New York State Eyes Its Own Net Neutrality Law
from the looming-legal-fisticuffs dept
Numerous states say they'll be crafting their own net neutrality protections in the wake of the FCC's recent vote to dismantle the rules. ISPs of course predicted this, which is why Comcast and Verizon successfully lobbied the FCC to include provisions in its "Restoring Internet Freedom" order that bans states from protecting consumers from privacy and net neutrality violations, or other bad behavior by incumbent ISPs. In ISP lobbying land, stopping states from writing protectionist law is an assault on "states rights," but when states actually try to help consumers you'll note the concern for states rights magically disappears.
Regardless, New York State, California and Washington have all indicated that they will attempt to test the FCC's state preemption authority on this front in the new year by crafting their own net neutrality legislation. You'll recall that the FCC already had its wrist slapped by the courts for over-reach when it tried to preempt states from passing anti-community broadband laws, quite literally written by large ISPs, intended to hamstring creative solutions (including public/private partnerships) for the telecom industry's broadband competition logjam.
But even if the FCC wins this new legal fight over state authority, folks like New York Assemblymember Patricia Fahy argue there's numerous steps states and cities can take to protect consumers on the net neutrality front without running afoul of the FCC's order. The text of her proposal (pdf) includes numerous proposals, including refusing to do business with companies that repeatedly violate net neutrality:
"If you are going to be a contractor and want to work with New York, then you must meet the principles,” Fahy tells Fast Company. She hopes that this approach will get around a roadblock known as preemption. The Constitution generally gives the federal government final authority over commercial activities that cross state lines. But while New York can’t require ISPs to uphold net neutrality, it can use its “power of the purse” to punish ISPs that don’t.
"There’s a decent amount of precedent for saying, if you want a state contract, you have to meet such and such requirements,” she says, noting construction contracts contingent on certain labor practices or the use of U.S.-made steel."
Again we'll see how this all pans out in the new year. States will likely face the same problem as the federal government did when trying to define net neutrality violations amidst a sea of ISP lobbying influence. Regardless, the FCC's battles with the states will be just one part of a cavalcade of lawsuits filed against the FCC in the new year for over-stepping its authority, ignoring the public, and rushing through what's potentially the least-popular decision in tech-policy history.
This same sequence of events played out earlier this year when the GOP and Trump administration rushed to kill consumer broadband privacy protections, resulting in numerous states attempting to create their own broadband privacy laws. And while Comcast, Verizon and AT&T lobbyists like to whine that states are wreaking havoc by creating discordant, inconsistent consumer protections, they tend to ignore the fact that this wouldn't be happening if they hadn't spent millions of dollars gutting popular, over-arching protections on the federal level.
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: broadband, competition, fcc, net neutrality, oversight, states, states rights
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I'm hoping Republicans get a rude awakening then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Consider the "special election" held recently in Alabama. For all of the bad stuff that came out about the Republican candidate, the election is still close enough that this guy won't concede. That means that even in the Metoo world we live in, being an accused multiple sexual attacker isn't strong enough to sway "conservative" voters.
Democrats would likely squeak out a narrow Senate majority (but not as likely in the house) but as soon as they try to flex their muscles, the will get shut down. That leads to 2 years of the Republicans going on about how the Democrats are fucking things up, and Trump ends up with a second term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Flex their muscles? Is that what you call it?
Or - Trump is going to be impeached. Stay tuned, same cheeto time, same cheeto station.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Impeachment doesn't do anything. Nothing short of resignation is going to remove him from office, and he's too arrogant for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The senate special election did result in a change but, unless the republicans run a deplorable slate of candidates (ala Moore, Akin) it's very unlikely that control of the house or senate will change hands.
I know liberal pundits are predicting a blue wave, but that's just to try and generate some hope among the base. Turnout in blue states may soar as a result, but it probably won't make a difference in red states.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Democrats are currently polling at about 13% above Republicans on a generic ballot. That's not enough to win solid-red states like Utah, but it's enough to win light-red states like Arizona. Jeff Flake won by 3 points in 2012; if I'm the Democrat running for his seat (likely Kyrsten Sinema), I'm liking my odds right now.
There are no guarantees, of course. Back-of-the-napkin math, though? Right now it's looking like Democrats are a slight favorite to take the House, and the Senate is close to a toss-up.
The president's party almost always loses seats in the midterms. And we've never had a president this unpopular at this point in his term. I think it's very likely that the Democrats will pick up seats; it's less a question of "if" than "how many".
It's true that Moore was an unusually bad candidate. FiveThirtyEight suggests that he lost 10 points due to the Democrats' opening advantage, another 10 points due to being an exceptionally bad candidate, and another 10 points after being accused of having sex with underage girls. You're right that most Republicans will not face a confluence of all three of those factors. But all Republicans are looking at that initial 10-point deficit (up to 13 in the current generic ballot; expect it to fluctuate in the coming months). And Bannon's pushing more candidates who fit factor #2 (including Kelli Ward in Arizona -- again, if I'm Synema I'm liking my odds). We'll see some of #3, too -- not necessarily accusations as awful as the ones against Moore, but the #metoo movement is just getting started, and we're going to be learning about a lot of sexual misconduct by politicians in the coming months. (However, that particular weakness is not limited to one side; sexual misconduct is not partisan. We can expect to see more accusations against Republicans and Democrats alike.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Of course the democrats suffered historic losses in the 2010 election, so this might give democrats some hope. But - even though the democrats lost the house in 2010 they held on to the senate, which should give republicans some hope.
However, the map is very different this year. It's so far tilted against the democrats this time, I can't see a blue wave 'bloodbath' happening. If democrats do take control of either chamber, it will be close.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Third sentence of the article:
Don't cherry-pick an outlier, look at the aggregate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem is that the FCC is trying to bluff the states by telling them they cannot pass their own net neutrality laws and that what's going to happen is when more and more states start passing their own net neutrality laws within their own states, it could very well create a domino effect where more and more states pass their own net neutrality laws and it could very well embarrass and undermine the FCC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, the sort of can. Interstate communications is a federal prerogative, not a state one. States cannot pass regulation onto how an interstate communications company would operate their communications network, that is for the Feds.
The states can do things for consumer privacy protections, provided it's framed as being for all industries and not narrowly set only for internet companies. Otherwise, there would be enough wiggle room in there for lawsuits that would keep the law in the freezer for years.
Also, you need to understand that there is at least one (and possibly more) "net neutrality" laws pending on congress that will very, very specifically ban the states from trying to override federal jurisdiction in the matter. No matter what those NN rules are, it's better to have a national standard than a state or municipal level patchwork of contradictory laws and mindless reporting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FCC Magic
Amusing to see Democrats and progressives suddenly enthusiastic for "States Rights" against the Federal government.
Note also that the NY State legislature is notoriously corrupt and easily purchased/bribed by special interests, big business or otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FCC Magic
I have been warning those losers that their zealotry over regulation is going to be the very thing used to fuck them.
