Page all of 5 12345>
Topic Options
#96385 - 02/03/15 09:08 PM FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
ABC Article - Net Neutrality: FCC Considers Who the Internet Belongs To

The FCC is still at it, trying to get its hooks into the Open Internet by declaring it a utility.

CNN Money article

 Quote:
Under the proposed new rules, the FCC would ensure that broadband companies don't unfairly discriminate against content providers by creating "slow lanes" on the public Internet, according to CNNMoney's anonymous source. But there might still be "fast lanes."



That old adage, The road to hell is paved with 'good intentions', sounds about right.

Once it's declared a public utility, then comes heavier regulations and restrictions.

It's going to get interesting.

Save the Internet has ramped up its petition to encourage citizens to write their local Representatives. It's showing up as a splash page on a lot of social media services. Tumblr is full of the stuff.

Thoughts? How much of a difference would it make if citizens flood the House with cries of woe? Seems like a placebo to me.



_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#96386 - 02/03/15 10:31 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
CanisMachina42 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/10/13
Posts: 1568
Loc: Ca
So the FCC wants to censor it, and the IRS wants to profit off it? Leave it to a civil regulatory agency and the control arm of a privately owned bank to further their own interests - what the fuck is the gold standard anyway?

Dress it up any other way but I suspect there are prominent business interests losing their market share, and perhaps even a "won't somebody think of the children" angle in there somewhere.

There's always money to be had, and a largely unregulated Internet is a gold mine of unexploited tax revenue. It's called the trickle up effect.

_________________________
32.6
-117.1
Sea level
11:56 PM July, 1st 2019
Wrote Signature

Top
#96390 - 02/04/15 09:43 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: CanisMachina42]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
Obama is fully behind it, under the guise of an Independent Resource.

Wall Street Journal reports:

 Quote:
President Obama, who made waves last fall, when he came out in support of treating Internet service providers like telecommunications companies. It subjects the ISPs to closer oversight of how they manage traffic on their networks. For example, the FCC would ban broadband providers from slowing down your Netflix streams.


So while people are focused on the minutia, the larger picture is that it opens the door for the FCC to later enforce other regulations that restrict access and/or affect the bottom like to the consumer.

I'm sure there's some loophole in there that will show up as an additional tax in the fine print on your monthly bill... Seems inevitable at his point.

Even if the original proposal was struck down last January, looks like the agency hasn't given up on finding new and creative ways to exhaust the courts until the levies finally break.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#96392 - 02/04/15 09:56 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
mountaingoat Offline
member


Registered: 05/08/10
Posts: 471
Loc: Colorado
In addition to the additional taxes, labeling it a utility makes it less secure for private citizens who use it. It becomes a state property, so the laws for free speech in public terrirory become muddier. Furthermore, eavesdropping becomes a matter of a rubber stamp from a FISA court as opposed to permission from a private isp. And there is also the whole language game that gets played when regulated fees come into play. If it becomes illegal so slow down someone's broadband connection, then you simply slow everyone down, and charge a premium for the regular speed. The whole thing stinks of a poorly concealed state power/money grab. And this from the same government that condemned Hugo Chavez for nationalizing resources in Venezuela.
_________________________
“The human race is unimportant. It is the self that must not be betrayed."

-John Fowles

Top
#96406 - 02/04/15 04:59 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: mountaingoat]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
General reply.

Long story short is that the internet started as a fun project that "grew legs".

This shit happens all the time.

It simply wasn't intended to do all the shit that it is doing today. (which I suppose is probably true of anything living)

Not to sound hokey, or whatever, but Frankenstein's monster flatly warned us of the internet - and while that analogy has been made before in terms of the C/S... the internet does not give a fuck what type of anything you are - it is all-consuming - Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, Satanist alike.

Honey badger does not care.

And now, mind you, I'm not quite talking out of my ass here - I code (a lot), write protocols, I fuck with systems for a living... shit! most of my posts are written while waiting for other shit I wrote to compile and/or run tests and wait for results.

Net neutrality is not at all black and white.

I've been looking at this shit for the last 3-4 years on and off and I still haven't made up my mind.

Should the internet be considered a utility? yeah, sure, why not?

Landlines are. Makes sense to me.

Is it already regulated? pffft ask "Sabu's" "family" at lulsez, or Captain Crunch (Dwyer)

Where's your pay phones now? *whistle blowers* (there's like 3 puns in there - I promise you)

Anyway the internet is what it is - it operates on a separate realm of thinking for which legislature is simply not prepared to deal with.

For every road block put up there are, literally, ten-thousand dorks like me figuring out ways around these things while juggling between that, work, and not-getting-laid - it's a sure fire way for fail.

So, am I pro or anti-net-neutrality?

I'm neutral. 'Doesn't matter what they do, to be quite honest.

Information wants to be free - and that's simply not a tendency that can be muzzled.

It's all trial and error / babtism by fire on the bleeding edge of technology, anyway.

Making better mouse traps only ensures that there will be better mice gnawing on the wires (if not dead ones)

\:D


Edited by antikarmatomic (02/04/15 05:00 PM)
Edit Reason: the last thing anyone needs is another fucking church
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#96415 - 02/04/15 10:14 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: antikarmatomic]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Follow the money.

The Telecoms want to make more money off service providers. In other words, Comcast/Verizon/Cox et al want to charge Facebook and Google (and Netflix) a premium for priority traffic over their network.

Big Govt sees a Big Payday in new taxes and regulation. AND, they get their long desired wish to actually control internet content. Oh, and TOR will become decidedly less anonymous.

And you? You get screwed either way. Mark my works, Internet 2.0 the People's Web will make Silk Road look like a couple of kids slinging rocks in the alley. When big govt and big corps control the WWW, something new will spring up in it's place.

Of course, we could just "do nothing" and let the web chug along like it has been. But, no politician ever got paid by leaving well enough alone.

Top
#96418 - 02/04/15 10:59 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: Fist]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
Nowadays letter writing campaigns have been replaced with emails. I'd imagine it would be rather easy to ignore, if not delete or spam them wholesale. Not to say that all reps are corrupt but there's definitely corruption in the system with no real checks and balances in place.

Then there's the matter of how many reps take the time to read through all the details of these bills or show up to House meetings.

I remain skeptical of the effectiveness of such campaigns.

 Quote:
Mark my works, Internet 2.0 the People's Web will make Silk Road look like a couple of kids slinging rocks in the alley. When big govt and big corps control the WWW, something new will spring up in it's place.


I tend to agree. I think it's an inevitability that the government will gain more control thus be the cause of a 2.0 situation.


Better or Worse?

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#96424 - 02/05/15 03:18 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
Err... I don't blame a single soul for not being up to snuff on this computer shit... but hey!if I can turn yalls onto a few things: in order of “advanzenzed” descending.

http://insecure.org
^don't scan networks – that never works – but do scan your own just to be sure.

http://packetstormsecurity.com
^latest vulns – pay attention and patch stuff.

http://www.2600.com/
^funz

https://www.defcon.org/
^”a bunch of very capable people doing utterly useless crap” - that's what it all comes down to - a certain amount of fear and loathing (I just noticed the connection as I was typing it) of the freaks and weirdOs who make it their "deal" to make shit go boom! for teh lulz.

http://www.phrack.org/
^welcome to ring 0 (not updated often but when it does it's hiroshima – plus it's equally as garbedly-gook, except, unlike enochian, it actually does damage when you understand it - also I have no idea why windows says these .txts are infected *shrugs*) \:D

Not trying to plug URLS or whatever, I'm not going to sit here and re-hash shit some very bright people already said and pretend it's my own.

I encourage you dig and fuck around around with shit. (maybe use a a PC you literally don't care about to do it on)

Yeah, sure, I code and shit for a living, but it's really not that hard – cryptic! That's really all it is. You don't even have to be good at math – just breaking shit and putting it back together.

That said.
 Quote:
Internet 2.0 the People's Web will make Silk Road look like a couple of kids slinging rocks in the alley.


Agreed except, we're looking at 4.0 – err... not to get too verbose... but this is a good paper:

http://www.team-cymru.org/Services/darknets.html says more than I care to and less than it cares to – it's not a lot of math, but it is a lot of numeric shit.

the only problem is “trust” (yeah I'm talking to you) (wait me? Or that other person?) that's the issue.

Anyway, it's too fluid to be fucked with. It's bigger than can be handled.

