FCC Boss Claims Net Neutrality Supporters Were Clearly Wrong Because Twitter Still Works The Day After Repeal
from the that's-not-how-any-of-this-works dept
By now you've probably noticed that FCC boss Ajit Pai isn't particularly popular online after he voted last week to kill popular net neutrality protections. A big reason for that unpopularity is Pai's tendency to simply make things up as he rushes to coddle broadband duopolists, whether we're talking about his bogus claims that net neutrality killed broadband investment, his claims that net neutrality only emboldens tyrants in Iran and North Korea, or his claims that the broadband market is amazingly competitive.
So in the wake of the repeal (which of course still needs to survive legal challenge) it's not too surprising to see Pai engaging in more blatantly false nonsense as he tries to frame net neutrality supporters as hysterical hyperbolists. For example, Pai tried to argue last week on Fox and Friends that net neutrality supporters were clearly wrong to worry about the repeal because Twitter and Facebook still worked the day after the repeal:
To try and gather support for his extremely unpopular plan, Pai's been throwing some red meat to the base by framing net neutrality concerns as the domain of out of touch Hollywood elites, despite the fact the rules have broad, bipartisan support. As such, Pai took particular aim at comments made by comedian Jimmy Kimmel, claiming he was foolish to worry about the repeal since social media websites still worked the day after the FCC voted 3-2 to kill the rules:
"He's getting everything wrong about it," Pai said of Kimmel. "The free and open internet we had prior to 2015 is the one we're going to have going forward. And that kind of name-calling and hysteria is disappointing, but it's not surprising."
Pai went on to say that Kimmel and others were "proven wrong" by the fact that internet service providers (ISP) had not rolled out immediate changes Friday morning.
"Those who have said the internet as we know it is about to end have been proven wrong starting this morning," Pai said, "as people send emails, check on their Twitter accounts, post on Facebook, and the like."
But this is either an outright lie, or Pai honestly doesn't know how his own agency even works. While the FCC voted to repeal the rules last week, the repeal itself doesn't take effect until sixty days after the repeal hits the federal register, which doesn't even happen until January. Even then, we've made it abundantly clear that ISPs will likely remain on their best behavior for a year or so. Why? They'll want to portray net neutrality advocates as hysterical chicken littles. They also won't want to provide any ammunition for the looming lawsuits against the FCC's repeal.
It's only once ISPs secure a court victory that you'll see their true colors emerge. And even then, if they're too heavy handed they risk future FCCs simply passing new rules down the road. That's why you're going to see a concerted ISP push for a new net neutrality law starting in the new year. One that professes to "fix" the problem, but is so loophole-filled as to be effectively useless. Its one real purpose? To prevent any future FCCs from re-passing tough net neutrality protections. It will be an attempt to codify regulatory apathy into law.
Even then ISPs aren't likely to block websites outright. In large part because there's a universe of more subtle ways that they can abuse the lack of adult regulatory oversight and limited competition to minimize press and public backlash, whether that's fiddling with interconnection points to drive up costs for transit and content companies, or expanding arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps and overage fees to drive up the cost of cutting the cord.
And there's a universe of "creative" bad behavior these ISPs haven't even thought of yet. Remember, the Trump administration's plan (which is really just Comcast, AT&T and Verizon's plan) is to gut FCC, FTC and state oversight of some of the least-competitive companies in America almost entirely. With neither competition nor adult regulatory federal or state supervision in place to protect consumers and competition, the resulting damage -- once ISPs feel comfortable enough to begin testing the limits of their newfound freedom -- won't be particularly subtle.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ajit pai, fcc, net neutrality, open internet
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's past time we start treating Pai as what he really is: a corrupt assholish liar. The benefit of doubt has expired a few months ago already for this dipshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My guess is that all this is timed so that the dust has settled from the lawsuits by the time Trump is ousted from power (and hopefully Pence or whoever else might replace him in his own party before 2020 or, god forbid, 2024). If those lawsuits succeed, they'll make noises along the lines of the lies that they've been pushing all along. If they fail, they'll find some way of blaming the new administration for the way customers are getting open screwed without NN protections, and use that to try and get re-election. It's sadly pretty clear once you stop assuming these people care about facts or making things work for a majority of citizens.
