Does a cafe that advertises free internet access have the right to restrict what sites their patrons can visit, or is that a violation net neutrality as well?
Please don't put words in my mouth. Especially when they're 100% incorrect
Okay, that's what most posters seem to be saying. What you're saying is that free access to Facebook would cause harm and "to say that giving free access to them is giving free access to the internet is simply a lie."
So you'd be okay with Zuckerberg's scheme if he didn't call it free access to the Internet? (rhetorical question).
So I'm not putting words in your mouth, answer me this: Would you ever support a corporation offering free connectivity to a limited set of Internet sites? What if the service was provided free by a government entity (presumably to access government and approved corporate sites)?
Yep, that's what they're saying. If Facebook access is free it gives Facebook too much control. It's all about fighting world domination by corporations driven by evil profit motives. It stopped being about poor folks in India who can't afford Internet access a long time ago. Better for them to have nothing than anything less than an unlimited Internet.
So statements like "It needs heavy outside pounding ... where people actually go and wreak havoc..." are considered "hardly a 'call for violence' except in the most vague of senses"?
In any case this is more evidence that the system can't be fixed from the inside only. It needs heavy outside pounding. Things like Baltimore and Ferguson where people actually go and wreak havoc and are noticed.
Advocating violence is wrong. No matter what your aim is, it's still wrong. It is just a wrong for thugs to burn down and loot businesses as it was for McVeigh to bomb the federal building in OKC. This nation is taking an ugly turn. I'm surprised and disappointed that TechDirt permits calls for violence in the comments section.
If one is using "partisan" in the colloquial sense, than yes, the fact that TechDirt criticizes both republicans and democrats makes them absolutely non-partisan.
There are many on the left who criticize both the democrats and the republicans with equal measure as is true for many on the right. That doesn't make them non-partisan, that just makes them critical of the major political parties.
Never the less, based on partisanship as you define it, would you consider the Occupy Wall Street movement partisan or non-partisan?
That's the definition of the noun. My definition was for the adjective. A more effective reply would have been to quote the definition for non-partisan (adjective).
not biased or partisan, especially toward any particular political group. synonyms: unbiased, impartial, neutral, objective "the moderator must remain nonpartisan throughout the debates"
Still wouldn't classify TechDirt as unbiased, impartial, neutral, or objective. TechDirt's opinion pieces present a point of view. They claim to be *non-partisan* in that they are not biased toward a particular political group. This claim falls apart when they advocate for a particular point of view which is shared by a particular political group even though that group may not align with either of the mainstream political parties. The fact that TechDirt criticizes both republicans and democrats does not make them non-partisan.
Not criticizing TechDirt for their point of view, only their claim that their point of view is not politically biased or partisan (adjective).
You quoted Tim's Vox article in your piece. I was pointing out that the Vox article you referenced in your piece appears to contradict your conclusion that furthering free trade is not part of the agreement. The agreement is at least partially about free trade according to Tim's article. The professor may have been wrong in implying the agreement is all about free trade but is it not just as incorrect to imply that the agreement has nothing to do with free trade?
You can leave out the personal attacks, unless you can't defend your points based on their merits.
From the start I saw Obama as a typical "two chickens in every pot" politician. I figured he got tons of corporate money in 2008, but didn't most of them bail on him when he showed his true stripes after the election?
Are you even remotely aware of Tim Lee's history? He's the one who wrote the article, and he is not, in any way imaginable, a "left-leaning" reporter.
I never accused Tim of being a left leaning reporter.
the whole point of the article was that some supposed "expert" insisted it WAS about trade. So, clearly plenty of people still think it is, which is why I wrote this article.
From the article you reference on Vox: In addition to conventional trade issues like tariff rates, it includes language on labor rights, environmental laws, copyright and patent protections, e-commerce, state-owned enterprises, corruption, and government procurement.
Your article says these agreements have nothing to do with free trade. Convention trade issues are about free trade, so at least some part of the agreement is about free trade, yes?
Three.
Not sure what your complaint is other than that you have some weird issue with identifying which "team" people are on.
I try to understand all sides of an issue so I read from sources on different sides of the political spectrum. That seems weird to you?