“What you need is another law - says the legislator”
“What you need is a lawyer - says the lawyer”
“What you need is a plumber - says the plumber”

Fact is – the mind is beyond law. Always will be. Always has been.

The body... well... that's a different story.

A waste is a terrible thing to mind.


Edited by antikarmatomic (02/05/15 03:23 AM)
Edit Reason: cuz a char(32) is a huge deal, apparently
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#96426 - 02/05/15 08:38 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
Megatron Offline
active member


Registered: 08/22/14
Posts: 859
Loc: fuckit, some kid cracked my co...
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
Thoughts?


Net neutrality is basically the idea that providers are not allowed to discriminate over sites/content.

Seems to me that that's the side we should be on.

The only way to do that is to treat it like a publicly owned utility.

Oh noes, it's socialism! Yeah, it is. Exactly!

I love the Right because they're socialist when it comes to the military, but not for anything else. And these are the same people that say with a straight face that the military is the only arm of government that actually works.

The same people who voted against Sandy relief because we couldn't "pay for it", and then one week later voted to up military spending by the same amount in Iraq. And these are the "conservatives". Tax cuts for the uber-rich, more guns and military, fuck the middle-class and poor.

Way to build an INFRASTRUCTURE. If you're Sparta. And I could get behind that, if it were actually SPARTA. But we're a nation of weak simpletons who have never been tested on any real battlefield. Part of me almost thinks that the lack of any real need for WAR has led us to manufacture it and thereby undermine our own strategic interests.

Look, the USA has a big cock, everyone knows this. But do we also have killer abs? Solid quads? Ripped triceps? I don't think so.

And no, before anyone asks/comments/reprimands, this last bit was not direct to the Opie. HOWEVER, nothing is so simple as 1+1 . . .





Edited by Megatron (02/05/15 08:42 AM)
Edit Reason: Spongebob Squarepants is Satanic. (Y/N) please discuss . . .
_________________________
You can't beat me, I'm a fucking Transformer (TM), dude.

Oh, and I spell everything right.

Top
#96430 - 02/05/15 11:36 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: Megatron]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
 Quote:
Net neutrality is basically the idea that providers are not allowed to discriminate over sites/content.

Seems to me that that's the side we should be on.


That's my understanding of it yes but the government has this habitual behavior of over-stepping its role. I don't think people are too up in arms about keeping the ISP's in check, it's the foreseeable regulating and micromanaging.


These campaigns to contact House Reps are more or less a preemptive strike. What do you think of the effectiveness?

Placebo or no?
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#96447 - 02/05/15 07:36 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
On the surface of it - the whole "service providers should not discriminate over sites/content" thing is a very difficult position to argue against.

The problems I see with this, though, are very much along the same lines as what you said here:

 Quote:
I don't think people are too up in arms about keeping the ISP's in check, it's the foreseeable regulating and micromanaging.


My specific issue is "how the fuck do they even plan to enforce it? Investigations and fines?" this would make it (as Fist mentioned)

 Quote:
a Big Payday in new taxes and regulation. AND, they get their long desired wish to actually control internet content. Oh, and TOR will become decidedly less anonymous.


Which is entirely correct (though, I should mention that TOR really isn't all it's cracked up to be – it's like a sheep-skin condom, basically [and for much the same reasons] - always has been)

What I do foresee happening is a no-uncertain amount of over-reach (as you've stated), the irony of which is not at all lost on me. In other words “let's pass some regulations telling ISPs they can't discriminate over content so that eventually we ourselves * can * tell them which content to discriminate against”

On the whole, (and I'm certain I'm not telling any of you anything 'new') I sincerely doubt that any particular government is fully capable of regulating the internet.

But I'm sure they'll do their damnedest to try, and with that:

 Quote:

These campaigns to contact House Reps are more or less a preemptive strike. What do you think of the effectiveness?


Utterly ineffective.

It's not only a lost-cause, but even if one's pleas were not ignored, they wouldn't know what to make of the message on the surface, much less fathom the deeper implications of whatever is being argued.

Reminds me of "The 'truth' can be screamed from a thousand rooftops, and unless it is convenient to hear it will fall on deaf ears."


Edited by antikarmatomic (02/05/15 07:41 PM)
Edit Reason: was mulling over my condom analogy... again... and again.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#96450 - 02/05/15 09:07 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: Megatron]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
 Originally Posted By: Megatron

The only way to do that is to treat it like a publicly owned utility.





No. That is not the only thing. The only thing to do is leave it alone.

This has always struck me as odd, the people who are all freaked out that the govt can read their email, txts, and phone calls, are the same people who want to put the govt in charge of the internet, are the same people who post EVERY element of their personal life on social media.

Just by monitoring a persons social media I can determine nearly everyone they know, where they live, what time they are home, with 1 meter GPS accuracy where they are at any given minute of the day, what they just ate, who they are having sex with, and (increasingly) what they look like naked.

It is mind boggling. The most totalitarian police state could not hope to force people to divulge the sort of info they proudly post online.

Now, that is not to be in favor of allowing corporations to control the internet either. Corps can be trusted either. However, I am still amazed that social media users are providing so much value added to these companies completely for free. You are the product, the worker, and the consumer.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#96451 - 02/05/15 09:33 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: Fist]
CanisMachina42 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/10/13
Posts: 1568
Loc: Ca
 Quote:
This has always struck me as odd, the people who are all freaked out that the govt can read their email, txts, and phone calls, are the same people who want to put the govt in charge of the internet


Too late, at least for the first part of that concern. With the Patriot Act all is possible. From 'fusion centers' to eavesdropping apps nothing prevents you from you having every signal that you transmit be intercepted and cataloged, legally. I could be be being monitored and not even know it, let alone prevent it.

That's what makes no sense about the big brother hysteria. If your interests and tendencies aren't being turned into direct marketing algorithms, that same software is used to search keywords for any sign of terror risk.

The only thing this proposal changes is you'll now be paying slightly more to be monitored. I guess the trick is to not say/do anything stupid or post something like THIS.
_________________________
32.6
-117.1
Sea level
11:56 PM July, 1st 2019
Wrote Signature

Top
#96455 - 02/05/15 10:23 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: CanisMachina42]
mountaingoat Offline
member


Registered: 05/08/10
Posts: 471
Loc: Colorado
The government can't be trusted to properly maintain physical roads, why the hell should I trust them to maintain the internet? So it can end up being as successful as the VA? Social Security? The War on Drugs? No thanks. I'll take chaos and criminals over government imposed order and slightly different criminals any day.
_________________________
“The human race is unimportant. It is the self that must not be betrayed."

-John Fowles

Top
#96456 - 02/05/15 10:49 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: mountaingoat]
CanisMachina42 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/10/13
Posts: 1568
Loc: Ca
Well, are they (government) maintaining it or just looking for a way to profit off it by proxy? This seems not all different from the SEC and the stock market, as far as oversight is concerned. Not to say I'm exonerating the government, I'm just saying the claws of special interest are already sunk so deep into ALL media and government that this serves as little more than puppet theater.

The illusion in all this is that it actually changes anything at all, except the price you pay and possibly some additional censorship (which I doubt). Big government/small government is just an extension of the fallacy that anything that exists as a matter of public debate can actually make a significant difference.

That is why my position on matters such as these is non-involvement. For/against is just different flavors of the same Kool-aid.
_________________________
32.6
-117.1
Sea level
11:56 PM July, 1st 2019
Wrote Signature

Top
#96461 - 02/06/15 12:48 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: CanisMachina42]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
I actually see what you're driving at - but good fucking luck trying to explain that shit to people except through satire (saw the link, and was amused - the whitest kids you know)

Trying to reason with these people is like trying to explain spheres in flat land. "how do we deal with this circle?", "how can we reign-in on this imposing line-segment?" "well, from where I stand it's an oval"

And you're all like "dude! it's a fucking sphere - what are you? simple?"

The thing is that politicians are good at, like, two things - people and money. They don't "get tech" and they never will. Otherwise they'd being doing that.

That's just something the public is going to have to come to terms with.

Managers manage what they do not understand. Programmers understand what they do not manage. it's a truism.

It's like that whole beyonce meme



It can't be regulated - and it's too FSKing late to back-out now.

The best you can do is go it raw-dog and chaotic.

