Comment has been collapsed.
So much hot air being blown at the guy. Good thing the government is getting out of this.
Comment has been collapsed.
You support the repeal?
Well, I hope you're rich, cause if that happens then prepare to pay unnecessary money on ISP packs to get the same amount of speed as we have right now.
What's that? Don't like it? Well too f*****g bad. Either use the services or live without internet. Your choice.
Comment has been collapsed.
Echo echo echoooooooo. If you want to step out of your chamber there's a whole new world out there with amazing things.
Comment has been collapsed.
As a matter of fact, I do step outside.
What about you? If you like outside that much, why do you bother using the internet to post this comment?
For me? I use the internet not only for entertainment but for my job as well. If net neutrality gets destroyed, then either I will have a harder time doing my job just to sustain myself, or find a different job that doesn't involve internet access.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, it will be glorious, when your ISP will tell you, "If you want to play DOTA 2 in the future, you have to pay more for us."
Comment has been collapsed.
When you're so mad that you click on someone's profile to find something to use against them. Classic. But my internet is going to be drastically improving starting next year so there's that, with a guaranteed locked in low rate for years. Yeah. But totally a nice try there. :)
If you use Comcast or similar then you're screwed whether it's repealed or not. The mentality of "I would rather support this evil company than be without my pleasures" is why they're in a position of power over people to begin with. Well, aside from the fact that people don't even vote in local elections and then cry when they don't know what policies are being passed and the impact it will have on them. Most of you don't have a concept of the negatives of Net Neutrality or the positives of its removal. Inductive reductio ad Hitler is fortunately very ineffective to the thinking person.
Comment has been collapsed.
Most of you don't have a concept of the negatives of Net Neutrality or the positives of its removal.
Or maybe, just maybe, what's beneficial for you isn't for others.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not living in the US and I don't plan to go there in the near future (that means at least 10 years). I just wanted to use an example which will hurt you personally. I know that if my ISP would try to charge me more for Steam/Battle.net/Twitch, I would say "go to hell", although they are the best option in my town. And if every available ISP start to use this method, I would be very mad and start to do anything to get Net Neutrality back.
My current plan is generous in Hungary, but far from the best, since I'm not living in Budapest. There you can get Gigabit speed at home. I only got 60 Mbit, and the other ISPs would only give me 10 Mbit.
Comment has been collapsed.
Seeing Verizon lose customers over this will be grand. Taking a stand through censoring people is a winning strategy for a business.
Comment has been collapsed.
More companies doing it and losing customers is even better.
Comment has been collapsed.
Consumers only have "the power of the purse" in a free market, however. Once a market is regulated and controlled by an entity, that power goes bye-bye.
Comment has been collapsed.
What we need are fewer but better written regulations, along with increased competition so consumers have more power. The former is difficult to accomplish, but the latter is usually a by-product of a free market.
Comment has been collapsed.
What we need are fewer but better written regulations
+1
Comment has been collapsed.
Too bad for many in US there' either Verizon or no internet at all.
Or Comcast, but that's like different name for same beast.
Comment has been collapsed.
Verizon's not an isolated incident either.
We've got to stop this.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why? What benefits could there be to the consumer by giving free reign over the few companies controlling the Broadband industry?
Comment has been collapsed.
There are laws in place to stop them. Besides, we did better without needing NN regulations.
Comment has been collapsed.
Without NN regulations it's possible that your ISP will simply throttle the data from Steam, or charge you for more because you want to use Steam for playing and downloading games.
Comment has been collapsed.
That is why I think this whole NN is blown out of puportion, NN wasn't in effect till what 2015? and all those other cases other regulations were in effect that stopped them.
And before NN even existed ISPs didn't do the things people are fearmongering about.
edit: im thinking of the title 2 class, which was 2015.
Comment has been collapsed.
And before NN even existed ISPs didn't do the things people are fearmongering about.
This is patently untrue.
In this day and age, access to Internet is a critical component for success. Allowing providers to dictate terms for said access to customers and services alike, is a dangerous precedent to set. Imagine if this was allowed in all utilities industries.
Comment has been collapsed.
And I do love your optimism. I simply don't have the same confidence.
I'm for a large revision of Net Neutrality, with less rules but more specifics. However, I don't think it's wise to brainstorm such a revision without keeping the current status quo in place.
Comment has been collapsed.
Net Neutrality is technically in effect since the internet was born, although it was natural at the start. When the net became great business, the ISPs were thinking about abandoning it - that's why NN is now protected by laws.
