All this bullshit courtesy of cash grabbing data caps. I'd aim my cannons at the bullshit used to justify data caps now that we are done lambasting zero rating. Also, set up some campaign to get more money than Pai is receiving from the telcos (or will receive) so maybe we can start having a discussion. """"""discussion"""""""
Title II, not the zero rating bullshit which could fall into the regulatory capture thing. And I pointed it in my comment. Seems you just don't want to engage in meaningful discussion.
That's generally what I think. Same weights and same measure to all cases. But thinking about it after I wrote, even murder, accidents an general violent video should not be removed as well to remind us how low one can descend because of fundamentalist/extremist bullshit. Maybe delete only child porn I think. Truth is, the article does an awesome job making you think and made me reach the conclusion that I know nothing and I wouldn't dare choose what to remove (effectively censor). So I'll leave my special thumbs up to Mike for this one.
You are the one misunderstanding the term. What the CURRENT FCC is doing fits squarely in the definition. What the PAST FCC (under Wheeler) did was to start setting up a framework to prevent ISPs from abusing their monopolistic positions. The telco sector naturally hovers toward monopolies because the investment required to lay the infra-structure is pretty high.
Either that or you are talking about the current FCC push to repeal any meaningful regulation leaving it to state laws bought and written by the ISPs and I'm talking about Title II which is NOT regulatory capture by a moon shot.
In my view the video fits the criteria of "extremism" just like any other ISIS video. It incites violence and direct harm (one of the very few and high exceptions for free speech). It's basically hate speech if you position yourself in a neutral ground.
In fact, if you go past your own bias (and my instinctive answer to the question was yes by the way), one can build a long, long, long list of very bad things the US govt has done in the past and has been doing recently that could be put in the same level of "bad" of what happens in NK, except that mostly it was directed to other countries. There's plenty of evidence that the US sponsored authoritarian regimes all over the world for instance, most of them with high death tolls.
So, would somebody calling for violent interference in the US to stop these bad actions (and I'm not limiting the call to what I mentioned) be wrong? Or would somebody asking for violent intervention in Syria to stop ISIS the wrong one? Or in the end they are both right and we should just treat it as opinion providing means to the community to sort out (but never censor) and move on?
It's not am easy reply. Yes and No are probably not the answer but rather some complex middle ground solution. As for me, I think we should keep the deleting to a minimum and offer tools for moderation like the hidden comments here. How to implement that I don't know but by ensuring all speech has its space as despicable as it may be will only lead to a better world.
"You support regulatory capture... the FCC has already made it clear that it intends to regulate these all as natural monopolies."
Er, no? Regulating them as natural monopolies (which they are) is not regulatory capture. Regulatory capture is what the ISPs are doing in the states by making it impossible to have municipal broadband for instance. Or the one-touch approach to poles.
Sue the knife makers, quick! Oh and Google, because why not?
Ahem. When you work on policies to tackle the symptoms of something rather than the cause.
"drastic cuts to funding for youth services"
I've been seeing far too much of this disdain for younger people happening and it's on the rise even if mainstream media doesn't report on it. I was kind of sad of seeing people my age and younger struggling to find a place to call home and suffering with insane rental costs a while back. Then I stumbled upon an article about large protests in Tel-aviv due to real estate speculation and so on. Mostly composed of people in their 30's and below. Different places, same problem. From there I started researching and it's the same everywhere. I consider myself lucky because I have my own place at my age.
"At one point, Verizon objected to his definition of “Verizon” and proposed its own definition."
Bad case of split personality.
"Your excellency, the definition of Verizon is not Verizon, it's MaBell. We are just trying our best to bring back the monopolistic, assholish behavior that got us split, you know, to solve the problem."
"it will leave Elsevier with almost total control of the sector, beyond even today's already profitable position"
It has no control. Over 90% of their articles are available on sci-hub. I work in a public company with strong academic and research background and 100% of the output is immediately sent to sci-hub. Except for the few rare articles we can't find in sci-hub we rely on it to get whatever we need. When we can't we still have a partnership with a public university so we can use their service (which honestly I don't know who provides the access because I never had to use them).
They already pushed everybody towards alternative sharing methods with their prices. They already lost the battle for control.
If memory serves I've read an article a few months ago talking about new tweaks that could increase bandwidth supported by copper lines tenfold. It would give their older networks some breath while they invest in upgrades. Of course this will lower short-term profits.
I'll probably mostly go without as many others will. Fading into irrelevance isn't something desirable for Disney. Whenever there's anything interesting (ie: pixar or Star Wars), well, piracy.
No. If I bought capacity to squeeze an elephant through you will have to squeeze it to me. Simple as that.
If you have network congestion then fix it. Allowing packet discrimination is a slippery slope that will end up with what we are seeing today.
Google is running well and dandy without caps or QoS last time I heard. They even embraced Brian Krebs under their project shield (DDoS protection for journalists) knowing they could suffer insanely major DDoS attacks simply because they have a shit ton of spare capacity. Go educate yourself before speaking.
Re: Re: Re: No, it's administrator action: "It even exists here at TD where Paul is a real estate novelist who never had time for a wife, and he's talking with Davy, who's still in the Navy and probably will be for life."
Oh but it's important to counter his flawed arguments and it serves often as a reminder of what has already been debunked. I've seen awesome comments that giver thorough explanation of why they are wrong and that's why I value those trollish comments. I do try to ignore those that post attacks without any pseudo-truth though (when I'm not replying for pure old swearing and trolling back of course).