They never listen, I am not even sure it is possible for them to view the world through anything other than democrat colored glasses. But this is also true of republicans.
But this just goes towards my constant claim that everyone actually does want corruption in government... well as long as it serves their purposes. They only bitch about that corruption when it is from their enemies.
You reap what you sow... a lesson I learned a long time ago and one that democrats will refuse to learn even while they succumb to the demise they could have been saved from if they would just learn it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FCC Magic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FCC Magic
That's not how quotation marks work.
States' Rights: Not Just for Racists Anymore.
There is, perhaps, some irony in seeing partisans support states' rights in some instances and not others (it is, after all, a Republican FCC that is explicitly attempting to limit states' rights here). And it's certainly ironic that the Sixth Circuit's ruling against Wheeler's FCC is likely to have consequences for Pai's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Works for me, I have been telling you folks that NN per the FCC and "Wheeler vision" is pure weak-sauce and a terrible solution for much bigger problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I have been saying it because no one will listen and you are proof of that. I warned those like you that this was coming but you are too stupid to listen.
That dagger grinding in your back... it was the one you gave government to use against your political foes... how it found its way into your back is not exactly a secret now is it?!
Ironic...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Given how you use “retard” as an insult—and how you insult everyone in general for not immediately and continuously giving you a metaphorical blowjob for your supposed intelligence—you should already know exactly why people do not listen to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"https://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/09/obama-you-get-the-politicians-you-deserve-238150"
D oes your lord and master "Obama" eat them too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your "stupid" biases are. When you decide to look at the facts, follow the money, and how you keep sabotaging yourselves you will stop being stupid.
I know you fucktards are capable of curing yourselves which is why I am hard on you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now, when you say “curing yourselves”, do you mean “thinking for yourself” or “making sure the last thing that goes through your head is a bullet”?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You sick fucks need a fucking therapist!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why is “retard” your go-to insult for anyone you think is even slightly less intelligent than you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I answered your question are you going to answer mine or just deflect like a usual "can't answer a straight question" lefty?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> Assumes everyone who disagrees with him is a filthy lefty
...Whatever tints the rose in your glasses, sparky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let me help you out with some information.
The left seeks to control your life and economy through big government and psuedo-consumer protectionist regulation, so supporting that makes you a left leaning person in that regard.
The right seeks to control your life and economy through big business and business protectionist regulation, so supporting the destruction of NN makes me right leaning on this subject.
Now... all the times I was accused of being a Trump supporter or repuke when I was against NN, I did not see hide nor hair of your rose tinted accusations against those guys.
Funny that right?
I hold independent, libertarian, left, right, liberal, and conservative values. I am okay with being labeled, as long as it is correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think you'll find many people who will seriously disagree with your point that government is generally corruptible and broken, that much we're clear. Yelling at other people no matter what party, background, influence, social bracket or country they come from that everything which goes wrong in government is their fault but yours has been your shtick. It's about as useful and relevant as pointing out that a restaurant napkin doesn't have a vagina.
You get called out on it because you actually believe you're significantly contributing to the conversation by saying that every citizen on the planet deserves the government someone on the other hemisphere gets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When it comes to government most people are left of center. But that is not the ONLY benchmark that makes people right or left now is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Conservatives used to hold a bigger range of views than "Government bad." This is why partisanship is so dangerous. The reductionism inevitably leads to extremism.
Government by the people for the people is a good and healthy thing. That people have abrogated their responsibilities due to GOP propaganda and are refusing to hold their representatives to account is proof that they've stopped thinking for themselves and have resorted to simplistic tribalism.
Anarchy doesn't scale!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anti-net neutrality folks fear that regulation of internet service providers will result in regulation of internet content, something socialist/communist/totalitarian regimes are already implementing around the world. There are folks on the left who believe that America would be well served if conservative sites were shut down.
Right leaning and left leaning folks both have valid fears. What we all want is a free and open internet, we just differ in the best way to accomplish that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is false equivalence.
First, the pro- and anti-net neutrality sides are not remotely equal in size. Americans, of all political affiliations, overwhelmingly favor net neutrality. The only place where it's a partisan political issue is Congress.
Second, Title II does not allow the FCC to regulate content. That's not a thing. People who say that the removal of net neutrality will cause ISPs to restrict traffic have evidence to back that claim up. People who claim that Title II regulation allows the FCC to restrict content on the Internet are wrong. The two viewpoints are not equivalent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They are not intelligent enough to grasp that around here.
You either do it their "prescribed way" or you are an anarchist to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is not that they disagree with me that makes them a retards... is is the solution they support that makes them the retard.
But sure, go ahead and misrepresent my position, you are only about the XXXXXth one to do so, nothing new there.
You retards know you are already wrong, hell you are looking at what I told you was coming with your regulatory zealotry and you STILL won't listen.
What do you call a bunch of folks that ridicule and ignore people that tell them that they are getting stabbed in the back and STILL ridicule and ignore them when it happens?
Retards, I would say!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, not everyone, just 83% of people.
But hey, seventeen percent isn't bad. It's more than half as many as believe in Bigfoot.
Well, obviously I'm not living in a rural area; I have Internet access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mass delusions and mass hysteria are quite real phenomenon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do not see this as being the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do not deny them their delusions, they hate it when you prove them wrong. You have to "sweet talk" them into seeing it differently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you think continually insulting people constitutes "sweet talk", there's something wrong with your view of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are apparently too stupid to understand my response while others were able.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is that you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Provide article and post, don't just assume which AC I am.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because you folks advance terrible solutions to problems you are retarding the procession of a better solution. Which is why it is appropriate for me to call you retards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tooting that horn perhaps a bit too loud
And the worst players will be just fine with that, since they can rely on the Federal government to sit by while state governments usurp even more rights than the fed. All the while the chain of appeals courts between civil rights leaders and SCOTUS becomes even longer. Thus the probability of any given case stumbling into a court they own lock stock and barrel, gets even higher.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?
The economy is rebounding under a republican-led congress and a Trump presidency. The tax reform/cuts that we got are actually going to benefit the middle class, the government followed through on a promise that was proclaimed by Democrats in recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and we're actually seeing job growth in the country.
The problem with democrats was that when Trump was campaigning for president, they weren't dealing with your typical Republican, Trump was actually listening to Americans. If the Democratic Party had backed Bernie Sanders instead of Hillary Clinton, someone who offended many blacks and many women in this country, then the Democrats would have won the White House.
I just also think that the FCC might be in a no-win situation. The Net Neutrality issue has polarized the country and it's possible that Ajit-"whatever da fuck his name is" simply is going to either end up losing the final battle for Net Neutrality or that he's going to force more states into adopting net neutrality rules.