Comment has been collapsed.
theres one hope that companies just refuse to provide service of isps that over charge them and them people wont use those isps
Comment has been collapsed.
I put it up there in the OP. I am, however, not optimistic.
What to do? Urge Congress to use a “resolution of disapproval” to overturn the FCC’s decision to dismantle the Net Neutrality rules. You can also text BATTLE to 384387.
Comment has been collapsed.
There was a bomb threat or something so it passed despite the terrorism.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, Anonymous is also DDOSing the FCC site for 48 hours. Both actions aren't really helping the cause.
Comment has been collapsed.
It is almost like the pro-NN people are the real bad guys.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, it's almost like there are good and bad apples on both sides-- as with most everything in life.
I am sure you are pleased with your "victory," though, regardless of its effect on others.
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't bother with cowbell he's either a paid troll or a bot
Comment has been collapsed.
A return to normalcy would mean the eradication of the human race.
Unless, of course, you're being subjective with your perspective.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, so you're the only one who isn't restricted on hyperbole? :P
"Normalcy" regarding the internet does not exist.
Comment has been collapsed.
What doesn't exist now is government playing favorites with ISPs anymore.
Comment has been collapsed.
Whatever man, we've gone around this a dozen times. I'm not a fan of the current rules, but I don't think repealing them without some sort of replacement is folly. You can keep trusting big companies to "do the right thing," and I'll keep using evidenced history of said companies to predict their future acts.
Comment has been collapsed.
I sent my congressman basically the same type statement. Our local cable companies here have NEVER been pro consumer. Ever.
And just like when the power company was pushing some bullshit solar energy bill (written in code to actually hurt solar power shockingly) anything the ISP provider is for, I'll naturally be automatically against until it is independently proven it benefits the customer (something I will NOT be holding my breath on)
Comment has been collapsed.
This comment has been censored by your Internet Service Provider.
Comment has been collapsed.
If censorship is such a big concern, where was all the noise against the major corporations who constantly censor particular users online?
Comment has been collapsed.
Censorship affects public places, speech, media and web sites of the government. Corporation homepages are privately owned.
Comment has been collapsed.
Censorship is not necessarily government related. Private businesses can participate in it, but that is perfectly legal for them to do. My problem is that anything I've heard about censorship from the "net neutrality boys" has been regarding ISPs having power to potentially censor certain views. My point is, if that was really a problem, where are they protesting the constant censorhip of conservative/right-wing speech online. Everyone knows it happens-- from Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, and even Reddit (the supposed face of this net neutrality activism!).
I think that if anyone really cared about this censorship, they would have been causing a fit over it long before "net neutrality".
Comment has been collapsed.
Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, and even Reddit can remove whatever they want from their servers by their own decision. It's their "house".
If you mean by participating that they did it, after a government had requested it and they're doing it against their own will, it's censorship. The cause or the bad guy in this scenario is still the specific government, because it's forcing the company to do it.
While content censorship is ofc bad, you can still find bits of the content on the net. You might see that something has been removed in the first place and can search for it on the net for alternative websites, the web archive and so on.
An attack on net neutrality could be even worse in case they don't only want you to pay more, but to exclude you from it (by only providing capacities for the services they want you to use). You wouldn't even reach that website/web service. These might be "only" competitors, but also critical news reports or even government web services.
Gladly I'm not affected by this yet, but I don't need more people to decide whether I may watch/read/hear something or not.
Comment has been collapsed.
Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, and even Reddit can remove whatever they want from their servers by their own decision. It's their "house".
I agree. It is censorship. It is also a shitty thing to do, and it relates to my point of "if censorship is so bad, why hasn't there been outrage at these companies?"
If you mean by participating that they did it, after a government had requested it and they're doing it against their own will, it's censorship. The cause or the bad guy in this scenario is still the specific government, because it's forcing the company to do it.
...yes. Governments censor as well. Also shitty.
An attack on net neutrality could be even worse in case they don't only want you to pay more, but to exclude you from it (by only providing capacities for the services they want you to use). You wouldn't even reach that website/web service. These might be "only" competitors, but also critical news reports or even government web services.
Sure, it could potentially be worse (regardless of whether I think this is probable, it has a potential). However, I think it's bullshit to set the standard for outrage at censorship at the "net neutrality level". If censorship is bad, we should speak out against all censorship. unfortunately, I have only heard it be paraded about until now as it now threatens more people than just those with differing political views.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree. It is censorship. It is also a shitty thing to do, and it relates to my point of "if censorship is so bad, why hasn't there been outrage at these companies?"