Write a script that searches Amazon for random shit using a dictionary of words. Same with Google searches. And do it raw-dog - "yeah, that's me, apparently"

Pretend to be oblivious. Make the algorithms go full on bork'd mode.

Apparently I'm very big into crotchet - according to the ads on FB, anyway - 'wonder why that is?

As for me. Ah! ya got me! Tater Salad. You can take those road blocks down now.

Employ lulz where reason failz.

'All you can do.


Edited by antikarmatomic (02/06/15 12:59 AM)
Edit Reason: apparently
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#96467 - 02/06/15 09:20 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: Fist]
Megatron Offline
active member


Registered: 08/22/14
Posts: 859
Loc: fuckit, some kid cracked my co...
 Originally Posted By: Fist
 Originally Posted By: Megatron

The only way to do that is to treat it like a publicly owned utility.


No. That is not the only thing. The only thing to do is leave it alone.


Exactly. But the only way to "leave it alone" is to declare it off limits to those who would break it. And the only viable way to do that right now (with idiots controlling the Legislature) is to use some form of Executive action to curtail stupidity. Hence the FCC statement.

Do you really think Net Neutrality (i.e. the way it is) will survive this congress? Or will 600 and other sites that don't pay the ransom be subject to this:



That's a real question BTW.
_________________________
You can't beat me, I'm a fucking Transformer (TM), dude.

Oh, and I spell everything right.

Top
#96469 - 02/06/15 09:38 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: Megatron]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: Megatron
Do you really think Net Neutrality (i.e. the way it is) will survive this congress? Or will 600 and other sites that don't pay the ransom be subject to this:


Here's the thing, in a Capitalist Society, why can't Corporations pay off the ISP's? I don't agree with the Neutrality aspect of it, even if it provides me with a service that is Faster to some sites and slower to others.

If say, Xear wanted to invest (and even ask forum members to contribute) to keep this site running fast, isn't this the nature of such a society? The goods/services aspect? Economy?

Why do people feel entitled to Internet?

I guess those are questions in my mind that seek answers.

Edit to add, as far as what AK is driving at - there's always a way to get it done, delete the cache and any trace of it. Some money exchanges hands, but it's do-able.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#96471 - 02/06/15 10:27 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
Megatron Offline
active member


Registered: 08/22/14
Posts: 859
Loc: fuckit, some kid cracked my co...
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
Here's the thing, in a Capitalist Society, why can't Corporations pay off the ISP's?
[. . .]

Some money exchanges hands, but it's do-able.


To what effect? Money changes hands, sure, but how does that benefit YOU?

The problem here is that were basically talking corporatism vs. libertarianism vs. something better (which we already have).

I find it rather odd that the folks who advocate for small government/libertarian principles always end up shooting themselves in the foot due to their stranger bedfellows.

The meatpacking industry was working great until Upton Sinclair led us into The Jungle.

Awww, these pesky REGULATIONS. Forcing us to produce food that won't kill us. How dare they?

While we're at it, I expect a serious reasoned argument for BARTER. Because obviously, you like it old-school.


Edited by Megatron (02/06/15 10:28 AM)
Edit Reason: Insert your "didn't answer my question" BS below . . .
_________________________
You can't beat me, I'm a fucking Transformer (TM), dude.

Oh, and I spell everything right.

Top
#96479 - 02/06/15 01:21 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: Megatron]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: Megatron


To what effect? Money changes hands, sure, but how does that benefit YOU?



Why does it have to? I didn't put forth any effort what-so-ever to harness the Internet, so why should I feel entitled to a direct benefit?

Seriously, people put way too much importance on this form of communication. I'd be content to go back to pen and paper, or messenger or smoke signals... Seriously.

 Quote:

Awww, these pesky REGULATIONS. Forcing us to produce food that won't kill us. How dare they?

While we're at it, I expect a serious reasoned argument for BARTER. Because obviously, you like it old-school.



I just find it amusing that even in this modern age with all our so-called advancements, people feel utterly helpless UNLESS they are provided for.

I do prefer things Old Skool, so what?
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#96480 - 02/06/15 01:37 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Quote:
Edit to add, as far as what AK is driving at - there's always a way to get it done, delete the cache and any trace of it. Some money exchanges hands, but it's do-able.


I understand that this seems perfectly reasonable to you – which is why I highly encourage people to get their hands dirty with the ins-and-outs of how this internet thing actually works.

It's really fun, and you end up learning a lot – anyone can do it too – it's just cryptic, not rocket-surgery.

Do you think clearing your cache (client side) does anything to remove your record of being here from the server (much less the routers and switches between this site)?

Do you sincerely think TOR exit-nodes cannot see who you really are? Who's running them? Just food for thought ;\)

 Quote:
I do prefer things Old Skool, so what?
not to be a dick, or whatever, but mmmm... these posts on this forum aren't exactly rainbow-sheets.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#96485 - 02/06/15 01:43 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
mountaingoat Offline
member


Registered: 05/08/10
Posts: 471
Loc: Colorado
The horrors of the industrial evolution were just city people screwing city people. If I became uncomfortable with the food at the grocer's, I can just as easily harvest it from the wild. Sure, I like sitting down in a nice resaurant for a steak, but venison and foraged morels makes a pretty good meal too. Regulation simply allows the mediocre to live without the risks and dangers implied in being a competing organism on this planet.
_________________________
“The human race is unimportant. It is the self that must not be betrayed."

-John Fowles

Top
#96986 - 02/26/15 10:48 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
Looks like its a done deal...

Power to the People!

 Quote:
Today the FCC made a historic move to protect net neutrality. By reclassifying ISPs under Title II of the Communications Act, the internet is now regulated like a utility.


 Quote:
The regulation will prevent those companies from striking deals that give preferential treatment to content providers.


I guess we'll see how this goes, especially streaming rates to services like Netflix, one of the most mentioned services during all this hoo ha.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#96987 - 02/26/15 11:13 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
xear Administrator Offline
Admin
member


Registered: 07/06/07
Posts: 417
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
This ruling is great in the short term, as it stops comcast and time warner from being fucked. In the long term is screws everyone.

If Internet is now regulated as a utility, it means that the highest bidder can determine what happens to the internet.

- R

Top
#96991 - 02/27/15 08:36 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: xear]
Megatron Offline
active member


Registered: 08/22/14
Posts: 859
Loc: fuckit, some kid cracked my co...
 Originally Posted By: xear
This ruling is great in the short term, as it stops comcast and time warner from being fucked. In the long term is screws everyone.

If Internet is now regulated as a utility, it means that the highest bidder can determine what happens to the internet.

- R


Are you serious? I think you have net neutrality, and the utility thing absolutely backwards.

What you mean to say is that this ruling stops YOUR SITE from getting fucked by Comcast/TimeWarner/whoever.

Unless, of course, you really want the internet to be "pay-to-play"?
_________________________
You can't beat me, I'm a fucking Transformer (TM), dude.

Oh, and I spell everything right.

Top
#96992 - 02/27/15 10:09 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: Megatron]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
Here's some articles for review:

Scientific American

 Quote:

"Both sides likewise base their arguments heavily on hypotheticals."


NBC News

 Quote:
"Opponents of net neutrality still have hope. Congress could pass legislation undercutting the FCC vote and broadband companies can still file lawsuits."


Forbes

 Quote:
Proponents of Net Neutrality say the telecoms have too much power. I agree. Everyone seems to agree that monopolies are bad and competition is good, and just like you, I would like to see more competition. But if monopolies are bad, why should we trust the U.S. government, the largest, most powerful monopoly in the world? "


I don't trust my government.

As I stated earlier on, while the FCC claims there won't be any 'New Fees', the jury isn't out on that yet. The Bill hasn't even published so we don't know what it involves aside the rhetoric going back and forth.

I think it's a solution that doesn't work to a problem that doesn't exist. Not in any real meaningful way.

There will be lawsuits in the coming days and it will remain the same argument. The government overreaching and opening doors to further regulation.

Rush Limbaugh presented the idea: "What's to stop the FCC from requiring a license to run a website?"

Exactly. It may not be today, or even a year from now but in the future it will become yet another Constitutional Issue of free speech, free market, etc. bladie bladie blah.

If all these ISP's are showing favoritism, why do I always have streaming issues with all of these services? It's the nature of the Internet and packet delivery.

When people say 'free internet' what do they even mean by that?