It's depressing when you can see what's actually happening, but it's hard to get a majority to take enough interest to see how they're being lied to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Do you regularly announce how proud you are whenever you've made poor life choices?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is this coming from the party that sent someone that even Trump could defeat in an election? Talk about poor life choices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Own your disaster. Defend your choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn't vote for Trump idiot, just stating that if you idiots could not beat that idiot with your idiot then what does that say about you idiots?
Trump sucks, they just ran a suckier candidate.
Oh, and whataboutism accusations are just weak minded whining about people exposing your double standards or hypocrisy. So cry me a river if you like, I am still going to point out bitching about Trump is just the loser's way of keeping the focus on him so they don't have to face the fact that their shit stank too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, they're honestly pointing out that your only response to a criticism of Trump's actions is "what about Clinton?". That's what you do what you can't defend his actions and have to deflect instead.
"I am still going to point out bitching about Trump is just the loser's way of keeping the focus on him"
He is the president of your country. Why should people not focus on him more than the people he beat in the election?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and whataboutism accusations are just weak minded whining about people exposing your double standards or hypocrisy
If that's what you simpletons have to tell yourselves to feel better about having a clueless orange retard making an ass of the country, then so be it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The election wasn't between "Trump" and "Clinton"; it was between "Anybody-but-Clinton" and "Anybody-but-Trump"--both candidates, let it be admitted, being compendia of many virtues.
"Anybody-but-Clinton" won handily, popular and electoral alike, in three time zones; whereupon people in the fourth made joyful noises in the form of piling on alas-irrelevant votes for "Anybody-but-Trump".
Thus understood, the "what-about-X" comments make perfect sense as expressions of honesty and public spirit. Whomever you voted against, cherish all the people who also voted against evil in one form or another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rather than trying to make enemies of people who might well be allies here, I'd suggest looking at the election a little differently.
No thanks. That olive branch bullshit is exactly that - bullshit.
Trump is a pathetic piece of shit, who deserves no empathy whatsoever. He reaps what he sows. Those who continue to support this dickbag are exactly the problem with this country - they're willing to overlook common decency over and over again.
They lowered the bar. I'm just playing at their level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"...I am still going to point out bitching about Trump is just the loser's way of keeping the focus on him so they don't have to face the fact that their shit stank too!"
Trump is the one currently fucking up the country, not Clinton. There is absolutely zero reason to keep bringing her up other than to deflect from criticism of Trump and your inability to defend his actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://theintercept.com/2017/11/08/intercepted-podcast-say-hello-to-my-little-hands/
The whole episode is worth listening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, she is nowhere near the disaster that Trump has been for undermining the norms of democracy, and running the most openly corrupt administration in the history of the United States, that is openly hostile to and has effectively declared war on objective reality. She's a calculating professional, whereas Trump is purely incompetent.
They're both poor choices to nominate for leadership, and both major parties screwed up tremendously, but that in no way makes Trump defensible. He is doing damage to fundamental institutions that will take decades to repair.
There is no way to defend a Trump vote or his actions, unless you knowing cast a vote for someone who clearly was a pathological liar and a sociopath who enjoys the company of Nazi sympathizers in the hopes that somehow the damage he inflicted would result in sweeping reform to America's electoral system to prevent a second Trump. And that simply isn't going to happen, based on how the Republican party and congress are enabling him and his supporters in order to pass their self-serving cash grab tax "reform".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pai bashing
FCC NN decision has been made, but can be reversed at some future date.
The more sober NN supporters should focus on NN itself, rather than emotionally bashing Pai and NN opponents.
If NN supporters are correct ... very bad consequences will now develop with NN repeal -- What are those specific consequences (??) and When will they become apparent (??)
NN supporters now have a full real-world test of their views -- if disaster strikes with NN abolition ... then NN re-establishment should be easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pai bashing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pai bashing
We've already been down this road. It's how we ended up with NN rules to begin with. People have already forgotten (willfully or otherwise) all of that.
With NN shot down we *will* end up with bad ISP behavior again. It may take 3 months, it may take a year. But it will happen. Again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pai bashing
You misunderstand the problem. There's not going to be an instant apocalypse affecting the American internet. There will instead be a slow erosion of services and competition, combined with higher prices and restrictions.