Sorry, but that wasn't an agreement. I was trying to explain to you that websites of natural persons or corporate bodies are their own property. Therefore they may remove everything they want from their website. It's not censorship.
If cg doesn't like a posting of me, he may just delete it and I can't sue him or anything else. It's his right, because it's his property.
Only because your listed platforms do have an enormous userbase and are well-known, they don't become public places.They're still owned in private hands.
If I invite you to come into my flat and you're writing something on my wall, I also can remove it whenever and however I will.
If you don't believe me, look up internet rights and then compare it with a definition of censorship.
Comment has been collapsed.
websites of natural persons or corporate bodies are their own property. Therefore they may remove everything they want from their website.
Yes.
It's not censorship.
It's still censorship! However, there are no legal ramifications for that censorship as they are a private business, and therefore perfectly within their rights.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, well, the english wiki really states that. And then doesn't even provide examples or sources.
There are scenarios in which this might occur, e.g. media monopolys. And unfortunately corporations like Alphabet or Facebook became nearly monopolists, so they have the power to influence a majority when controlling the information. But every company is allowed to publish only what they want, it belongs to the entrepreneurial freedom. If one company isn't willing to offer you what you want, go to another company. All these platforms you had listed, became so powerful, since masses of users joined them freely and also accept their ToS.
We currently still live in a world of governments, not corporations. There's a risk that this might change in future, but we aren't there yet. A corporation can't suppress you like a government right now. You can't compare the removal of some blog entries, news, comments etc. (digital house right; without further punishment) by single corporations to the complete blocking of many websites in China or arresting of bloggers in Turkey (ways of censorship).
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, government censorship exceeds that of corporations in terms of severity.
Comment has been collapsed.
If censorship is such a big concern, where was all the noise against the major corporations who constantly censor particular users online?
If you're saying that no one has spoken out against Twitter/Facebook/Youtube/Reddit/etc. and their censorship policies, then you simply aren't looking for it. You can find a myriad of "outrage" against said companies across all media.
If you were pointing, "where was all the noise?" specifically toward this forum on SG, then you're just being silly. We do not have to equally decry all issues with forum threads; discussing one topic does not ignore the presence of others. There is no burden here to edify your exposure preferences.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you're saying that no one has spoken out against Twitter/Facebook/Youtube/Reddit/etc. and their censorship policies, then you simply aren't looking for it. You can find a myriad of "outrage" against said companies across all media.
I am certainly not hearing the same people behind net neutrality also causing outrage over the constant censorship of certain political opinions. I'm seeing that the reason there is such a large amount of outrage now is because it also threatens those who initially turned a blind eye.
discussing one topic does not ignore the presence of others.
The topic you are (or were) discussing is censorship (obviously under the umbrella of net neutrality). My point is that if censorship was such a concern to the people of net neutrality, I would have heard their outrage long before this. When you pick and choose where and when to cry "censorship", I think that is ignoring its presence in certain places.
There is no burden here to edify your exposure preferences.
Yes, and you know that's not what I'm saying. I care deeply about how terrible the Patreon logo is, but I don't expect users to be causing a fuss over it. However, when the cries of censorship only seem to be occurring now (at least by those of the pro-net neutrality group), I don't find that genuine, and I see hypocrisy in it. What I'm saying is the equivalent of when someone says "if Obama did that, everyone would be upset"/"if Trump did that, everyone would be upset"—this is just showing that we should apply our outrage according to standards, not to what circumstances we'd like to.
Comment has been collapsed.
The topic you are (or were) discussing is censorship
Not really. I was just making a joke because that user deleted their comment. Now I realize you've been speaking in regards to that one-off comment rather than the thread as a whole. For me, the NN debate encompasses a lot more than simple censorship.
That said, I do find the attitude of, "Where were you when (blank)?" to be rather ignorant. It seeks to accomplish nothing.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think the issue of censorship encompasses the whole of net neutrality, but I would say that it is a large aspect of it and is heavily pushed. I also recognise that what you said was a joke, but it underlines a major talking point of the pro-net neutrality side.
That said, I do find the attitude of, "Where were you when (blank) was (blank)?" to be rather ignorant. It seeks to accomplish nothing.
It highlights a lack of standards. Without standards, I can shame Weinstein and at the same time praise Roy Moore; I can ignore censorship against certain political views and also use censorship as a talking point for net neutrality.