I saw a video from 2011 where Richard Trumka claimed he talked to the White House several times a day and visited 2-3 times a week (it's out there on YouTube). That's not just "less hostile", it sounds like it was a pretty cozy relationship between a union boss and the WH - unless Trumka was exaggerating.
Spaceman - For your comment to hold water, Obama - who is pressing for the agreement and has been for years - would have to be owned by the multinational corporations you're railing against. Is that what you're saying?
Vox isn't left? I can't let that one go. Just looking at what's on today's front page of Vox, you'd have to be fairly blind to not see some leftward bias. The stories Vox chooses to cover support causes championed by the left (how great Obamacare is, the evil Koch brothers, etc.). That's just reporting the news? So MSNBC must be your favorite cable channel for "just reporting the news".
As far at the rest of your comment. Two things. First, If Obama is at the table, organized labor has a voice in the negotiations. Second, It's not just about trade, but that's been true of trade pacts for decades. Nothing new here.
Yes - Hillary has bigger things to worry about (most scandals more relevant than the 2nd one you mentioned) but that is beside the point of the article.
The author uses Vox (left) and the Cato Institute (right) to justify his conclusions? He also points out that organized labor and big pharma and copyright industries and more use these trade agreements as a secretive, anti-democratic process to force through regulations they want.
Hard to believe that the AFL-CIO is publicly against it when their real plan is to use it to further their anti-democratic aims to force through regulations.
Overall I think it was a weak article. Anyone who reads any major news outlet (WaPo, BBC, CBS - were just a few sites that explained the issue more clearly than this article) would know that free trade in today's world encompasses much more than things like getting Japan to open their markets to US autos or agricultural goods.
On the post: Tone Deaf Zuckerberg Declares Opposition To Zero Rated Apps An 'Extremist' Position That Hurts The Poor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Tone Deaf Zuckerberg Declares Opposition To Zero Rated Apps An 'Extremist' Position That Hurts The Poor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay, that's what most posters seem to be saying. What you're saying is that free access to Facebook would cause harm and "to say that giving free access to them is giving free access to the internet is simply a lie."
So you'd be okay with Zuckerberg's scheme if he didn't call it free access to the Internet? (rhetorical question).
So I'm not putting words in your mouth, answer me this: Would you ever support a corporation offering free connectivity to a limited set of Internet sites? What if the service was provided free by a government entity (presumably to access government and approved corporate sites)?
On the post: Tone Deaf Zuckerberg Declares Opposition To Zero Rated Apps An 'Extremist' Position That Hurts The Poor
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: US Presidential Election Is So Corrupt Even The Person In Charge Says She Has No Power To Stop Abuse
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: US Presidential Election Is So Corrupt Even The Person In Charge Says She Has No Power To Stop Abuse
Re:
Advocating violence is wrong. No matter what your aim is, it's still wrong. It is just a wrong for thugs to burn down and loot businesses as it was for McVeigh to bomb the federal building in OKC. This nation is taking an ugly turn. I'm surprised and disappointed that TechDirt permits calls for violence in the comments section.
On the post: Dear Tom Wheeler: I'm Sorry I Thought You Were A Mindless Cable Shill
Re: Re: Kudos, but...
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government
http://www.washingt onpost.com/opinions/net-neutrality-battle-is-really-about-fcc-independence/2015/02/19/1553de10-b6de- 11e4-aa05-1ce812b3fdd2_story.html
On the post: Dear Tom Wheeler: I'm Sorry I Thought You Were A Mindless Cable Shill
Re: Re: Kudos, but...
Here are three sources:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/fcc-chairman-says-obamas-net-neutrality-statement-influenced-rul e-1426616133
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/technology/obama-net-neutrality-fcc.html?_r=0
http://ww w.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/510/support-network-neutrality-on-the-inter net/
On the post: Dear Tom Wheeler: I'm Sorry I Thought You Were A Mindless Cable Shill
Kudos, but...