If the comparison to be made is to the telephone service, when was the last time you got that for free? Free of taxes and franchise fees?
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#96998 - 02/27/15 01:11 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: Megatron]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3385
 Originally Posted By: Megatron
Are you serious? I think you have net neutrality, and the utility thing absolutely backwards.

I'm convinced Xear has got it at the right end.
Well... partially.. I'm of the belief (utterly convinced actually) that the internet IS regulated as an utility. That the highest bidders can already determine what happens on the internet.

I just have to refer to the censorship youtube applies in the name of different production companies. I can refer to the changes that have been recently made on 4chan regarding the different "boards". The highest bidders already took over the internet. FCC is just a little legal titbit that makes procedures more easy to follow and enforce.

 Originally Posted By: Megatron
Unless, of course, you really want the internet to be "pay-to-play"?

... you're really that backward to still think the internet was free? Heh.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#97000 - 02/27/15 01:53 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
I think it's a solution that doesn't work to a problem that doesn't exist.


I could not have put it better myself. In seeing both sides of the debate - for several years now, it's one of those issues that I'm still like "wtf? there's nothing to fix".

Seriously, we're talking about "fast lane" access - when the reality - the big ol' pink elephant in the room is that the US isn't even in the top 10 countries in terms of internet speed in the first fucking place.

Funny that all this is taking place around the same time the US is about to relinquish control of ICANN. Coincidence? Maybe.

Besides, what would fast-lane access entail? Speeds on par with the rest of the world?

As to what this all opens the door for in the wake of "cyber-terrorism" and "NSA surveillance" with subsequent administrations is, at best, unfathomable.

 Originally Posted By: SIN3
When people say 'free internet' what do they even mean by that?


The whole GNU concept - "Free as in freedom not free as in beer"

Unfortunately I don't see it becoming "freer" in either sense of the world.

Still, I'm not quite a pessimist yet. There will always be those Captain Crunch/John Draper's of the world - bypassing shit with fucking plastic whistles.

Information wants to be free, and goddamnit it will be!

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#97006 - 02/27/15 08:15 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: antikarmatomic]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
 Quote:
when the reality - the big ol' pink elephant in the room is that the US isn't even in the top 10 countries in terms of internet speed in the first fucking place.


BINGO.

Meanwhile... Back at the Ponderosa. The FBI is whining about not being able to keep up with Isis and the 'Radicals' Internet Kung-fu, the House just approved a budget to Homeland security through 2017.

#Nothingtosee

Something about dots... er'sumthing.

So while people are cheering with roaring applause as if Vanna White just presented their NEW CAR!!! This shit is going to be a glossing over of larger issues at hand.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#97007 - 02/27/15 08:40 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
mountaingoat Offline
member


Registered: 05/08/10
Posts: 471
Loc: Colorado
Government regulation of the internet will inevitably lead to a wider gap between US and foreign cyber technology. The enforced uniformity of isp's is going to wipe out the incentive for commercial competition. This has the stench of the typical American trend towards expensive mediocrity. The companies that play ball with the government will dominate the market and reduce choice while raising prices with damn few if any alternatives.
_________________________
“The human race is unimportant. It is the self that must not be betrayed."

-John Fowles

Top
#97029 - 02/28/15 02:17 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: antikarmatomic]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: AK
The whole GNU concept - "Free as in freedom not free as in beer"

Unfortunately I don't see it becoming "freer" in either sense of the world.


What the fuck is freedom?

It's not 'Free' if it's criminalized.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#97034 - 02/28/15 03:32 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Quote:
What the fuck is freedom?


just another word for nothing left to lose. :|


*sorry I got no second line, except in writing a second line explaining why I have no second line. Can we let it slide?
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#99334 - 05/04/15 02:48 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
Rand Paul moves to block Net Neutrality Rules

 Quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senator Rand Paul, a Republican presidential hopeful, on Wednesday introduced a resolution to block new regulations on Internet service providers, saying they would "wrap the Internet in red tape."

""The Internet has successfully flourished without the heavy hand of government interference," Paul said in a statement. "Stated simply, I do not want to see the government regulating the Internet."



You and me both Buddy. It's inevitable.

 Quote:
Paul's resolution is almost certain to face a veto from President Barack Obama. Republican leaders of key technology committees have been trying to negotiate with Democrats to write a new law to counter the FCC's rules.


The June Launch could certainly be delayed by more red tape.

Meanwhile... In other news.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#103101 - 09/29/15 01:33 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
Social Justice in the UN: Internet Sensorship

Anyone willing place bets? Time-line?

UN: Radical Solution?

 Quote:
“The respect for and security of girls and women must at all times be front and center,” the report reads


So what, all a girl's gotta do is blow the Internet Rape Whistle? Poof, then an agency comes rushing in to get the bad guy?

Is it any wonder why North Korea gives the U.N. the proverbial FUCK YOU!?

UN: The Path to Hell Paved with Good Intentions

Maybe. I don't know how serious this report will be taken, or if anything tangible will come of it but it sure is weird.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#103107 - 09/29/15 06:03 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
Czereda Offline
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 2118
Loc: Poland
I don't think that the United Nations is that important politically. When it comes to the internet censorship, I remember there was some other resolution/report last year that was discussed in some media, at least in Poland. Not much attention was devoted to it so I don't even remember what it was all about. Nevertheless, nothing happened then.

Besides, I think that free internet is a myth, just like the privacy online. The whole internet is already monitored by the governments, insulting someone online can cause legal troubles at least in my country and, at least, theoretically. There were some cases where people were sued for stepping over the line. Moreover, the networks are moderated. Even on shitty Facebook it's enough that some butthurt douche reports you and out you go.

As for that UN report, it's just lame. No further comment is necessary. It reminds me of some stupid EU feminists who wanted to ban pornography altogether because it "objectifies" women. Those liberal and politically correct idiots are now a greater danger to the joke of democracy than the most hard-core Christian zealots.
_________________________
Anna Czereda
Crazy Cat Lady

Top
#103113 - 09/30/15 10:24 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: Czereda]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: CZ
, I think that free internet is a myth, just like the privacy online. The whole internet is already monitored by the governments, insulting someone online can cause legal troubles at least in my country and, at least, theoretically.


No doubt. I think Freedom overall is a Myth. You're only 'Free' provided you are privileged with Rights, at least that appears to be the sentiment I so often see. Believing you're entitled to Internet comes to mind.

The Sarkeesian Effect is just one such visible case.

Check out her UN address:

Anita Sarkeesian UN Speech


It's like the meme of Margaret Atwood

As if Women really want to regress to being treated like children.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#103114 - 09/30/15 02:14 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
JamesSTL Offline
member


Registered: 11/29/13
Posts: 312
Loc: St. Louis
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
As if Women really want to regress to being treated like children.


You're over-generalizing. I'm sure there are lots of women out there who wouldn't mind returning to a simpler time, where marriage was essentially the sale of property from father to husband.

It's such a shame that the "obey" part of a woman's vows has been so often omitted in today's marriage ceremonies.


Top
#103117 - 09/30/15 04:24 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
Czereda Offline
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 2118
Loc: Poland
 Quote:
As if Women really want to regress to being treated like children.


The survivor of cyber violence? Seriously? Playing a victim card is the most pathetic kind of attention whoring but still one can capitalize on it. Feminism is a joke nowadays.

That aside, I think it would be great if everyone had some sort of personal standards and a personal etiquette while being online. I mean here nothing artificial or oppressive but we usually follow social etiquette during face to face interactions. The thing is that some behaviors exhibited online are simply disgusting and I don't mean here that they are indecent or outrageous but just... you know it's as if you invited a pig to your apartment and it would have diarrhea all over your carpet. In my country recently, some kid has committed suicide because he was harassed by his school friends. Even after his death he was shit-talked all over Facebook and not only by teenagers but also by some random adults. I don't even regard it as "wicked" but tasteless and primitive.

Plus, there come the mountains of stupidity. I'm all in favor of censorship, but not done by the governments but by the owners of individual websites. If pigs and retards flood some network and they can't moderate themselves, then the frequent use of the ban hammer would sort out the problem. Unfortunately, most of such network owners value quantity over quality so they tolerate idiots. Moreover, they are self-righteous so it's the politically-incorrect ones that usually have troubles, not the semi-literate retards. Such behavior drives more intelligent users away because who would like to dine in a toilet?