The FCC, simply does not have executive privilege to preempt states from passing their own policies. Sure, the FCC can try, but the more they dig in their heels, the more they'll come out smelling like garbage. I don't know, I just don't see the FCC coming out of this smelling nice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Trump inherited an improving economy created by the Obama administration. Giving him and the current Republican-led Congress all the credit for the economy this year seems more than a bit shortsighted (and partisan). If the economy stays stable or gets worse over the next three years, Trump and Congress should accept responsibility for that; if it continues to improve, they should be given credit for that.
“You all just got a lot richer.” — Donald Trump, to a group of wealthy friends at Mar-a-Lago, the evening after he signed the tax bill
This decision created numerous rifts in diplomatic relationships that will be hanging over Trump’s head for as long as he is in office.
Again, let us see if Trump and Congress can keep that going for the next three years before we fall to our knees and, uh, praise them.
He was listening to White Americans, at least.
Quit litigating the 2016 primaries. You cannot know, with the certainty of God, whether Sanders would have won against Trump—or what the Trump campaign would have looked like with Sanders as the opposing candidate.
Also: Do not act as if Trump never offended anybody. He just had enough people who did not care that his campaign was built on authoritative White nationalism with a side of Christian theocracy.
Only because the FCC gives more weight to the corporations running FCC-regulated industries than it does to the general public that the agency supposedly serves.
According to most of the polling that I have seen, a healthy majority of people—made up of majorities from both sides of the political aisle—support Network Neutrality. “Polarizing” is not the adjective I would use here.
In which case, his entire crusade to dismantle Network Neutrality for the sake of his corporate leash-holders would seem all the more foolish in light of his intentionally making himself look like a gigantic gaping asshole.
The FCC did not go into this smelling nice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Agree, it has stunk since its birth!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your answer to your own question is severely lacking in both depth and breadth. Are you often a guest speaker on Fox news?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
backdoor ban / regulation through taxation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem is that most of the solutions coming out are municipal broadband which means government is going to get "carte blanche" on spying on the citizens... but it's not like leftists have the mental capacity to think that because for them... government IS the god they have "faith" in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The government already had carte blanche to spy on American citizens.
And any state-level regulatory law for ISPs should include network neutrality as an obligatory principle. Competition between companies should be focused on who has the better service, not who can offer “normal” speeds or even bare-minimum access to the most sites for the lowest cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but apparently I should have made my post more concise. I have to keep remembering that you guys have blinders on. This would give "local" governments carte blanche to spy on it's citizens where municipal access is constructed.
"And any state-level regulatory law for ISPs should include network neutrality as an obligatory principle."
What government "should do" and what it "does do" have historically proven to be at odds with each other.
"Competition between companies should be focused on who has the better service"
THIS is what I advocate for. Laws and regulations that help ensure that fair competition is easy to achieve! NN does not do this and never will. If we can remove the protectionist laws/regulations protecting these government blessed monopolies we will get NN automatically because any competitor will use it as a hook to gain customers.
And WHAM a free-market principle giving us what we wanted without it even having to be a law for idiot politicians to fuck up to begin with!
[sorry guys I hit the wrong button]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've heard some nutty statements in my time but man, you take the cake, table, chairs, and part of the floor.
Conspiracy theorist much? Do you listen to Alex Jones too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would ask how a person as stupid as you could possibly exist, but considering human history I would have to say that question was answered before you were even born.
You are so stupid I would be embarrassed to be associated with any group you "claimed" to belong to! Do a little research before you show the world how fucking dumb you are next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stingrays, ALPR's, and traffic cameras (all essentially self-contained and developed by third parties) are relatively easy to set up and operate compared to putting together a datacenter with the requirements and staff necessary to house all of the data being pumped into it by users (newsflash, there are magnitudes more data there than what is collected by any of those other systems).
The requirements and technical knowledge necessary to run an internet spying operation are far greater and more demanding than the local police office rolling out a stingray or even traffic cameras.
And that only touches on the collection and storage. Then you have to have a system to classify it, search it, DBA's to manage it, etc...
In addition to that, most local governments are nowhere near as corrupt as the state or federal level. Why? Because they are usually too small for corporations to lobby and because their elected officials are usually peoples' neighbors and the community is closer-knit. Generally speaking you're not going to want to do something that is going to directly impact and tick off your friends and family.
Plus, Stingrays, ALPR's, and traffic cameras are all deployed by law enforcement to try and catch criminals (usually). Municipal broadband isn't and wouldn't be installed or run by law enforcement so what possible reason for spying on you would local governments have? The benefits the federal government get by it aren't in effect at the local level.
Finally, law enforcement use of those systems, while used illegally in many cases, is not inherently illegal and generally is used only for catching criminals. (Not saying I'm perfectly fine with them, far from it) Deliberately capturing all of your local population's internet usage for non-law enforcement usage is blatantly illegal (since it's local you can't even make the "national security" claim) and there is no way that could ever be hidden, in every town all the time.
Also, your insults are lame and weak sauce. If you're going to insult someone, at least do it right. And if your only defense against our points is to insult us, well, then we've already won. If you want to actually convince us of something and change our minds, try dropping the insults and actually presenting some hard, reliable and verifiable facts. Ones that we can't easily disprove using simple logic, common sense, and a quick Google search.
Before you call me stupid, why don't you check your own facts before you embarrass yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then you have apparently failed to understand them.
"Stingrays, ALPR's, and traffic cameras (all essentially self-contained and developed by third parties) are relatively easy to set up and operate compared to putting together a datacenter with the requirements and staff necessary to house all of the data being pumped into it by users (newsflash, there are magnitudes more data there than what is collected by any of those other systems)."
All Paid for by those "cash strapped" local governments you claimed to not have the time, manpower, or resources... "You seriously think that local governments have the time, manpower, and resources to put together a spying operation for all municipal broadband customers?"
Apparently they DO have the resources... you just help prove your own claim wrong. How does it feel to be so stupid?
"In addition to that, most local governments are nowhere near as corrupt as the state or federal level."
O shit, I knew I should not have picked on a fundie... my bad, my bad. I will trouble you and your religion no longer friend! I hope you and the Church of Government are long lived and prosperous!
"Also, your insults are lame and weak sauce. If you're going to insult someone, at least do it right. And if your only defense against our points is to insult us, well, then we've already won."
You tossed the insults first, but got all whiny when I tossed them back at you? Stop being a cry baby.. you got what you gave you big baby! You need a trophy for that so you are brave enough to post again or are you going to break down and cry about it for me again?
To be clear, I do not intend insult, I genuinely believe you are being stupid, therefore I called you stupid. Correct the problem and I will stop calling you stupid! Got it stupid?
People whining about insults are problematic because they are NOT contributing tot he solution, they are creating another problem by saying people have to comport to their behavior standards like a group of crybabies! You sir are the weak-sauce, not I. Call me whatever you please I am not so thin skinned as to let it get to me and start whining that someone called me a bad name.
do you need a trophy for participation now? I would hate to scare you away from the big bad internet where stupid, smart, and wise people are going to pick on you in one fashion or another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That never seems to stop you…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know I am right but its easier to hit back about my language to deflect from the fact that you are losing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can be right without being a condescending jerk towards everyone who disagrees with you about…well, anything, really. It costs you nothing to not be an asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was bullied in school, that statement is one of ignorance.