And while it's true that massive grass roots advocacy helped shift Wheeler's thinking on issues like Title II
It wasn't grass roots advocacy that changed his mind. Obama changed his mind for him. (source: PolitiFact.com)
On the post: If You Really Think TPP Is About 'Trade' Then Your Analysis Is Already Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are many on the left who criticize both the democrats and the republicans with equal measure as is true for many on the right. That doesn't make them non-partisan, that just makes them critical of the major political parties.
Never the less, based on partisanship as you define it, would you consider the Occupy Wall Street movement partisan or non-partisan?
On the post: If You Really Think TPP Is About 'Trade' Then Your Analysis Is Already Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
not biased or partisan, especially toward any particular political group. synonyms: unbiased, impartial, neutral, objective "the moderator must remain nonpartisan throughout the debates"
Still wouldn't classify TechDirt as unbiased, impartial, neutral, or objective. TechDirt's opinion pieces present a point of view. They claim to be *non-partisan* in that they are not biased toward a particular political group. This claim falls apart when they advocate for a particular point of view which is shared by a particular political group even though that group may not align with either of the mainstream political parties. The fact that TechDirt criticizes both republicans and democrats does not make them non-partisan.
Not criticizing TechDirt for their point of view, only their claim that their point of view is not politically biased or partisan (adjective).
On the post: If You Really Think TPP Is About 'Trade' Then Your Analysis Is Already Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. prejudiced in favor of a particular cause.
"newspapers have become increasingly partisan"
synonyms: biased, prejudiced, one-sided,
discriminatory, colored, partial, interested, sectarian,
factional.
It's not about the uniforms.
On the post: If You Really Think TPP Is About 'Trade' Then Your Analysis Is Already Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can leave out the personal attacks, unless you can't defend your points based on their merits.
On the post: If You Really Think TPP Is About 'Trade' Then Your Analysis Is Already Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Freedom of trade
On the post: If You Really Think TPP Is About 'Trade' Then Your Analysis Is Already Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you even remotely aware of Tim Lee's history? He's the one who wrote the article, and he is not, in any way imaginable, a "left-leaning" reporter.
I never accused Tim of being a left leaning reporter.
the whole point of the article was that some supposed "expert" insisted it WAS about trade. So, clearly plenty of people still think it is, which is why I wrote this article.
From the article you reference on Vox:
In addition to conventional trade issues like tariff rates, it includes language on labor rights, environmental laws, copyright and patent protections, e-commerce, state-owned enterprises, corruption, and government procurement.
Your article says these agreements have nothing to do with free trade. Convention trade issues are about free trade, so at least some part of the agreement is about free trade, yes?
Three.
Not sure what your complaint is other than that you have some weird issue with identifying which "team" people are on.
I try to understand all sides of an issue so I read from sources on different sides of the political spectrum. That seems weird to you?
On the post: If You Really Think TPP Is About 'Trade' Then Your Analysis Is Already Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If You Really Think TPP Is About 'Trade' Then Your Analysis Is Already Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If You Really Think TPP Is About 'Trade' Then Your Analysis Is Already Wrong
Re: Re:
On the post: If You Really Think TPP Is About 'Trade' Then Your Analysis Is Already Wrong
Re: Freedom of trade
On the post: If You Really Think TPP Is About 'Trade' Then Your Analysis Is Already Wrong
Re: Re: Re:
As far at the rest of your comment. Two things. First, If Obama is at the table, organized labor has a voice in the negotiations. Second, It's not just about trade, but that's been true of trade pacts for decades. Nothing new here.
On the post: If You Really Think TPP Is About 'Trade' Then Your Analysis Is Already Wrong
Re:
The author uses Vox (left) and the Cato Institute (right) to justify his conclusions? He also points out that organized labor and big pharma and copyright industries and more use these trade agreements as a secretive, anti-democratic process to force through regulations they want.
Hard to believe that the AFL-CIO is publicly against it when their real plan is to use it to further their anti-democratic aims to force through regulations.
Overall I think it was a weak article. Anyone who reads any major news outlet (WaPo, BBC, CBS - were just a few sites that explained the issue more clearly than this article) would know that free trade in today's world encompasses much more than things like getting Japan to open their markets to US autos or agricultural goods.
Next >>