If it's just used as a way to sidestep an argument then it is unproductive. To briefly elaborate on this point: if Trump does something bad and people call him out on it, and my only response is "but Obama did that too" as a way to not address that Trump did something bad then it—as you said—accomplishes nothing.
To summarise my thoughts: censorship is bad regardless of what opinions the person holds, and it is wrong whether or not it's Twitter or an ISP doing it.
Comment has been collapsed.
To summarise my thoughts: censorship is bad regardless of what opinions the person holds, and it is wrong whether or not it's Twitter or an ISP doing it.
Cool, I don't think anyone here was disagreeing with you. Which again points to my annoyance-- you're arguing on a point that I didn't make.
Comment has been collapsed.
I should have probably expanded that summary to be more relevant to what we were talking about.
Comment has been collapsed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Jz1TjCphXE
I bet he will get a big, fat paycheck when he gets back to Verizon :].
Comment has been collapsed.
Welp, it seems like the internet in the US got f*cked. RIP your freedom of speach guys.
I hope the rest of the world doesn't take this as an invitation to do the same stupid thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Today the truly free Internet, an ecosystem which created the world as we know it, dies. I don’t know what is going to happen now, but it is not going to be better.
That Verizon guy is going to get a huge fat check from his true masters, which they never were the voters
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't live in USA, but I wish the best for those ones who live there. I hope Congress overturn that decision, even if they're a lot of old people who don't even know how internet truly works.
For those ones who think they have nothing to do with it, be aware: that decision opens a precedent to local companies of your country try to control your network as well, beside the fact that internet is not centralized, so we do get influenced by that.
For freedom, no matter who you are.
Comment has been collapsed.
Welp, fuck the US, then. This will certainly encourage cuck countries like Germany to do the same thing. Goodbye Internet as we know it. Thanks, Americans. You are to blame for this.
Comment has been collapsed.
The widespread apathy is extremely discouraging. The masses are sedated.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think people are actually relatively well-informed, especially in the US. They simply refuse to believe that anything on the news will penetrate their little McLife™ bubble.
Comment has been collapsed.
This be very bad for people like me who only have the option of 1 single ISP that charges a lot for being out in the country :/
Nail in the Coffin so-to-speak.
Comment has been collapsed.
can someone eli5 why everyone is freaking out about this?
whenever someone mentions net neutrality everyone says that it is to prevent "data discrimination" or something.
but isn't net neutrality something that only came into existence recently? how come ISPs didnt severely restrict data or whatever before?
i think the internet was alive and well prior to 2015 when NN came into play
Comment has been collapsed.
can someone eli5 why everyone is freaking out about this?
Net Neutrality = treating all internet data traffic equally
whenever someone mentions net neutrality everyone says that it is to prevent "data discrimination" or something.
That's the basic idea, yes.
but isn't net neutrality something that only came into existence recently? how come ISPs didnt severely restrict data or whatever before?
Net Neutrality was the status quo of the internet from its very inception, yes before "Net Neutrality" existed as a term. While not codified as actual rules, it was generally understood that all data should be trafficked equally. It wasn't until various attempts by ISPs to traffic said data during 2012-2014, that actual legislation was brought forth to enforce Net Neutrality as a rule, rather than a custom.
So to answer your question, ISPs have tried to restrict and/or throttle data with mixed results. The 2015 legislation was designed to clarify that the design from the internet's inception, nominally Net Neutrality, should remain intact to prevent such data meddling.
i think the internet was alive and well prior to 2015 when NN came into play
... is the general attitude of people who don't quite understand what's happening, yet for some reason feel qualified to pass judgement.
Comment has been collapsed.
i see, i didn't realize that the same idea existed under a different name before.
thanks
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes it is. We didn't have the sort of problems we do now and that was before the government got involved and decided to play favorites. So now we have people who say that the telecomms bought the government, but they are ok with that same government regulating them, and that makes me the troll to point that out. They want more money, but people are very much ok with having one ISP in their area so long as NN exists. I see lots of problems with that. No competition and startups are prevented from forming, but that is ok, you don't have to pay five or ten dollars to visit a website, just increasing hidden costs and service that is laughable in many other countries in the world with a fraction of our GDP.
If the government refuses to do anything to those telecomms who do end up causing the internet to be a series of toll roads, breaking all sorts of laws, then all these people were also happy that same government was paid off by those telecomms to look over them and do their bidding under NN.