People didn't listen to me until I put a stop to the bullying. Know what happened when I fought back? Now I am the bad guy. Where were all the social justice warriors when I was getting bullied? No one cared that I defended myself, they just cared that I kicked someone, asshole or not, right or not!
If you are MORE worried about how nice a person is rather than that truth they bring you are more often than not going to be deceived! A nice person plays on your ego with sweet words to get you to believe in their cause. A person of justice and truth will just lay it right out without buttering you up first.
A lie is bitter in the beginning but sweet in the end, the truth is sweet in the beginning but bitter in the end.
The truth itself is an insult to many people. To say that I must be nice is often the same as saying do not bring me truth for I do not desire its immediately harsh words!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I screwed that up bad...
it should be
"The truth is bitter in the beginning but sweet in the end, while a lie is sweet in the beginning but bitter in the end."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you got it right the first time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That was a rewording of the "Truth is a bitter pill to swallow" saying.
To mock someone that is correcting an error is pretty showing of your integrity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was bullied in school, too. I stand by my statement and its sentiment.
Were you actively looking for fights instead of merely defending yourself? If so, yes, you were an asshole.
Tell me how I am wrong about something, and I will listen; call me an ignorant fool before that, and I will not. You can be crude and angry during an argument—tone is not the issue here. Insulting a person before telling them that they are wrong about something, however, is priming them to take your argument less seriously. (It is also a cheap setup for you to smugly point out how they focused on your calling them names instead of the substance of your actual argument was, thus giving you a “win”.) If you want people to take your arguments seriously, calling people “retards” before you put them forth will not get that particular job done.
And an asshole will call you a “retard” before saying whatever they have to say.
(By the by: People can be nice without boosting someone’s ego. Politeness and civility are still things that exist.)
So are actual insults.
Speak the truth, if you feel it is the truth. Say it to my face if necessary. But do not be surprised if I reject what you say, even if it is the truth, because you prefaced it with “you are a retard if you don’t get this”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do not call people fools or use that word to attack others and NEVER WILL.
I have grown tired of your constant lies to misrepresent my position. You are either a troll or a dogmatic sycophant incapable of reason.
"Tell me how I am wrong about something, and I will listen"
You have already proven multiple times that you will willingly lie. You wouldn't listen to truth if it was the last thing being uttered in existence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, you just use “retard”. Totally better, amirite? 🤔
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Calling someone a fool is out of the question for me. Calling someone a retard is just calling them slow to understand and does not rise to the equivalence of calling them a fool.
If you need to increase the severity of a simple insult to power your indignation then you actively seek to be insulted and will find insult where it is not even intended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
noun
a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense.
Origin
1225–75; Middle English fol, fool < Old French fol < Latin follis bellows, bag; cf. follis
Synonyms
simpleton, dolt, dunce, blockhead, numskull, ignoramus, dunderhead, ninny, nincompoop, booby, saphead, sap. 2. zany, clown. 5. moron, imbecile, idiot. 6. delude, hoodwink, cheat, gull, hoax, cozen, dupe, gudgeon.
To summarize, fool = stupid person.
Please, tell us again how you consider the etymology of words befor you use them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
verb
verb: retard; 3rd person present: retards; past tense: retarded; past participle: retarded; gerund or present participle: retarding
riˈtärd/
1.
delay or hold back in terms of progress, development, or accomplishment.
-------------------------------------
yea, I am good.
retard != fool
The information is right there on the internet and you STILL FAILED!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh did I?
retard noun re·tard
Definition of retard
1: a holding back or slowing down : retardation
2 offensive : a person affected with mental retardation
3 informal, usually offensive : a foolish or stupid person
Gee, it's right there on the internet and you STILL failed. You provided the definition of the verb form, but you are using the noun form in all your posts.
So let's try this again: retard = fool.
Supposing that you were intending the first definition of the noun form (which I doubt since you are obviously trying to be offensive), no one in normal conversation would assume that calling someone a retard meant you were saying they were holding progress back. They would, correctly, assume you meant either definition 2 or 3.
If you insist that isn't what you meant, then pick a different word that isn't commonly used to call someone a stupid fool! Any third grader understands at least that much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because to my eye, "retard" itself looks more questionable than "fool" does.
"To retard" means "to delay, to slow down, to hinder, to hold back", and that a "retarded" person is one whose mental development is (delayed, slowed down, hindered, held back) by something outside of that person's own control - by what in reasonably-modern terms is called a developmental disability.
The term "retard" for a person who does not have such a disability is thus a slur on those who actually do have such disabilities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are guys are still resisting even while looking directly at a dictionary proving me correct that calling someone a fool is not the same as calling someone a retard.
In the case here, I am only calling you a bunch of retards because your ignorance and resistance to being properly educated is retarding a proper solution to this problem hence it's appropriate usage here!
You may have received an education, but it does not guarantee that you ARE educated!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apparently I didn't get my meaning across, so let me attempt to clarify.
I was not attempting to prove that calling someone a fool is in any sense equivalent to calling someone a retard.
To my eye, given their respective etymologies, the use of "retard" as an insult is more offensive than the use of "fool" as an insult.
To reject the use of "fool" as an insult, while continuing to use "retard" that way, is therefore backwards; the fact that you do so makes you look worse in my eyes than if you did it the other way around.
If (as seems likely, though I have not seen it confirmed) you either reject or fail to see that "retard" is more offensive than "fool" based on the terms' respective etymologies, that fact makes you look either stupid, or like an asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
here are the links to the definition.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/retard
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ry/fool
You have "bad eyes" friend.
Here are the etymologies.
Middle English: from Old French fol ‘fool, foolish,’ from Latin follis ‘bellows, bag,’ by extension ‘empty-headed person
late 15th century: from French retarder, from Latin retardare, from re- ‘back’ + tardus ‘slow.’
Calling someone 'slow' is far less insulting than calling someone 'emtpy-headed'.
A slow person will go farther than someone without any wit to speak of at all.
What world do you live in to be this ignorant and then to freely advertise it while calling ME the asshole?
Your picture must be right next to the definition of clusterfuck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
3 play \ˈrē-ˌtärd\ informal, usually offensive : a foolish or stupid person
Read it and weep, retard. (See what I did there?)
How are your eyes? Need some glasses there buddy?
Your picture is right there next to the definition of moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I use to be "bullied" in School Too1! People would Bully me by Saying things like "Chip, you can't just put Capital Letters and Quotation marks in Random palces" and "Chip, that's not what Sycophantic means" and "Sir, are you sure your suppose to Be Here, this is a middle School and you are obviously in your Early 30's?"
Then I Fought Back! I called those people Retards, because I am Very, Very "smart"! Now I am the "bad Guy"? What a bunch of Sycophantic idiots!