Let's take for example Facebook. I deleted most of the groups I belonged to because I was tired of seeing stupid shit in my newsfeed and getting email alerts whenever some dumbfuck posted something which was totally stupid, yet for some reason he considered it extremely important.

Anyway, I don't think that this report would change anything as it is mainly an appeal to the site owners to moderate their networks more tightly. I agree it's sanctimonious and stupid, however it's nothing new. I don't know how it is in the US but in Poland shit-talking someone online is illegal, at least theoretically. It's not that the government censors websites but if you launch a smear campaign against someone, that person or a company or an institution can request your IP address from the website administrator and the admin has a legal duty to reveal the IP address. Then, the person you insulted can go to the police, find out your data and then sue you. Of course, it becomes much harder when the proverbial "bully" uses proxy and altogether, it's more trouble then it's worth, especially that our Polish courts are shitty.
_________________________
Anna Czereda
Crazy Cat Lady

Top
#103121 - 10/01/15 12:30 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
short and sweet (for once)

 Originally Posted By: S3
I think Freedom overall is a Myth. You're only 'Free' provided you are privileged with Rights, at least that appears to be the sentiment I so often see. Believing you're entitled to Internet comes to mind.


I have absolutely no idea what you're saying here, if anything at all.

You are as free as your capabilities afford. Legislation never stopped anything; and in no other sphere of influence is this more glaringly apparent than in cyberspace - hence, why I never pay for internet in airports or hotels. Nor will whatever I do while connected ever come back to me.

One simple rule: "Don't fuck it up"
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#103127 - 10/01/15 11:12 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: JamesSTL]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
I don't disagree, in ideal perhaps. They have no real point of reference having not experienced being a "kept woman". No idea what its like having to attain funds from her husband like an allowance, the ability to do as she pleases as a privilege and still make it home in time to have his dinner on the table because its her duty.

There's also plenty of women still alive that consider a modern way of life, an absurd desire for a woman. Older family members upon hearing I'm seeing someone automatically assume that I should just quit working for capital because well shit, I landed me a man to take care of my needs. If he's not throwing money at me then he's not a real man at all. It's weird to me. Typically the same women that lament when their husbands stake claim to the money in the bank, and threaten to leave their ass flat if they misbehave.

 Originally Posted By: Czereda
That aside, I think it would be great if everyone had some sort of personal standards and a personal etiquette while being online.


We do, that's the issue here. Most want a universal standard of 'correct' speech, 'correct' behavior and the world will be far more harmonious. 'America' isn't just a place where we live, it's very much an ideal as well. Citizens are supposedly granted security of Liberty & Freedom by the Living Documents that afford these privileges.

In the case of gang-stalking, harassment and cyber-abuse, it seeks to take personal responsibility out of the hands of the user and place it in the hands of the government. These two women that speak (seemingly impassioned) about being survivors, to me it means that they read every word of comment, critique, criticism and took it to heart. It hurt their feelings, it gave them cause to either feel genuine fear or depression (as in Zoe's case) (starts at about the 1:20 mark) and like children, they want a parental role to police the behavior of the general public. "Stop saying mean things!" "Stop subscribing!" "Stop replying to comments!"

What is "Harassment" in this environment? Is it when you subscribe to a users many platforms? Comment on their content? Reply in exchanges between parties? Use Politically Incorrect speech when you do?


Sarkeesian and Quinnn are critical of the tools available to them. It's not enough to close comments on their videos, moderate comments on blogs, block users or simply ignore critiques. What will be enough?

When the gen-pop feels as if these women are presenting a skewed version of events or the issues, they will certainly speak out (for better or worse). Both have been called Bullies. Both have been referred to as being part of a Feminist gang, and both come under fire for attempting to force changes onto others.

 Originally Posted By: AK
have absolutely no idea what you're saying here, if anything at all.


Capabilities afforded in relation to what? It depends on how the individual would define Freedom, which is why I cited an example of entitlement sentiment. In the case of this panel, many women believe its their innate Right to be FREE of harassment, and have access to the Internet. The broadband rep covered this a fair bit before/after Sarkeesian/Quinn's address.

As far as they are concerned, other people are fucking up their Freedom.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#103130 - 10/01/15 03:16 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Originally Posted By: AK

I have absolutely no idea what you're saying here, if anything at all.

You are as free as your capabilities afford. Legislation never stopped anything; and in no other sphere of influence is this more glaringly apparent than in cyberspace - hence, why I never pay for internet in airports or hotels. Nor will whatever I do while connected ever come back to me.
 Originally Posted By: SIN3

 Originally Posted By: AK
have absolutely no idea what you're saying here, if anything at all.

Capabilities afforded in relation to what?


*It is often as if we're not even having the same conversation. You do realize this, no?

But to answer your question: in relation to whatever the fuck it is one desires freedom from, to do, or to have. I don't know of any simpler way to explain it. Liberties are taken; not granted.


Edited by antikarmatomic (10/01/15 03:20 PM)
Edit Reason: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FdHq3WfJgs
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#103174 - 10/02/15 01:24 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: antikarmatomic]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
 Quote:
Liberties are taken; not granted.


Then what the fuck are you countering you asshat because that's precisely what I said. Derp.

You sure you're not hitting the pipe?
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#103183 - 10/02/15 10:26 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
Pardon me, ma'am, I must've hit a nerve. What makes you think I was countering?
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#103191 - 10/03/15 01:47 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: antikarmatomic]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
No, more of a rib-jab.

What is 'Freedom' if not simply an ideal? In the context of my reply to Czereda; plenty would defer to fancy sheets of paper held up on museums to have it both defined and practiced. Even as 'proof' that it's something they are entitled to rather than something taken.

Maybe these gals believe they are taking back freedoms lost by an appeal to authority, or as a way to enforce policy yet to be codified.

It was said that the tools available to them aren't enough to take their Liberties without being bothered by other people. To the tune of Violence Against Women/girls.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#103193 - 10/03/15 06:48 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
Czereda Offline
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 2118
Loc: Poland
 Quote:
These two women that speak (seemingly impassioned) about being survivors, to me it means that they read every word of comment, critique, criticism and took it to heart. It hurt their feelings, it gave them cause to either feel genuine fear or depression...


And to me it means they got off on the whole thing.

In the game of power, the victim card can be very useful and if one is skilled enough, one can play that card successfully. The best method is to exchange the mere victim card for the martyrdom card. I don't know everything about this gaming community vs Sarkeesian conflict, it's possible that she provoked the harassment and partly deserved it but BUT... most important... the reaction was not proportional to the provocation, which means the gaming "community" overreacted and went too far in their criticism and hostility, which next means she didn't deserve what she got, perhaps she deserved a little but not all of that. And finally that means she for the large part "suffered" innocently and that makes her a Martyr for the Cause, in her case Feminism.

The Martyr card is very strong. It often beats the King. Nero learned it the hard way. As I wrote, I don't know all the details of the drama but from what I read online, it seems she nicely capitalized on her cyber martyrdom. She not only gained more popularity, gave more talks, received many awards and raised much more money for her projects than she planned but she also used her "victimization" to convince the considerable part of the general public that women are really bullied online, especially in the "gaming community" and she achieved all of that thanks to her detractors. Honestly, I think she has pwned them.

 Quote:
When the gen-pop feels as if these women are presenting a skewed version of events or the issues, they will certainly speak out (for better or worse). Both have been called Bullies. Both have been referred to as being part of a Feminist gang, and both come under fire for attempting to force changes onto others.


Yeah but that can be easily forgotten due to all this suffering "poor me" endured. Get real. The cyber douchebags made Sarkeesian look like a heroine, at least in the eyes of her supporters/the sheep. I'm sure their number has increased. "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church."


Edited by Czereda (10/03/15 06:59 PM)
_________________________
Anna Czereda
Crazy Cat Lady

Top
#103194 - 10/03/15 08:27 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
Ah.

 Originally Posted By: s3
What is 'Freedom' if not simply an ideal?
I tend not to let abstractions such as "freedom", "evil", and "happiness" sit all by their lonesome. These concepts are too amorphous to really mean much of anything except with respect to circumstance; or, as you might say, in "context" (i.e. "Do we have freedom?" "freedom from, or to do what, specifically?")

The "slippery slope", is that these woman haven't so much gone about asserting their freedom from harassment, so much as they have taken steps to (presumably) limit the freedom of others to harass them - which will never work, anyway. At best it is a bass-ackwards approach.