I liked using this picture that was given to me and to spread it around to other people.
The same people who want to keep NN are resorting to terrorism, hacking government agencies, and issuing death threats. Why is that acceptable and a valid argument to keep NN?
Comment has been collapsed.
So now we have people who say that the telecomms bought the government, but they are ok with that same government regulating them, and that makes me the troll to point that out.
I can assume this is directed squarely at me. I think your issue is that you view this as too black and white. I have posted before, in this very thread, that I'm no proponent for more government regulation. I'm all for revisiting the drawing board, but only with Net Neutrality existing as a placeholder.
You're asking me to put faith where none exists, while I'm simply campaigning for an extension of the existing status quo so that we may approach different solutions within a stable environment.
Comment has been collapsed.
No I am not directing it at you. We are both done with each other and there are others who bring it up.
Comment has been collapsed.
sorry i don't really get the image. the headers seem to be intended to be humorous, but a lot of it smells like an inside joke
the content itself is also cryptic like most US laws are to me
at any rate its interesting to see different perspective on the issue, so thanks for that
Comment has been collapsed.
Just use a VPN. I am told it fixes the problems. I don't see why people have issues then.
Comment has been collapsed.
VPNs are a prime target for slowdowns or blocking, as they are a refuge for people wanting to bypass content restrictions.
Comment has been collapsed.
Guess I'd better start banking my points right now in every GTA V giveaway that I can find.
Comment has been collapsed.
Some time ago, the telecom companies tried something similar here and it failed. I'd bet my left leg that now that this happened in the US, they'll try again. Now, they'll probably have more support in Congress, since SA politicians try to copy every single dumb move from the "developed world". It would be funny, if it wasn't so pathetic.
They're so lazy that I can already see them using the same lies Ajit has told. The biggest news website here has some articles about it and it's already full of idiots parroting a bunch of that shit... (ಠ_ಠ)
Comment has been collapsed.
This is why infrastructures shall be owned by governments, not by private companies.
Comment has been collapsed.
Governments pay private companies to maintain infrastructure.
Comment has been collapsed.
Neglect and mismanagement can happen under both private companies and public ownership when there’s no supervision or consequences. The best system we have is often two combined into one: a competitive market and government oversight that ensures the potential for competition and adherence to the law in the public interest.
When they work well together, competition between private parties means they need to be efficient and innovative, while oversight ensures that anyone attempting to circumvent the law or fair practices is penalized. Private companies are often able to be more reactive to demand and the availability of choice let’s people pick an option that suits them. The better they are in this role, often the less pressure there is for government regulation, since things go smoothly. Regulation comes to be in large part by failures to live up to the best potential of a free market: monopolization, illegal practices, and recklessness (pollution, accidents, and other side-effects of industry).
Unfortunately, we’re moving away from both these systems when it comes to Internet access rather than getting them to work well with one another as competition between ISPs diminishes and the regulations against abuse are dismantled by people in the role of regulators who view regulation itself as evil, and not ‘a necessary evil’ that protects the public interest.
Comment has been collapsed.
The death of Net Neutrality will not affect you overnight like most places are reporting. You won't pay $10 for Facebook, $5 for streaming sites, etc... or things like that. You won't have access to certain sites blocked.
Rather, it will happen slowly and secretly over the next few years, which is arguably worse. You'll notice Netflix and Twitch will start buffering more and more while your ISP sends you a mailer to buy their cable/movie package. Your VoIP will drop calls while your ISP promotes a competitor at a "special" price. Independent online games will struggle to have reliable pings while AAA games seem to have no problem.
How do we know this will happen? Because ISPs have already tried this in the past when the legality was unclear. Now that it's fully legal, what will stop them?
In the meantime, you'll forget. When they don't charge $3 for access to Netflix, you'll think to yourself that the whole #NetNeutrality cause was overblown. You won't notice the gradual decline of your ISP, and you'll forget what you once expected of them. The ISPs will win unless we continue to fight, but I find it hard to believe that we can maintain this anger for so much longer.
ISPs have done this before. And repealing Net Neutrality only enables them more.
Comment has been collapsed.
of course. expect new internet subscription packages with fancy names and each one more expensive than the previous one.
internet basic $30
basic plus $40
basic plus peasant silver $50
advanced peasant gold $60
peasant plus plus platinum $70
premium peasantry diamond $80
nice and pleasant unobtanium ^^ $90
*facepalm*
Comment has been collapsed.