It is the same "here"! Everyone Laguhs at me here! They "bully" e by saying things like "But how is removing Title II regulations going to increase Broadband competaionp?" and "Joseph de Maistre was a monarchist and what he was saying was that people need a King because they are too "stupid" to vote" and "Yes you did say all regulations are bad, look, here are some links to post where you said that".
And then you all tell "lies" about me! Like I have "no Solutions" even though I have lots and "lots" of solutions, which I already told you and I am not going to Tell you Again! And that I called you a "fool"! I never called Anyone a Fool, you Stupid dumb retard Idiot!
Why are all you Sycophantic "idiots" so Mean to "me"? I neer did "anything "to dserve this Kind of Treatment, you fucking Retards!
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
keep up the work mr paint chip eater!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He can?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyone—even assholes—can have a Broken Clock Moment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But, that still doesn't negate any of the points I made or the fact that your insults are quite lame and weak sauce. I've had chat bots throw better insults my way than what you do.
For how long your reply was, you provided no evidence to disprove any of my points other than to point out that I did insult you first and subsequently sling a bunch of insults that weren't any more clever than "you're stupid, stupid". Oh yes, very original and biting. What is this grade school?
As for "proving myself wrong", I suppose I didn't explicitly specify that the cost of setting up a broadband spying operation was also massively more expensive than stingrays, etc... I figured that was obvious. Let me correct that, setting up a broadband spying operation is also massively more expensive than deploying any of those other systems. Happy now?
Being insulted by a nameless person who could be thousands of miles away from me doesn't bother me in the least. That's the nice thing about anonymity on the internet. If it was a friend or family member saying things like that, then I would be a bit hurt. Someone who knows nothing about me and is essentially an internet bully barely even registers.
What does bother me is people's blatant ignorance of and/or deliberate and willful misrepresentation of facts and truth. That's also what frustrates me and leads to occasional outbursts of insults. You have shown at best a blatant ignorance of facts, truth, logic, common sense, and general human nature. When we point that out with hard, verifiable facts, your only response is to sling weak insults and call us stupid. Can you see how we may not be persuaded by such arguments?
All that aside, if you want to start an insult contest then let's go, it's actually quite fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Admission, my respect for you grows sir!
"But, that still doesn't negate any of the points I made or the fact that your insults are quite lame and weak sauce. I've had chat bots throw better insults my way than what you do."
I have no problem with that, you have your opinions and I have mine. I only called you out because griping about someone using insults when you use them yourself was hypocritical.
"As for "proving myself wrong", I suppose I didn't explicitly specify that the cost of setting up a broadband spying operation was also massively more expensive than stingrays, etc... I figured that was obvious. Let me correct that, setting up a broadband spying operation is also massively more expensive than deploying any of those other systems. Happy now?"
No dice sir, your angle was to clearly indicate that local governments would not be able to somehow acquire or seek resources to spy on people. The federal government will most certainly provide funding by giving them the resources just like they give away APC's to the police. You greatly underestimate the forces at work here.
If technologically possible government WILL spy on you and MAKE you pay for it. It's not a secret, its not even a conspiracy for nutters to discuss in dark corners. Hell the DHS even has a "See something, Say something" open invited to spy and tattle on your fellow citizens. It is also an open discussion with every nation and and most local municipalities the world over.
"Being insulted by a nameless person..."
Seriously man, get over it. Even talking bout insults is a waste of effort, I only cared about you being a hypocrite over it. I have enough respect from my own family that they insult me for the fun of it, but when I speak up about a subject they listen because I usually get it right. I don't claim to be perfect, I do make mistakes, but I am trying to tell many of you that your blind support for things like NN and government regulation is a mistake and what led to these problems.
"Can you see how we may not be persuaded by such arguments?"
That is the intention sir! Because it proves something I have been trying to get you people to understand.
You don't care about the truth, you only care about what fits your agenda. The truth is not important only how well the lie is oiled. People seeking to deceive you are not likely to come with insults, they will come with sweet words to trick you and play right on your ego.
"All that aside, if you want to start an insult contest then let's go, it's actually quite fun."
Okay temping but you go first. If you are funny enough I will try my hand at it as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The federal government will most certainly provide funding by giving them the resources just like they give away APC's to the police. You greatly underestimate the forces at work here.
Because the federal government has enough money and resources to give this capabaility to every single city/town/village in the US. Right. Which also assumes every city/town/village wants it, see my argument above about corruption not being as pervasive at the local levels. And like I said, if the government were to try something like that, there is no way it could be kept secret and the people would likely revolt.
Yes, the federal government does want to spy on us, no argument there. But you can't say that all governments (talking about local, not nation state) want to.
We're not saying you necessarily have to be nice to get your point across (though it would help) but what we do require is that you have verifiable proof to support your arguments. You don't have any, and the occasional submissions of proof you give us are easily disproved by recorded history, facts, and a little logical reasoning. When we point that out to you, you insult us but never ever give any counter-evidence proving us wrong.
You've already gone first in the insults, even before my initial post. Don't say I didn't warn you.
You sir, are a fool. It is a wonder you have survived for as long as you have given the fact that your intelligence is so low that they had to redesign the IQ scale to include negative numbers. In fact, calling you a fool is an insult to fools and imbeciles the world over, for even they possess more intelligence than you. You are a fool and I name you such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Which also assumes every city/town/village wants it, see my argument above about corruption not being as pervasive at the local levels."
You cannot use an exception to disprove a general rule.
Corruption is most definitely pervasive at local levels, just because you can show me a decent local government someone does not mean that most other local governments by majority are not.
Are you even "trying" here? There are numerous innocent people rail-roaded to jail because the "local level" is corrupt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Present some statistics that prove all local governments are so completely corrupt. If you can't, then why should I take your word for it?
A fool will always think a witty insult is brutish and a fool who has been outdone will resort to simple, meaningless insults and try to convince his opponent there is no way they can win, or that they are stupid or a retard, in an attempt to save face from the fact that he has already lost. A fool also has a limited vocabulary from which to derive his retorts, resulting in him repeating the same insult over and over again in the vain hope that eventually he will prevail.
I also name you a schoolyard bully. For your response is exactly that of a schoolyard bully who has just been soundly trounced and embarrassed and has no way to deal with the fact that those whom he used to torment have turned the tables on him. A bully will also try to change the rules after they've lost to give the appearance that they have won. You are a schoolyard bully and I name you such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Indeed you did, you struck the is that really all you got nerve?
"If you can't take the heat..."
Not much heat, more pity than anything.
"Present some statistics that prove all local governments are so completely corrupt. If you can't, then why should I take your word for it?"
Which one you want, the incarceration rates for minorities?
Or how about all of those city councils that have been using traffic violations to pad their coffers, or the civil asset forfeitures, or all the shot dogs, or how about the judges that put children in juvy to pad their "investment" strategies. How about the cities that created contracts with the ISP's to help block google fiber from deploying, or cities that lost their municipal broadband deployments lawsuits?