IF (and that's a big if, btw) they were truly concerned with something more than stirring the pot / basking in the limelight of a new cause celebre, they would simply raise awareness that these sorts of things *can* happen, since the internet is not exactly a sanitary place - 'never will be, and to inform the sheep of 1) online harassment is a real thing, 2) steps the individual can take to mitigate risk (i.e. how to block people, report them to the content provider, and just *not* give-up any information they are not comfy having in the public domain - common-sense type stuff)

Legislation will not fix this, and I can't help but think they must know this. I'm not one to underestimate human stupidity, but there's always some things (such as this) that leave me with my face in my hands thinking "they can't seriously think I think anyone is *that* stupid - what's the angle?"

I mean, consider rape. It's certainly nothing I condone, but if you think telling a rapist "hey! stop! get your donker out of me! we have laws!!!" is going to fix the issue, that's just silly. Carrying a firearm, however, might.

As a side-note - I'd like to pin-point exactly when (and possibly why) "we the people" became a nation of pussies and tattle-tales.

*incidentally - the "Don't fuck it up" link I posted earlier in this thread - 'totally worth a watch, if you have 45 mins to kill, wallowing in the bowels of endorkenment ;\)


Edited by antikarmatomic (10/03/15 08:48 PM)
Edit Reason: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9aHTXKTmfs
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#103217 - 10/05/15 11:19 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: Czereda]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: Czereda
The cyber douchebags made Sarkeesian look like a heroine, at least in the eyes of her supporters/the sheep. I'm sure their number has increased.


No doubt. I agree. I've seen my fair share of supporters to the tune of Chris Crocker. It's not a bad marketing strategy to target a specific demographic.

 Originally Posted By: AK
The "slippery slope", is that these woman haven't so much gone about asserting their freedom from harassment, so much as they have taken steps to (presumably) limit the freedom of others to harass them


Right, I don't think much will come of it aside becoming iconoclasts to a small percentage of the population. Some think that more causes like this will change the way we experience the Internet in the future.

Maybe they just can't cope with its progression. Granted a lot the social tech is invasive, weird and kind of culty but it's not like anyone has a gun to your head demanding you spend your days plugged in to any of it.

40 Years of Internet History and many of us have experienced a lot of it first hand.

My first exposure was in the mid-80's and by the early 90's it was a completely different animal. I'd consider it more like Pandora 's Box.

 Quote:
the woman took off the great lid of the jar (pithos) with her hands and scattered all these and her thought caused sorrow and mischief to men.


Competition and the games of Olympians.

The APC issued THIS in 2012, so it's not like these two women are breaking ground with the UN.

It is a cooperative effort with several countries involved. I think if we've seen any real visible changes its social tech adopting specific ethical policies and enforcement via account suspension and IP Block. Some laws have been updated to include the Internet as a communication device to facilitate harassment or threats of violence but its by no means a deterrent.

Cyber-crime and Cyber-Terrorism give these feminist movements hope in creating a *safe* place to vent about inequality and Human Rights violations.

This is pretty much the angle from Gender Report Highlights :

 Quote:
Governments, regulators, businesses and everyday Netizens alike need to recognize
and act on the basic principle that an unsafe Internet will mean that women will
frequent the Internet less freely, with costly societal and economic implications.



If you can convince regulators there will be an economic impact, maybe they will be quick to draw up new laws which in turn produce revenues.

Will it change the Internet as we know it? I think the thing will constantly evolve as a tech tool. What's worse? Cyber-Terrorism or Ads? heh
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#103223 - 10/05/15 05:32 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
Czereda Offline
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 2118
Loc: Poland
 Quote:
Cyber-crime and Cyber-Terrorism give these feminist movements hope in creating a *safe* place to vent about inequality and Human Rights violations.


There is a difference between cyber-crime and cyber-harassment. And while the two can overlap, cyber crime involves such serious issues like hacking, doxing, identity theft, online frauds and scams. Cyber terrorism is yet another cup of tea and, as it's a danger to the state, it's taken very seriously. Here is a thing though. Cyber criminals are always ahead of the law and usually smarter than the police. Combating organized groups of online criminals is very difficult and it's also expensive. Some time ago Interpol cracked down on the band of hackers operating in the Mid Europe who were sending Ukash Viruses. But before that happened, the criminals (most of whom were Russians) went unpunished for a couple of years and managed to infect millions of computers in the EU and Russia. Cyber crime is illegal. So what? It doesn't mean you won't become a target.

The online harassment can become a problem when it affects the target's daily existence. For example, when the damage in your reputation affects your job career or a stalker tracks down your address and starts harassing you in the real world, threatening your life, attacking your house etc. However, the whole harassment thing is often abused by the cry babies who just love being victims. Besides, it's extremely difficult to define as the boundary between criticism and harassment is blurred. Is calling someone an idiot harassment or legitimate, albeit harsh, criticism? There are a couple of things you can do if someone tries to discredit and humiliate you online: ignore or block someone, run to the moderators and cry about abuse, strike back. The last option is most fun. Unlike in face to face conversations, you have plenty of time to think about a nice witty retort. Insulting someone is an art that can be mastered.

As far as those retarded feminists go, what about sending them to the North Korea? The internet there is very safe and friendly, just a couple of websites controlled by the government. No threat of harassment, no cyber-bullying, they will only have to get used to the rather humble meals consisting of rice and vegetables. Do we really need this dinosaur of feminism anymore in the 21st century? A rhetorical question, of course.
_________________________
Anna Czereda
Crazy Cat Lady

Top
#103235 - 10/06/15 09:58 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: Czereda]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
That's the thing, these women (and many like them) would like to see specific sorts of activity criminalized. The harshest of critics of their claims are being called abusive and criminals.

The reaction? Movements to have them arrested

After the report was published, many women voiced their disappointment with the outcome LINK


Cyber-violence and its definition is scrutinized because some women still don't feel it's safe to be online to present their content. Really, what that boils down to is relentless criticism of misrepresenting issues (and of course relentless trolling). What's the most terrifying insult to Women? Threats of RAPE. Is it free-speech or is it criminal?

Plenty of comments on this site would fall under the same scrutiny.

When Sarkeesian goes to speak at public events, she's often accompanied by a police officer or body guard. This image portrays a real threat to her person. If people online are speaking frank, honestly and harshly about her work, then she must be under physical threat.

Zoe Quinn and her Intentions have also received harsh criticism, is it harassment? Trolling has been framed as a violence against women, especially if the content is misogynistic. Ummmm if you're a self-identified feminist, then of course the content would be sexist. That's sort of the point in trolling. To use what gets their goat to get a reaction. Gamergate Ruined my life! <- This is the sort of thing, I was referring to when grown-ass women behave like they would like to be treated like children.

If you can't handle the environment, GTFO the Internet. Well, that sort of attitude just won't do. It limits the Internet from Women and girls!

Sarkeesian/Quinn are just two visible examples. There's thousands of women just like them that would like to see some agency police the Internet and enforce a code of behavioral ethics. Violators would then suffer harsher consequences such as fines or Jail.

You're a woman, what do you do when/if a user states that they want you raped, dead or to drink bleach? Do you call the cops?
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#103245 - 10/06/15 05:39 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
Czereda Offline
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 2118
Loc: Poland
 Quote:
these women (and many like them) would like to see specific sorts of activity criminalized.


But they are already criminalized. There are anti-harassment laws, so what? Tracking down and then suing a douchebag who insulted you online is more trouble than it is worth. Also the sex trafficking is a real problem and yeah, it's true that the internet facilitates this business, only it's going on in the underground, with the criminals careful not to leave any traces that would let the cops track them down. I can hardly imagine a trafficker conducting his business on the clearnet: "Hey hey, some pretty girls on sale. Wanna buy one? Discount included." Such a lame joke would bring the guy really serious troubles."

Besides, the internet is already monitored by the security services and the police but the cyber crime is very difficult to cope with. When it comes to trolling and harassment, they will always exist, unless the dumb feminists want the kind of internet there is in North Korea.

I think that these feminists aren't really that retarded, rather they are trying to be "useful." I mean feminism is largely irrelevant nowadays, especially in the Western world so it desperately seeks new ways to validate itself by trying to fight against the imaginary problems, like Don Quixote tilting at windmills. It all looks like nostalgia for the good old times.
_________________________
Anna Czereda
Crazy Cat Lady

Top
#103259 - 10/07/15 12:59 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: Czereda]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
The thing about the world wide web is that it is, well, world-wide. This is where freedom of speech gets "iffy", since some Constitutions simply afford no such freedoms.