The most likely approach is that your ISP will offer Netflix to subscribers for the same price as buying it separately. This will let Comcast handle the billing and ensure they get their cut up front. Netflix will have to raise their price of their standalone offering to pay for Comcast and various other ISPs taking a cut, even when it’s not sold as part of the ISP’s package deal, and you’ll have to pay more, even if your ISP doesn’t worm their way in on the action, but the price of standalone Netflix or Netflix via your ISP will likely appear to be the same and a non-fast lane version of Netflix likely won’t be an option.
With smaller video vendors, you’re more likely to hit buffering, or reduced resolution to accommodate the lower effective bandwidth.
Porn, VPN and peer to peer traffic are likely to be blocked or buffered. Depending on the ISP, this may actually make us the majority of their traffic, so it’s possible cable users could see some performance improvement. I expect Deluxe Unlimited packages to be priced $10+ a month above ‘unlimited’ packages and be advertised as preferred for people wanting VPN access to work from home. That makes it a more discrete way for people to get relatively unbuffered porn without having a “Porn” line item on their monthly bill.
Comment has been collapsed.
How difficult could be to start the slow development of an alternative web with blackjack and hookers?
Comment has been collapsed.
Decentralized internet alternatives are certainly on the table.
Comment has been collapsed.
If the government keeps its hands off the internet, it wouldn't be difficult.
Comment has been collapsed.
Deregulation have lead us to THIS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00wQYmvfhn4
So, pretty much nope to deregulation.
Comment has been collapsed.
Guy blows more hot air than a hot air balloon. Regulation has led us to a little over 1% rise in the economy for the Obama years, when we have 3% now.
Comment has been collapsed.
Profit isn't everything. Who benefits that rise in economy. And what hot air? Every claim in the video is very well fundamented
Comment has been collapsed.
Everyone benefits from a healthy economy. More jobs are available and you don't pay $100 for bread. It gets much easier to feed your family and crime tends to drop when there is a surplus.
Oliver says a lot of misleading things that fit the leftist narrative and HBO would drop him if he went Conservative. Him having such a bias that led to his meltdown over his President Donald Trump getting elected, shows how he really is just another comedian instead of someone who knows. https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=-rSDUsMwakI
Comment has been collapsed.
We'll see. So far, trump is still on the obama¡s administration tail. All the economic variables remains more or less the same. The John Oliver segment presented real (and hard) facts regarding oligopolys and corporate consolidation that attempt against the very foundations of free market, and freedom of choice. We have no guaratee that net neutrality repeal, won´t lead us to the worst case scenario.
Comment has been collapsed.
It has been over a year. GDP is twice that of Obama's terms and the economy is slowly booming. When is purposefully rolling back Obama's failures going to be attributed to your President Donald Trump?
Comment has been collapsed.
you got something to hide?
you got something to hide?
you got something to hide?
you got something to hide?
Comment has been collapsed.
But well, in general i'm not fond of having a big brother watching me. But as the world is today, if it's more beneficial than bad,. fine, go for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's the other way actually. Supporting NN is supporting government policing of the internet and ISPs. Supporting its repeal is supporting privatization. So either companies and government snoops on you or just companies.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure, because companies are so trustworthy and clearly have our best interests at heart. /s
Measuring between the two evils, I deem the government in this case the lesser of the two.Even with a president like trump.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah yes, the ol' "guilty until proven innocent." Classy.
Comment has been collapsed.
Without net neutrality ISP can (and will) monitorize every byte that enters or exit your computer. They can (and certaintly WILL) block websites, throttle services, restrict access to peer to peer, or VPNs. They can (and absolutely will) prohibit or censor whatever they want. Everything in the name of profit.
Well, you say. It's a shitty company, I hire another service. Good luck.most people have access to 1 or 2 ISP. And they're cartelized.
Who's the Big Brother here?
Comment has been collapsed.
No. Sorry. Was for Peter74, who showed very contradictory positions IMHO
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree. In a perfect world it's not needed. But if security for my son cost my privacy, I have nothing to hide
Comment has been collapsed.
everything happening in the name of national security or for supposedly fightning terrorism/fake news/racism/fascism/ its clearly more reensuring
Comment has been collapsed.
Update (Dec. 14 2017): https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html
https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/14/16776154/fcc-net-neutrality-vote-results-rules-repealed
What to do? Urge Congress to use a “resolution of disapproval” to overturn the FCC’s decision to dismantle the Net Neutrality rules.
Comment has been collapsed.