I mean I can go on forever. You do know that in the vast majority of cases people actually deal with local government agencies where most of the bullshit happens and NOT with federal agencies and authorities. I mean, you DID KNOW THAT RIGHT?
Go and take a look at the innocence project champ. They have 353 of the high profile cases. Rare and occasional local corruption was not responsible for the Rodney King beating, rare and occasional local corruption was not responsible for the million man march, rare and occasional local corruption was not responsible for the Ferguson riots, rare and occasional local corruption is not responsible for all of the back alley business dealings and crimes being perpetrated.
You are the school yard bully. I have facts, you have "feelings" and "dogma".
Go down and pass out FIJA flyers at your local courthouse and find out how not locally corrupt your place is? Please report back, I am sure the police will be very friendly with your rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Couldn't have said it better myself ass wipe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Same shit in a smaller package.
Yes, like how the government should be doing more to address the root causes of poverty but ends up passing a bill that will make rich people richer.
And you are doing a horrible job of it.
How do you explain the near-complete lack of such “easy to achieve” laws and regulations in recent history, then?
Enshrining the principles of Network Neutrality as law would, however, prevent ISPs from throttling traffic and setting up “tolls” for both access and the speed thereof. If someone advocates for competition between ISPs based on better service instead of who can offer the cheapest access to the most amount of sites, supporting Network Neutrality seems like a no-brainer decision.
I would love to believe this. But I am not enough of a wide-eyed optimistic believer in “the pure free market” to do so. Corporations act in the best interests of shareholders and executives, not the general public. I mean, how slow do you think Comcast would act if the higher-ups believed they could legally gouge customers in Comcast-monopolized areas by selling cable-TV-esque “packages” of accessible websites?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly, but that is not part of this discussion.
"And you are doing a horrible job of it."
Sorry I can't dumb it down enough for you all.
"How do you explain the near-complete lack of such “easy to achieve” laws and regulations in recent history, then?"
You, that's what. You are so bent on seeing regulations as your savior politicians have been able to sucker you endlessly. They say one thing but do another and you still cheer them on! How brilliant can you be to keep getting taken like this?
"Enshrining the principles of Network Neutrality as law would, however, prevent ISPs from throttling traffic and setting up “tolls” for both access and the speed thereof."
No it won't. Just because there is a law does not mean that it will be enforced or enforced with equality. The most sacred laws of this land are shit upon every living fucking second yet you think you are going to be saved by agencies that spend all of their time wheeling and dealing with businesses behind your back? There is stupid and then there is you!
We have tried this "regulatory zealotry" of your kind for decades without success, and like Einstein once said... doing the same thing but expecting different results is the definition of insanity! You can't "REGULATION HARDER" to solve this problem because regulation created it!
"I would love to believe this. But I am not enough of a wide-eyed optimistic believer in “the pure free market” to do so."
You are a liar... this is what I said...
"THIS is what I advocate for. Laws and regulations that help ensure that fair competition is easy to achieve!"
How you got "pure free market" out of that shows that you are not interested in intellectual integrity. You are only interested in advancing "the agenda" no matter how many lies, distortions, half-truths, or straw-man arguments you need to concoct to get there!
Big business has you all figured out already, you are just too ignorant or stupid to realize it. You have given you voice to an easy paid for prostitute called a politician and they know it. All they have to do is act like they hate regulations to get you idiots to knee-jerk believe they need to be kept!
Why do you think they immediately whined to get the FCC to institute regulations against the States the moment NN was abolished?
Big business & government does not want a free-market at all... why is that? Because in a free-market with protections against monopolies and trusts you have the greatest voice possible as a citizen and NO ONE wants you to have that because it gives you too much power! As a citizen power is something you should never have, it is better to keep you shackled like a slave while they offer you the "illusion" of freedom or choice!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I doubt you can “dumb it down” enough for your own sake, let alone anyone else’s.
You have no idea how I feel about regulations other than the ones I have discussed here, so you can stop shoving words down my throat as if your assumptions are facts.
Because I have the right, responsibility, and civic obligation to vote for political candidates who I believe will act in the best interests of the general public. No politician is a saint, but acting as if they are all devils will not change a damn thing.
Laws that forbid municipal broadband systems get enforced with precision and speed. Maybe that has something to do with how those laws are written by obscenely wealthy corporations who help pay for political campaigns. Hmm.
I do not put unquestioned faith in the government. Institutions will not save us.
[citation needed]
You cannot necessarily “let the free market decide” and expect that approach to solve the problem, either.
You have spent so much time talking about de-regulation and free-market competition, as well as shittalking the government and its various regulatory agencies, that I should be forgiven for thinking you believe in the principle of “de-regulate and let the free market do whatever”.
Oh, by all means, outline “the agenda”! Is it the Gay Agenda? Or is it the Illuminati’s? Oh, I know—George Soros must finally be sending me a paycheck for making half-assed comments on a tech blog that only a propotional handful of people in the world will ever read!
ProTip: If you want to have a constructive conversation with someone, saying they are too stupid to have a conversation with you will not help you.
I thought I was supposed to be for regulation, not against it.
Define “they” and I might be able to answer your question.
The current setup of greed-driven corruption and the corporate-favorable “revolving door” policies of regulatory agency hirings is not a setup worth disrupting. Or so I would assume.
That power means nothing when companies like Disney and Amazon can literally buy more power than I would ever be capable of wielding as a pissant middle-class consumer.
“Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.” ― Viktor E. Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you support NN? If you do that gives me more than enough information to based my claims. Let me help you to the word that describes how an individual might be able to accuratly assume your positions based on your words.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
You see, in order for you to support NN you must first have a taste for government to save you from something in some capacity. Additionally you are required to have some form of faith that they will carry forward with such a charge of responsibly. This means that you are "pro" big government because a smaller government would not tend to follow the same reasoning that would lead to something like NN.
Now here is where logic will begin to fail me, because you guys don't have any actual logic. You simultaneously hold the idea that free-market would fail but a democracy would succeed. Free-Market is literally an economic democracy. If we really were a democracy many people would have voted to keep black people as slaves, and because that is wrong you would seek to stop democracy and use a court to over rule democracy like they did with gay marriage in Californian.
So let me put it this way, your logic is dictated by your party, you are TOLD what logic to have regardless of it's intellectual integrity!
You are TOLD to desire democracy even though you actually do not accept it when it votes against you. You are TOLD to desire regulations even though it is going to protect big business instead of you. You are told that the government will protect you and that you need to have faith in that despite the fact that it is actively pounding you in the ass!
You are an intellectually dissonant person, fitting the likes of a leftist that holds several contradicting ideas!
did I miss anything?
"That power means nothing when companies like Disney and Amazon can literally buy more power than I would ever be capable of wielding as a pissant middle-class consumer."
So are you "feeling" the power you received from Ajit Pai? Yo auctioned what little "power" you had away. Tell me, if you cannot trust your fellow citizens to economically band together and boycott Disney how can you have any trust for them to band together and vote in a responsible candidate to safeguard your interests?