If I host material on a server in Spain openly criticizing the King of Thailand should I expect to be extradited from Spain by the RTP? Of course not, but the citizens of Thailand who frequent said site may not be so insulated - they're guilty just by listening. The best any government has been able to do is "censor" the internet, which is by design a bastion of free speech.

For instance, because child-porn is illegal to even *have* on my hard-drive, if I suspect a domain houses child porn, I'd naturally have to visit it in order to confirm and report to the authorities. The problem with this is that once I've verified that said domain does house child porn, these images are now on *my* hard-drive. What incentive do I have to go to the authorities? Which is why it goes largely unabated. No good deed goes unpunished. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Similar legal hurdles occur with "illegal tribal lending" (which is a purely American thing, I think) these are also known as online-pay day loans. The interests rates are often far in excess of what many states have adapted as "usury laws" (meaning that there is a "cap" to which interest can legally be charged). Those who operate such schemes insist that because the contract was signed online, and the server resides on some tribal reservation, your state's laws do not apply. It's a grey area, both legally and technologically - highly open to debate, and therefore, highly exploitable.

What legally defines 'presence' in the digital age? What is "lewd and lascivious conduct"? Iran's definition? France's? Whose rules am I playing by? The origin's or the destination's?

Until this all gets sorted-out (and it never will) "Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself".


Edited by antikarmatomic (10/07/15 01:02 AM)
Edit Reason: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNfYvNtQqss
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#103265 - 10/07/15 10:47 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: antikarmatomic]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: AK
"Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself".


Pretty much. Know the terrain. If you can't handle it, opt out.

It may very well be that these women (and those like them) are looking for purpose, or a product to market and profit from. As noted, Quinn's game was rejected on the first pass but then after all the sympathy she received, it passed the second time. She can now call herself a participant in the gaming market. It's a notch on her lipstick case. She experienced a minor success playing the victim card, so now's she's going full-throttle by teaming up with Sarkeesian. She got an ovation for her presentation and a citation in the UN Report. This will no-doubt give an impression, especially when using it in the future to target her demographic.

The expectation? She's looking for the Hope left in Pandora's box. Law is rarely if ever a deterrent and always up for interpretation.

KEEP CALM. DRINK BLEACH
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#105590 - 02/19/16 10:36 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
Update . Zoe Quinn is making some headway in getting public support. There's a potential film coming out soon and as you're probably aware its a common tactic to tap the pulse of the public.

I think it's just a matter of time before many of these cases like hers make a deeper impact on the Law. It wasn't that long ago that a 'Cybercrime' sector manifested.

 Quote:
Meanwhile, back in Boston, Quinn had taken Gjoni back to court for half a dozen restraining order violations, which, nearly a year after the abuse initially began, caught the attention of the Boston district attorney’s office.

But at this late stage, the dynamic had changed irrevocably: Quinn no longer alleged that Gjoni was her sole harasser, or even that he was the worst. Her meticulously archived evidence — like that of Sarkeesian’s and Wu’s — suggested a faceless multitude, who together were profoundly more frightening and disruptive that Gjoni’s blog post ever was


Her angle isn't to use the already existing laws but to strong-arm new ones. The 'mob' will then become useful to her and those like her.

She doesn't seem to be making much progress within the legal system itself but rather using social justice to her ends.

 Quote:
There is one party that hasn’t tired of that process, however — and that is Gamergate. Gjoni is still challenging Quinn’s initial restraining order, which she voluntarily vacated last August, in an attempt to establish new legal precedent around the use of restraining orders against online incitement or harassment. He has already raised $29,000 from his supporters, and persuaded constitutional scholars like Eugene Volokh to file amicus briefs on the case.

“It’s an outrageous violation of the First Amendment,” said Volokh, whose legal blog, The Volokh Conspiracy, is published on The Post’s website. “Fifty years ago, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, we asked if speech that encourages crime could be punished. The Supreme Court said no. There is no legal remedy for [Quinn], because that’s how the First Amendment works.”


All you have to do is put 'Gamergate', 'Sarkeesian Effect' or 'Zoe Quinn' in the search bar for youtube and you'll get plenty in return. I think users of the Internet tire of the antics and by stating they are going to hunt her down and rape her, is just making that abundantly clear. People are just sick of their shit.

I don't know how hip legislators are to the issues if they have no real grasp on tools available to the anonymous user.

Mostly, this girl just comes off as a really sore loser. Her game sucked. It only got attention have she slept with a developer. Even then, the game didn't take off. So now she's using this angle to gain fanfare. It may just work to her advantage, especially if she takes advantage of movie production and marketing. Will Zoe have the last laugh? I guess only time will tell.

Meanwhile... FCC eyes data collection in Net Neutrality Battle

 Quote:
The wording used in Section 222 is vague enough to offer up some leeway, but it seems clear that changes will be made in the future.


Maybe even get involved in a deeper role with regard to cyber mobbing.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#105593 - 02/19/16 11:05 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
This is why people construct darknets in the first place. The problem comes down to "trust", however. The net neutrailty battle is (at this phase in my life - and I may change my mind) a non-issue.

"Give me the download and upload speeds that you promised - and all is good" it's that simple. Give me what I pay for. If you can't, then give me a refund. Simple? Should be. If it's unecrycpted, I don't care. If it is encrypted, then "pffffft" good luck!

I'm not a terrorist, I just don't want the world to see me jerking off to my wifey who happens to be on the other side of the planet. I also don't want some random NSA spook seeing her kooch, either. I'm also pretty sure that random NSA spook wouldn't want some other random NSA spook seeing his particular sister's kooch on TV either. (seems sane to me)

Right?

Then OK.

It's not about terrorism - it's about common decency.

We deserve some amount of privacy. Last I checked we weren't in lock-up. I'm not guilty of anything. (plus! my W2 says I paid
12K for that in 2015 alone... I sure as fuck hope those 12 Gs went to protect me and my liberties... I know freedom isn't free... but I am also sure as fuck certain I've paid my fill and am not seeing much by way of ROI
)

So___ this is why I do what I do. ;\)


Edited by antikarmatomic (02/19/16 11:13 AM)
Edit Reason: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZRJ1eUbboc
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#105598 - 02/19/16 01:20 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: antikarmatomic]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
 Quote:
It's not about terrorism - it's about common decency.


It's also not about Net Neutrality either. Agencies like the NSA/FCC get access to this data in the name of [fill in the blank] and it's not like common decency existed in the first place.

Rule of Thumb has always been: If you don't want anyone to see your wife's kooch, then don't publish it on the Internet.

The FCC 'crafting up new privacy rules' will most likely match the current policy. Perhaps a solution is to just stop using the term 'Privacy', it's essentially useless.

 Quote:
The commission will have to determine not only what data is covered by the rules, but also how companies should be compelled to protect it.


Companies like Facebook felt compelled to institute a new policy on real name vs. pseudonym and a brown coat mentality of reporting users. It also has invasive aps that suggest "People you might know", what if you don't want those people you know to find your Facebook profile?

There's always loop holes on content considered 'private'.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#107575 - 07/14/16 02:05 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
FCC making moves

 Quote:
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission voted unanimously Thursday to open substantial spectrum for next-generation high-speed 5G wireless applications and networks - a move that could eventually reshape significant portions of the U.S. economy.

The FCC approved opening nearly 11 gigahertz of high-frequency spectrum for mobile, flexible and fixed-use wireless broadband. The FCC said the new rules "will provide vital clarity for business investment in this area."




 Quote:
The technology could improve traffic by installing sensors in streetlights, roadside architecture, and cars. It could help monitor pollution by installing sensors in trees to gauge environmental impacts.


Increasing speed and accessibility, increases "productivity".

In the race to compete with other nations, especially in the area of surveillance and medical innovation, it receives roaring applause.

More Here

 Quote:
“In our increasingly connected world, opening up new swaths of spectrum for 5G networks is critical to support ever-growing consumer demand and increasing number of connected devices," said Jonathan Spalter, chair of Mobile Future. "With 5G expected to touch virtually every aspect of our economy and revolutionize how we communicate, we appreciate the FCC’s decision today to help pave the way for continued U.S. global leadership in wireless. The Commission's actions are bold steps to ensure an ever-brighter mobile future for all Americans.”


