from destroying it.

It just makes no sense. Either be for the system or be against it.

you aren't making sense here. the point of the system is that people can clash and oppose one another within said system.

we oppose what ajit pai is doing, and seek to change it.

what you're imagining is authoritarianism- "the person in power is always right." ajit pai is not the government, and the government absolutely sometimes does things it shouldn't do. and people work within the government to improve things.

what's the difficult part of this?
---

banananor posted...

we oppose what ajit pai is doing, and seek to change it.

The "change" you're talking about is giving the FCC more power

How is giving more power to the entity that you are opposing a rational goal? You are clearly losing either way
---

I dont oppose the FCC. Im opposing the current regime in charge of it. The FCC is a useful thing, when its not being run by someone who is using it to dismantle itself.
---

Tomba42 posted...

I dont oppose the FCC. Im opposing the current regime in charge of it. The FCC is a useful thing, when its not being run by someone who is using it to dismantle itself.

Like, yknow

Literally anything ever.
---

Forgive my ignorance, but we lost Net Neutrality. What does that mean?

We have to pay for internet twice now?
---

Tomba42 posted...

I dont oppose the FCC. Im opposing the current regime in charge of it. The FCC is a useful thing, when its not being run by someone who is using it to dismantle itself.

So you know that the FCC is bad now but you still want to give it more power due to a dream that it MIGHT be good in 3 years

But I am the naive one
---

I think the FCC chairman wants to deregulate things and I want them to not do that. Im not honestly sure what this vague fascist threat you seem so scared of is.
---

Hey foolmo quick question. If the answer isn't giving the FCC more power, then do you believe that giving ISPs etc more power is the answer?
---

Good thing I'm Canadian!

All I have to do is pay extreme prices to one of the monopolies in my province. Great stuff.
---