Do you not see the contradiction in this? I am not sure you understand anything!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I support the principles of Network Neutrality because I have been using the Internet as we know it today since the late 1990s, and I prefer being able to access any site I want at the average speed for my connection over potentially being nickel-and-dimed for mere access to FurAffinity, my mastodon.social account, and The Wrestling Observer Newsletter. We can argue whether government regulation is necessary to uphold those principles, and at what level such regulation should be enacted if it is necessary, but my support for the principles of Network Neutrality is not rooted in a love for government. Do not put words in my mouth that I neither spoke nor wrote.
I can hope that a government agency will act with integrity and in the best interests of the general public. I can also expect that same agency to completely shit the bed in trying to do its job while complying with the demands of corporations. Hoping for the best and expecting the worst are not mutually exclusive concepts.
[citation needed]
Yes, I believe that a purely free market, devoid of regulations, would mostly fail in terms of preventing monopolies and acting in the best interests of the general public. (Perhaps this belief makes me a fool.) That has no bearing on my feelings about democracy in any form, and my opinion of democracy—it ain’t perfect, but it’ll have to do—has no relevance to a discussion of free markets.
A “democratic” free market could still become a tyrannical wasteland if one player in said market was allowed to gather enough power and resources to squash all the other players and establish a dominant monopoly that no other company could stop. Do not assume the free market alone would—or could—correct itself if such a major player began to take over.
And yes, by the same token, do not assume that all market segments could—or would—fall to a tyrannical monopoly. The future is never set. But with that said: I would place no trust in major corporations to “behave”, then act accordingly.
Thank you for reminding us why we have the different branches of government.
I register to vote as an unaffiliated independent. What party are you talking about, sir?
Not liking the outcome of an election is not the same thing as refusing to accept that outcome. I do not like how the 2016 presidential election turned out, but I still accept its outcome regardless of how I feel.
You tell me lots of things. Doesn’t mean I have to listen.
I would rather have the bare minimum of faith in our government than hope and pray for either tyranny or anarchy. If metaphorical anal rape is the price I have to pay for holding that faith, so be it.
So what?
Nobody, not even you, can avoid that kind of dissonance across an entire lifetime unless said lifetime is tragically short.
If I thought Ajit Pai voted for the interests of the general public instead of the corporations that stand to benefit the most from the destruction of Network Neutrality and a toothless FCC, I would answer that question.
I do not. I can hope for the best, but if 2016 taught me anything, it is that I should expect the worst possible outcome, then do what little I can to help prevent that outcome. That is all I can do—all any of us can do.
I understand your condescension, your holier-than-thou attitude, your feeling that you are so much better as a person than all the peons beneath you on the ladder of intelligence. I understand that you literally cannot make an argument without insulting the person with whom you disagree. I understand how your ego makes you feel so high-and-mighty that you cannot comprehend that maybe—just maybe—someone a little bit dumber than you can still be less of an asshole than you. And while I am an asshole, I am still less of a gaping shithole than you will ever be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do as well... I just do not support the "government" enacting control through a regulatory captured agency to perform that task. The FCC has more than failed us, it is operating against us.
"Yes, I believe that a purely free market, devoid of regulations, would mostly fail in terms of preventing monopolies and acting in the best interests of the general public."
Holding this belief does not make you a fool, it just lets me know that you recognize the your fellow humans are not that strong against adversity and required a guiding hand of some form to keep them from succumbing to a monopoly.
I hold this same belief, which is why I support anti-monopoly and anti-trust regulations to help backup most of the principals of a free market and do not advocate for 100% total deregulation as so many here falsely claim. I also support the government taking back the public infrastructure from businesses and regulating the access to that so that a natural monopoly is not allowed to form.
"A “democratic” free market could still become a tyrannical wasteland if one player in said market was allowed to gather enough power and resources to squash all the other players and establish a dominant monopoly that no other company could stop."
You make false assumptions. No one single person or corporation would be able to out perform a unified mass of people seeking it's destruction. In order for Tyranny of any kind to prevail, it relies on the apathy of multitudes of people. Business are in luck there, because history proves people will often AND very willingly submit to slavery in one form or another as long as their lives or loved ones are not threatened in the exchange.
"I register to vote as an unaffiliated independent. What party are you talking about, sir?"
A dubious response. I too am independent holding disgust for both parties but I would doubt your sincerity given your responses and positions. I will give benefit of the doubt in your case because I do believe it is possible for you to be what you say you are even if my experiences have show this to be unlikely.
"So what?"
If you can hold dissonant views then a corruption in your logic is a guarantee. I cannot have any form of trust that you are not dogmatically biased on the subject or willing to listen to reason.
"Nobody, not even you, can avoid that kind of dissonance across an entire lifetime unless said lifetime is tragically short."
This is a dishonest statement seeking to misrepresent my position. The dissonances that I held as a child are of no merit to this conversations. The dissonances of the past are unfair judgements against the me that is now. I only care about the dissonance you hold now, not those in the past. I seek to abolish all dissonance in my logic. If I find dissonance I seek to reconcile the dissonance or rid myself of the contradictory logic with new information.
"I understand your condescension, your holier-than-thou attitude, your feeling that you are so much better as a person than all the peons beneath you on the ladder of intelligence."
This is your own construct. Do you not see the constant derision I face when coming to forum where everyone laughs and scoffs at me?
You see... the folk here are the one that think they are better than others and they use accusations of others claiming to be superior to them to hide behind.
"And while I am an asshole, I am still less of a gaping shithole than you will ever be."
My point proven. You call me condescending and still claim to be superior to me. Whom is really claiming to be superior here? My response this time is without any condescension or insult to show you that I am correct. You are not interested in meaningful discourse, you seek to hypocritically attack others in a concerted effort to marginalize those that think differently than you.
Your sneers are thinly veiled friend and I see right through them. You use the idea that I believe to be superior to others to justify your real belief that you think that you are superior to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you didn’t insult people by calling them “retards” and either implying or outright saying they are all too fucking stupid to understand your posts, maybe you wouldn’t be mocked so goddamn much.
But hey, you do you. I’m going to find something better to do that write another giant-ass reply to someone who keeps calling me a fucking moron and still expects me to take him seriously. Something truly productive and worthwhile—like masturbation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would be mocked regardless of how I respond. I have seen more than enough nice people being mocked, ridiculed, and mocked to know that you are being outright dishonest.
Just making the statement that "both political parties support big business" and no other words have received snide, rude, derisive, and bigoted comments here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is why you are mocked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
With the evidence you bring of course I should insult your intelligence when you arrive that the conclusions that you do.
I am mocked because I reveal how easy it is to trick you people into doing things. Big Business has you suckered hard and just like the encryption backdoor debate you keep retarding harder in the same way James Comey ignorantly believes that it is possible to create a backdoor that only the "good guys" can use if you just "nerd-harder".