All you have to do is look at the history of the major ISPs and see what they've tried to get away with while NN rules were in place, and realise they don't have the same barriers any more. They're too clever to do it overnight as the misinformed would actually notice. But, it will happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pai bashing
It's sad, but history seems doomed to repeat itself over and over. Companies will not self-regulate to protect consumers, so a measure of market regulation from the government is always, always necessary. Otherwise you end up with what healthcare has ended up as in the United States as a cutthroat system that values money over quality and care, or you end up with the banking crisis, where clearly questionable business practices lead to banks needing to beg for a bailout.
Government regulations and monitoring protect the public good. Yes, there can be too-much regulation or sometimes poorly implemented regulation, but other countries around the world have proven that it's better to err on the side more regulation than less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pai bashing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pai bashing
Suggestion: read the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pai bashing
"FCC NN decision has been made, but can be reversed at some future date."
Not if the ISP's get their way and write the laws they really want, which is very clearly their real aim, and quite probably Pai's too.
"The more sober NN supporters should focus on NN itself, rather than emotionally bashing Pai and NN opponents."
That's a nonsensical statement. Pai is directly and personally responsible for undermining the current imperfect but not completely crap scenario. And the only real NN opponents are the ISP's who want to fuck over their customers for more profit. They're exactly who the focus should be on.
"If NN supporters are correct ... very bad consequences will now develop with NN repeal -- What are those specific consequences (??) and When will they become apparent (??)"
Is that a serious question? The answers have been discussed at length quite a bit recently...
"NN supporters now have a full real-world test of their views -- if disaster strikes with NN abolition ... then NN re-establishment should be easy."
This shows your gross ignorance of the topic. That test has already taken place and the results are well documented. It was difficult to fix then and it'll be difficult to fix again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Do you also have over 300 confirmed kills while engaging in gorilla warfare?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The guys who actually understand what they're doing don't list their credentials to random strangers, certainly not as their only argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yet those that don't list them are quickly dismissed for not being one of the experts.
So tell me, to you really feel that threatened?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...only if everything coming out of your mouth is obvious bullshit. If you need to hide behind your credentials then you don't deserve them and probably only "earned" them by virtue of being able to pay for them and squeaked by with marginally passing grades.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have anything of substance to add, or just an appeal to an authority nobody can confirm exists? Try an argument that depends on verifiable facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"I have multiple degrees in Electronics and Information Systems"
I tend to find that anyone who spouts off about what degrees and experience they have without discussing specifics are the most woefully misguided of all. Sorry.
"Your side is so quick to play the intelligence card you keep underestimating the other side"
...and people who think this is a team game are the dumbest of all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Possible ally? Really? In this current age of tribalism by the Republican party, the Democrats arguably are being suckers if they think there's still an expectation of good-faith in political dealings:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/13/16760752/democrats-sexual-harassment-wha taboutism
This is a terrifying political climate to be in, about hyper-partisanship, party over country and people. Trump is not solely to blame, the conservative media empire was ramping up to this eventuality over the course of years, but Trump is certainly a sign the problem has reached a definitive climax. Society is willing to eschew all sense of professional norms for a leader who is essentially a narcissistic sociopath with barely any actual governing or leadership skill, who was helped into power by a Russian campaign in order to likely undermine the United States' position as a global power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
First off bashing "fox news viewers" is idiotic.
Totally agree. It isn't nice to make fun of retards, no matter how funny you think they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He fits right in with his cohorts in crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Animal activists are full of it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/paqd9m/hawaii-net-neutrality-broadband-bill
You see, what this guy in Hawaii is doing is going to be far more effective a solution. It's still not free market, and I am sure it is going to be challenged in courts by the incumbents but it is a better arrangement than NN.
We must first destroy the monopolies then they will lose all of that buying power to fuck you all over. NN keeps the monopoly status quo!
Like I said... NN staying or going does not make much of a difference, but if ever NN loving city/state starts building their own networks... well that will fuck the ISP's harder than NN now wont it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But first they will have to repeal the ISP bought laws that stop them, and second prevent the ISPs from getting the FCC to stop them.
Those ISPs hate laws and regulations that stop them from doing what they want with Internet services, while adoring laws that protect their monopolies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A fight worth having in my opinion.