Roll American Anthem...
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#107583 - 07/16/16 03:38 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 950
The shit pile is going to grow as people add to its mess.

There is not going to be any change until people decide to burn/decimate said shit.

Just look at this pokemon craze going on.

So easy to distract a willing audience.

Fuck it. If I am alone or separate from the human race because I refuse the bullshit, so fucking be it.

Kiss my ass.

Top
#107587 - 07/16/16 09:32 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: Creatura Noptii]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
Look at you bringing that Pokemon stuff here

People do enjoy their distractions and I don't necessarily spite them for that. Some people are more sensitive to the bad news and withdraw into fantasy. It can be a form of self therapy. A way to nip a shift in mood in the bud. I tend not to dwell on things but you know the brain, it's a bastard. When a memory or thought kicks in (seemingly on auto-pilot) I change the channel willfully. I really don't see the difference between that and say Gaming, watching a movie or diving into paint.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#107593 - 07/16/16 07:22 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 950
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
I really don't see the difference between that and say Gaming, watching a movie or diving into paint.


Well, the reply is in regard to your post and what the article says about people needing faster mobile rates.

I say, shit's already dumb enough.

See a part of what I consider Satanic about myself, is that I don't withdraw from a problem immediately.

I don't normally spite people about it either. Usually. In any case, you don't see me walking straight into traffic just because a cartoon shows up on my phone. But I guess that's been happening with text before there were mobile anime games.

Painting takes thought, self discipline, practices that will eventually lead to a skill.

I'm sticking to my point here. The shit pile is going to get worse until people decide to end it. I guess burning/decimating piles of shit is an exaggerated analogy.

What I really mean is, put down your phones and pick up a book to read, or in your example, a paintbrush.

Top
#107596 - 07/17/16 03:35 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 950
Also, if you are indeed implying that I am adding to the mess by mentioning it here, that's fine. I only mention the pokemon game as a reference to what I consider an example of absolute stupidity. In this case, numb-brained herd mentality.

The shit piles are my chosen metaphor of human stupidity/incompetence. The only way to destroy the shit is through knowledge, practice, refinement. Things of self-discipline.

It is what we humans were made for.

In other words, you don't see me out there walking around with my head in my phone unaware of oncoming traffic.

No, I wouldn't say mentioning the mess necessitates adding to it. Quite the opposite. As you've pointed out, most would rather pretend things don't smell like shit at all.

But sure, call me a Devil for kicking up a storm and mentioning what everyone would rather not think on.

I'm obliged.

Top
#107602 - 07/17/16 05:31 PM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Czereda Offline
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 2118
Loc: Poland
 Quote:
Well, the reply is in regard to your post and what the article says about people needing faster mobile rates.

I say, shit's already dumb enough.


Actually, the behaviors you described have little to do with the quality of the internet connection. You can reduce the internet speed to GSM and the idiots will still find ways to waste their time. Moreover, no internet is necessary to indulge in stupid entertainment.

I don't know if you remember those old DOS games. My cousin spent the whole days playing them when he was young. Whenever we went to visit my auntie, he sat with us at a table only for a couple of minutes and then he ran to his room to molest his joystick. Is his computer to blame that he hasn't read even one book in his life? Perhaps, he simply doesn't like reading.

The internet is just a tool. It is a well of knowledge. It gives you an access to the books that are hard to find in your local library or bookstore. There are movies, documentaries, news articles etc. Games have never attracted me.
_________________________
Anna Czereda
Crazy Cat Lady

Top
#107604 - 07/18/16 10:42 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: Czereda]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 950
I remember making the same points in another post somewhere. I think it was in reference to what might happen if everyone turned off their screens for a month. How would people cope? I can't say one month is enough time. Maybe three.

Its like the end of a great novel I once read.

Will people learn?

IDK.

Top
#111421 - 02/10/17 09:43 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
Update on Net Neutrality under the Trump Administration: Is Net Neutrality Dead?

 Quote:
While net neutrality will carry on, it’s difficult to see exactly what shape it will take. Chairman Pai, newly appointed to head the commission by President Trump, has already started the process of targeting what he deems to be onerous regulations originating from Open Internet rules.

Jamison argues these changes will lead to faster introductions of new services, with the possibility of creating a “more dynamic digital ecosystem as networking providers introduce more features for content providers that increase value, and collaborate with content providers to customize networking features.”


Targeting regulations interprets to killing Net Neutrality to biased journalists but it doesn't seem as though its on the chopping block. It appears that it's more likely this:

 Quote:
Challenges to Open Internet rules have already been mounted, and the FCC under the Obama administration was aggressive in its pursuit to stomp out what it deemed to be anti-competitive.


 Quote:
Essentially, the FCC would just put a hold on using its regulatory powers and allow carriers to pursue business how they see fit. The first sign of this approach was delivered when chairman Pai closed the commission’s investigation into the zero rating practices of carriers. The decision put an end to a major area of inquiry from the Wheeler era of the FCC and was the first major blow to net neutrality rules.


That's the update.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#112564 - 04/27/17 11:20 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
FCC Press Release - Net Neutrality

 Quote:
But two years ago, the federal government’s approach suddenly changed. The FCC, on a party - line vote, decided to impose a set of heavy -handed reg
ulations upon the Internet. It decided to slap an old regulatory framework called “Title II” —original ly designed in the 1930s for the Ma Bell telephone monopoly
—upon thousands of Internet service providers, big and small. It decided to put the federal government at the center of the Internet.

Why? Unfortunately, the answer has nothing to do with the l aw or the facts. Nothing about the Internet was broken in 2015. Nothing about the law had changed. And there wasn’t a rash of Internet service providers blocking customers from accessing the content, applications, or services of their choice.


The FCC is meeting in May and the aim appears to reverse the Net Neutrality ruling.

"Pai argues that overturning the rules will create jobs, boost competition, bring high-speed internet access to more Americans and protect online privacy." source

The "Common Carrier" classification was just an over-reach of Obama's administration. I think Pai has the right view, what say you?

_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#114087 - 08/22/17 10:41 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
Now the masses are reaching out with polls to push Congress to make a ruling on the issue.

Attempts to reclassify broadband have been unsuccessful because people understand the attempt enough to want to keep it deregulated.

Ajit Pai continues to explain his reasons for wanting to scrap the whole thing. See: PBS Newshour special. Primarily, he sees the rules in place as obstacles to innovation and competition.

What say you? Do you think he's wrong? If so, why?
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#115300 - 11/27/17 11:41 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
Update on FCC & Net Neutrality

In recent weeks we've seen the SJW's take to Social Media to spread their rhetoric. I'm even less convinced today than I was in 2015.

Ajit Pai remains unmoved by it as well.

The FCC involvement coupled with declaring it a utility, and the recent social shift towards more involvement of the government in an open Internet; isn't exactly going to change many minds. Well, at least those that actually think anyway.

Where do you stand today on Net Neutrality?
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#115371 - 12/15/17 09:38 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
The FCC is doing the right thing

 Quote:
The internet has changed significantly in the past 20 years, and there is growing consensus around the need to revisit our 1990s internet laws. But only through congressional action is it possible to preserve the crucial freedom to innovate that allows us to lead the world’s tech economy, while also preventing tech and telecom companies from abusing market power and engaging in anti-consumer practices. What’s missing is the political will to craft an effective and bipartisan solution, and to rise above continued efforts to posture and further the partisan divide.


Finally, some sanity. For all you people that thought "Net Neutrality" was a good idea. Get Lit

April Fact Sheet
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#115394 - 12/19/17 09:32 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
Sabrina27 Offline
member


Registered: 01/21/17
Posts: 159
Didn't a lot of start ups in the past succeeded due to lower competition? There weren't much conglomerates on the Internet.
_________________________
Knowledge without action is void & Action without knowledge is madness

Top
#117801 - 12/21/18 10:26 AM Re: FCC: Adversarial Force to Open Internet [Re: SIN3]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
Source

 Quote:
As of October, the U.S. ranked seventh in the world in broadband and 43rd in mobile download speeds — a slight increase in rank from last year. Broadband is twice as fast as mobile. Broadband speed growth is also outpacing mobile. The rollout of 5G mobile connections should help.


Net Neutrality was always bullshit.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
Page all of 5 12345>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.647 seconds of which 0.431 seconds were spent on 82 queries. Zlib compression disabled.