You folks need a t-shirt that says "Stupid-Harder" because all of your solutions are products of retarded thinking!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Despite everything you say and how supposedly "weak" our evidence is, you have presented nothing and can't present anything to refute it. Your only resort is to call us stupid and retarded and I'm sorry but that doesn't cut it. We have facts and evidence to back up our claims, you have nothing so why should we believe you?
What evidence (links and citations and references to actual recorded history, not opinions and interpretations) can you present that will unequivocally prove us wrong? Present that and we can at least begin to have a discussion. Right now you're no better than a whiny brat who is throwing a tantrum because he can't get his way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How about all of the Evidence since 1934 when the FCC was formed? You are not interested in evidence, so stop lying. We have had them for nearly a century and we still have monopolies all over the place and my bills are still getting stuffed like a thanksgiving turkey. Even with the DOJ splitting up Ma Bell the FCC still blesses and supports natural monopolies.
"Your only resort is to call us stupid and retarded and I'm sorry but that doesn't cut it."
Come now silly human, that is not my only retort. I have explained many times why you are a bunch of retards, you just keep going red eye at being called what you are.
"What evidence (links and citations and references to actual recorded history, not opinions and interpretations) can you present that will unequivocally prove us wrong?"
Nearly a century of regulations failing, failing, and failing along with the revolving door between the FCC and Telco's that TD writes about often are that evidence. The problem is that you you arrive at a different conclusion because dogma requires you to.
You see a broken window with a baseball nearby and your dogma demands that you blame the baseball. Sure that is evidence that the baseball is what broke the windows but it is not proof! The proof is from analyzing the video that recorded a person walking by with a hammer breaking the window and putting a ball inside so the owner would think it was just a bunch of kids playing.
We need regulations that destroy ISP death grip monopolies on the internet, NOT a blind and ignorant set of regulations enforced by an agency we both see as currently corrupt.
I keep telling you "retards" that giving your best friend power in government is the same as giving it to your worst enemy. NN allows the FCC to pick and choose which businesses are breaking NN regs and still has Zero Rating as a loop hole.
"Present that and we can at least begin to have a discussion."
I have presented this man times and you say I never do every time.
"Right now you're no better than a whiny brat who is throwing a tantrum because he can't get his way."
NN was destroyed, you are the whiny brat that didn't get their way. You can't even maintain context... another reason to call you a retard.
You are a retard because you are "by definition" retarding a proper solution to this problem by holding onto failed regulatory agency as the solution to your problem.
Or as Einstein puts it... "Doing the same thing over and over while expected different results is the definition of insanity"
We have tried regulating these monopolies since 1934 and have failed the entire time. At which point do we give up your failed solutions? O right... "retard harder" next time yet again? At least you are consistent in that regard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission
"The important relationship of the FCC and the American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) Company evolved over the decades. For many years, the FCC and state officials agreed to regulate the telephone system as a natural monopoly.[39] The FCC controlled telephone rates and imposed other restrictions under Title II to limit the profits of AT&T and ensure nondiscriminatory pricing."
Right fucking there, since its inception it the FCC was created to bless the fucking monopolies!
Was not the entire point to prevent these monopolies? They are monopolies therefore they are going to have loads of fucking money, YOUR MONEY, to bribe your politicians into whispering sweet nothings in your ear as they fuck you sideways. And you buy it every time!
Excuse me if I refuse to live in your fantasy world and excuse me for trying to open your closed eyes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have presented this man times and you say I never do every time.
Because you haven't, you claim you have but you haven't. You provide generalized statements with no link or references to recorded history that backup your statements. When you do provide a link, it is generally not what you claim it to be or is from an unreliable source.
Your wikipedia example for instance. I have no objection to the use of wikipedia as a reference or citation, so that's fine. However, your quote is taken out of context and/or misinterpreted.
Yes, they did regulate telephone companies as natural monopolies, as such, landline phone service is relatively inexpensive and reliable. Additionally, ISP's were classified under Title II up until 2002 and 2005 then they were re-classified under Title I. Let's compare how many dial-ISP providers were available prior to that time versus how many broadband providers there are after that.
Even your statement about "all of the Evidence since 1934 when the FCC was formed" is disingenuous because you ignore all of the GOOD things that came out of FCC regulation, like EMF and RF compliance regulations.
You sir, are the one not interested in facts, not us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
so you "claim" that you are okay with the source right before you turn around and say I am taking it out of context to discredit me?
"Yes, they did regulate telephone companies as natural monopolies,"
That is the crux of the entire fucking problem, but you are intentionally IGNORING IT because "regulations will save us" bullshit dogma!
We cannot get anywhere else until the monopolies are destroyed. NN is just a lie to sweet talk retards like you to sleep at night. You are still going to get fucked over by the ISP's in other ways and through the zero rating loophole.
Again... as long as the monopolies are allowed to exist, you lose! No matter how much you window dress the bullshit that is NN you will not win! ISP's will just buy your political champions off and you will be sold down the river just like always!
We NEED NN to fall so that states will wake up and put a finger in the FCC's face! You are already being spied on, for now I will settle for municipal broadband if for nothing other than to wreck the fucking ISP's!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If All "regulations" were "removed" then we would have Competition! It's so "Simple"! It's like Winston Churchill said: Let them eat "cake"!
Step 1: Remove regulations.
Step 3: Competition!
I can't "dumb it Down" any more for you then that! Stupid!
Don't ask about Step 2! I already explained Step 2! Shut up! I have explained Step 2 "lots and Lots" of times! So many times! I'm not going to "explain" it again after all those Other Times I explained it before! Stupid!
You just need to "remove REGULTIONS" t o get Competitoin! Like how if there werent REgulations on Lead Paint, there would be more "competition" in lead Paint! Then I could pick the Best Lead Paint that the Free "market" had to Offer!
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which paint chip did you eat to get that skill?
"If All "regulations" were "removed" then we would have Competition!"
FYI, I have never said or claimed that. You just like to claim that because lies are your stock and trade when wanting to discredit someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmmmm
Me? A cynic? Only been called that by people who know me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, but apparently I should have made my post more concise. I have to keep remembering that you guys have blinders on. This would give "local" governments carte blanche to spy on it's citizens where municipal access is constructed.
"And any state-level regulatory law for ISPs should include network neutrality as an obligatory principle."
What government "should do" and what it "does do" have historically proven to be at odds with each other.
"Competition between companies should be focused on who has the better service"
THIS is what I advocate for. Laws and regulations that help ensure that fair competition is easy to achieve! NN does not do this and never will. If we can remove the protectionist laws/regulations protecting these government blessed monopolies we will get NN automatically because any competitor will use it as a hook to gain customers.
And WHAM a free-market principle giving us what we wanted without it even having to be a law for idiot politicians to fuck up to begin with!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I might have congratulated you for posting something that might be construed as barely constructive, but after having to sift through metric ass-tons of your insults it clearly isn't worth the effort.
Nice going, retard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]