"Those ISPs hate laws and regulations that stop them from doing what they want with Internet services, while adoring laws that protect their monopolies."
Agree, which is why I hate regulatory agency. All that money sitting there as the regulators eyeball it day in and day out.
This is why I only want regulations that focus on breaking up and preventing monopolies. I don't want any regulation that allow regulators to tell businesses what they should or should not be doing or blessing monopoly fiefdoms like now because it leads to regulatory capture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Also, regulatory capture has become a chronic problem in the US, because heads of agencies are short term political appointees, and therefore have their eye on the next job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is the type of regulation I would prefer to have compared to what we have now.
"Also, regulatory capture has become a chronic problem in the US, because heads of agencies are short term political appointees, and therefore have their eye on the next job."
Yep, but that is spawned from another problem many people here refuse to recognize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stop contradicting yourself.
You can't state you are against regulation and in the next breath state that you are for a particular type of regulation and expect people to take you seriously.
Regulation is regulation, it is not inherently good or bad simply because it is regulation, it is what the regulation actually says that is good or bad.
In my opinion, having regulation that states that users have a right to access any lawful content whenever they want and that ISP's cannot infringe on that right by either blocking, throttling, or prioritizing is a good kind of regulation REGARDLESS of whether or not we eventually get the local loop unbundled. The two are not mutually exclusive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, the corresponding analogy is that a law gets passed decriminalizing heroin. The law doesn't officially take effect for 90+ days but the day after it gets signed they're saying "Look! Legal Heroin hasn't killed anyone!"
The FCC keeps talking about "before 2015" as if it were the golden age of the internet. The reason the NN rules were added was because of what the ISPs demonstrated they were willing to do, in a hope of cutting them off before they went too far. If the reversion holds, this does not bode well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Is NN better than nothing? Well sure... but we still have more than "nothing" to do still. I hope the death of NN gets the people, cities, and states to rebel in a way that gets them to start dismantling the monopoly and destroying NN is far more likely to cause that revolution than if we keep it around so all you Linuses can have your security blankets to hold while sucking your thumbs!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What Title II did was to give minor protections against the most major of of the dirtbag tricks that ISP's could come up with, but now we have nothing and the way is open for big ISP to make their own rules that most likely will be very bad for anyone who aren't them. This will be more likely to pass now that there is nothing.
We didn't stride to just keep Title II, but it did provide a bit of breathing room and a stepping stone to combat the remaining problems... instead we have to spend all our energy keeping a new bad law out, instead of making something better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would say the nuttery you guys are showing over NN support leads me to believe that you are ignoring it for the time being and intentionally so.
I actually agree with ISP's being classified as Title II but bad exceptions were made making the agreement stink to high heavens!
"We didn't stride to just keep Title II, but it did provide a bit of breathing room and a stepping stone to combat the remaining problems..."
Nope, that is where are wrong. It's a weak and pathetic band-aid that won't solve a problem. At best kicking the can down the road!
While NN was in effect I still saw Caps, over charging/stuffing, terrible service and still had my connection throttled or bandwidth limited. So in short... NN is just a feel good piece of toilet paper that is only good for a quick trip to the shitter!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, that was easy. There's no way we're "ignoring" zero rating schemes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
NN rules isn't about fixing the dam, it's about shoring up the dam enough to give us time to fix the dam PROPERLY without it all collapsing and making life 10x more miserable for everyone than it already is.
The only nuttery on display here is yours and those like you who conveniently ignore facts and continue to make claims about what we have or haven't done/supported that are patently and verifiably false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nobody ignored it. The thing is, zero rating was a workaround, a way for the ISPs to get around the rules while pretending to uphold neutrality. They don't have to pretend any more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I judge based on the "fruit" of the labor. You can bring it up all day long, but your actions make it clear you really are ignoring it. As long as Zero rating remains, its a shit bill! A work around like like you said so they can "pretend" which has the same result as though it was being ignored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You people really are idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dumb argument which I usually see reserved for use by gun-fondlers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That makes him a valuable asset to the Trump administration, then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So the stink on both Obama and Trump for that shit stain, though appointment to Chairman is obviously a smellier foul!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's disingenuous to smear Obama with Pai's stink.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, he's almost certainly not. Corrupt as hell, but I honestly do not think he's stupid, which just makes it worse.