On the post: Mozilla Study: Zero Rating Isn't The Miracle Broadband Duopolies And Facebook Pretend It Is
On the post: One Man's War Against Verizon's Long History Of Lies, Anti-Competitive Behavior, And Nonsense
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Should Social Media Sites Be Forced To Pull Pastor Calling For War With North Korea?
Re: Re:
On the post: One Man's War Against Verizon's Long History Of Lies, Anti-Competitive Behavior, And Nonsense
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Either that or you are talking about the current FCC push to repeal any meaningful regulation leaving it to state laws bought and written by the ISPs and I'm talking about Title II which is NOT regulatory capture by a moon shot.
On the post: Should Social Media Sites Be Forced To Pull Pastor Calling For War With North Korea?
In my view the video fits the criteria of "extremism" just like any other ISIS video. It incites violence and direct harm (one of the very few and high exceptions for free speech). It's basically hate speech if you position yourself in a neutral ground.
In fact, if you go past your own bias (and my instinctive answer to the question was yes by the way), one can build a long, long, long list of very bad things the US govt has done in the past and has been doing recently that could be put in the same level of "bad" of what happens in NK, except that mostly it was directed to other countries. There's plenty of evidence that the US sponsored authoritarian regimes all over the world for instance, most of them with high death tolls.
So, would somebody calling for violent interference in the US to stop these bad actions (and I'm not limiting the call to what I mentioned) be wrong? Or would somebody asking for violent intervention in Syria to stop ISIS the wrong one? Or in the end they are both right and we should just treat it as opinion providing means to the community to sort out (but never censor) and move on?
It's not am easy reply. Yes and No are probably not the answer but rather some complex middle ground solution. As for me, I think we should keep the deleting to a minimum and offer tools for moderation like the hidden comments here. How to implement that I don't know but by ensuring all speech has its space as despicable as it may be will only lead to a better world.
On the post: One Man's War Against Verizon's Long History Of Lies, Anti-Competitive Behavior, And Nonsense
Re: Re:
Er, no? Regulating them as natural monopolies (which they are) is not regulatory capture. Regulatory capture is what the ISPs are doing in the states by making it impossible to have municipal broadband for instance. Or the one-touch approach to poles.
As for the rest, yeah, agreed.
On the post: London Mayor Fingers The Culprit In Increased Knife Crime: YouTube
Ahem. When you work on policies to tackle the symptoms of something rather than the cause.
"drastic cuts to funding for youth services"
I've been seeing far too much of this disdain for younger people happening and it's on the rise even if mainstream media doesn't report on it. I was kind of sad of seeing people my age and younger struggling to find a place to call home and suffering with insane rental costs a while back. Then I stumbled upon an article about large protests in Tel-aviv due to real estate speculation and so on. Mostly composed of people in their 30's and below. Different places, same problem. From there I started researching and it's the same everywhere. I consider myself lucky because I have my own place at my age.
On the post: One Man's War Against Verizon's Long History Of Lies, Anti-Competitive Behavior, And Nonsense
Bad case of split personality.
"Your excellency, the definition of Verizon is not Verizon, it's MaBell. We are just trying our best to bring back the monopolistic, assholish behavior that got us split, you know, to solve the problem."
On the post: Elsevier Continues To Build Its Monopoly Solution For All Aspects Of Scholarly Communication
Re: Re:
On the post: Elsevier Continues To Build Its Monopoly Solution For All Aspects Of Scholarly Communication
It has no control. Over 90% of their articles are available on sci-hub. I work in a public company with strong academic and research background and 100% of the output is immediately sent to sci-hub. Except for the few rare articles we can't find in sci-hub we rely on it to get whatever we need. When we can't we still have a partnership with a public university so we can use their service (which honestly I don't know who provides the access because I never had to use them).
They already pushed everybody towards alternative sharing methods with their prices. They already lost the battle for control.
On the post: The Nation's Telcos Are Hemorrhaging Customers Because They Refuse To Upgrade Their Networks
Re: Re: Re: huh?
On the post: Facebook, Twitter Consistently Fail At Distinguishing Abuse From Calling Out Abuse
Re: Re: "social media platforms banning or punishing the victims of harassment and abuse for posting about it, rather than the perpetrators."
lol at that.
On the post: The Nation's Telcos Are Hemorrhaging Customers Because They Refuse To Upgrade Their Networks
Re:
I'm glad I get 110% of my contract speed at any time though :/
On the post: The Nation's Telcos Are Hemorrhaging Customers Because They Refuse To Upgrade Their Networks
Re:
On the post: Disney Pulls Content From Netflix As Users Face An Annoying, Confusing Rise In Streaming Exclusivity Silos
On the post: Bob Murray To Court: The ACLU Is Too Biased To File Its 'Eat Shit, Bob' Brief
On the post: AT&T Lies Again, Insists Net Neutrality Rules Will Hurt First Responders
Re: Re:
If you have network congestion then fix it. Allowing packet discrimination is a slippery slope that will end up with what we are seeing today.
Google is running well and dandy without caps or QoS last time I heard. They even embraced Brian Krebs under their project shield (DDoS protection for journalists) knowing they could suffer insanely major DDoS attacks simply because they have a shit ton of spare capacity. Go educate yourself before speaking.
On the post: Techdirt: Now With More Free Speech Reporting
Re: Re: Re: No, it's administrator action: "It even exists here at TD where Paul is a real estate novelist who never had time for a wife, and he's talking with Davy, who's still in the Navy and probably will be for life."
On the post: Techdirt: Now With More Free Speech Reporting
Re:
On the post: Section 230 Matters. Congress Needs To Be Reminded Of That
Re:
Next >>