If someone it too stupid to understand the consequences of their actions it's unfair to blame them too much for them. Yeah they may cause problems, but it's not out of any malicious intent, they simply don't know any better.
Contrast that to someone who is smart enough to understand what they are doing. It's completely justified to blame them for their actions as they know full well what they are doing and do/did it anyway.
Pai's not a fool, he knows full well that he's screwing over the public to serve the ones he should be keeping in check, he simply doesn't care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I disagree. Criminals can be smart. In fact there have been a number of terrorists with advanced degrees over the years.
Ajit Pai has spent his life using the courts to boost stuff from people who actually work for a living. I doubt the guy has the engineering skills to fold a paper airplane. In consequence he doesn't fathom severity of the damage he has just done. To him it is just policy.
The fact that he just took a giant shit on the lifes work of thousands of Americans, not to mention betraying his oath and his country, doesn't even occur to him. As long as he gets nice limo rides back and forth to the T.V. studio with lovely "personal assistants" to take care of his needs, and the adoring affirmations of mullah Verizon, he doesn't care.
People aren't people to this guy. The problem isn't that he is an idiot. His faith in his absolute superiority in all things, precludes any reasoned debate. He is simply a terrorist with a law degree. Frankly I'm surprised that particular problem hasn't been corrected yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Checkmate environmentalists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What actually happened, of course, is that while the hysteria helped people be aware of how important it was, companies running older systems vulnerable to the bug either got them repaired or replaced with something not vulnerable. So, by the time the date came to pass, only a few people were affected by the very real, but defanged issue.
The problem here is that this isn't the date when we see the outcome. The frog has only just been put on boil, so to speak, it's just a matter of time before people notice that they're the boiling frog, but it will take enough time they won't blame the repeal of NN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This form of non-NN was known, both in experience of how the American ISPs were breaking things already, and in comparison with other countries who had competition and some form of NN. You also have ISPs writing bad self-interested law. So it's a lot more evidenced - it's not like airlines were writing laws indemnifying them for planes falling from the sky!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pai
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pai should just shut the hell up.
Of course this asshole is crowing about how companies haven't done anything bad yet. Companies arent going to just go crazy abusive overnight it will be a slow subtle progress to avoid public outrage themselves.
They already started the push to write a new net neutrality law that will be sold to us by congress but will unequivocally be writen by the corporations. You can bet it will be as full of loopholes as every other protectionist law they have writen in the past, enough so as to provide zero protection from their abuses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Named after the parable that if you throw a frog into hot water it'll jump out, but if you put it in cold water it'll happily stay until it's cooked, as the heating of the water is too gradual for it to notice.
.
It's just one of the numerous fallacies employed by both NN attackers and climate science denialists alike. They just don't have the cognitive capability of thinking in the long-term. They can't comprehend that trends established in the past and continuing in the present will also most likely extend through the future.
.
"My front yard's covered in snow not ocean, so climate change is all alarmism and hysteria."
.
"My internet didn't get tiered, capped and throttled overnight, therefore the harm of no regulation is all alarmism amd hysteria."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When someone's stupid enough to use that argument, I ask them what season it is. When they say winter, I say, no it's not, Australia is having a very hot summer right now. Only half the planet is experiencing winter, and even then there's lots of countries where it's not anywhere near cold enough to see snow even in winter.
They usually just get angry and rant or sulk rather than have it dawn on them what the first word in the term "global warming" actually means. But, it's more pleasant than having them throw the same discredited "proof" back at me to debunk for the hundredth time only for the actual evidence to be ignored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hit you in the eye with a Pai-atollah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hit you in the eye with a Pai-atollah
Thank you Steve Dahl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pai thinks people worried about NN repeal cutting off official White House communication channel?
Lemme see if I get this straight. Twitter, which serves as the President's preferred _official_ communication channel, continues to operate after the repeal of net neutrality, and this is proof that I shouldn't worry.
Well, whether I should worry or not, I'm sure not surprised.
And to me, if the repeal of net neutrality would cut the President off from Twitter as an _official_ communication channel, I think that _would_ be a strong selling point. Perhaps Ajit Pai should look into this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In short, please don't feed the crocodiles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]