If that's true then he needs to move his shit-posting to the @POTUS account. The @RealDonaldTrump account should be sanctioned like any other account would after the crap that's been posted with it.
Who gives a rat's ass what party Masnick leans toward? Seriously, why does it matter? Either you get something out of reading his articles or you don't. Either way, let's discuss the content, the message, and stop with the hating on the author. It's fucking pointless and you're a moron for focussing on that instead of the topics at hand.
Re: Re: Re: We've always been at war with EastAsia.
I, for one, have been trying to give Trump the benefit of the doubt and believe that he's actually intelligent and completely aware of what he's doing. I'm now convinced that he's straight up stupid. He serves no agenda apart from doing whatever he thinks will eventually make him more money. Clearly not even that has been going all that well for him.
Free-Market would resolve that problem because people would switch ISP's to those that don't block or throttle.
As the foundation for your entire argument this proves your opponents' point.
The free market cannot correct a situation wherein the base problem is a total or near total lack of competition enforced by laws written by the monopolies.
How many high speed ISP choices do you have where you live? Are you aware that the vast majority of the nation has only 1 choice? Do you think the free market has any influence whatsoever in those markets when competition is prevented via bad legislation?
Re: Everything Google does requires special privileges.
Google is already subject to the same regulations. The existing ISPs are just pushing an anti-competitive agenda. They'd fight against any competitor, not just Google.
An Onymous Coward (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 12:57pm
Re:
They do claim to be a tech company, not a transportation company. Let them spend their money on more self-driving research (not that any of us have a voice or choice in the matter). Better products come faster from robust competition.
Beside that, Uber isn't profitable. Maybe they will be once they start using self-driving cars. Even if they're the worst company on Earth they represent expenditure and competition in a world that can use more of that. They're paving the way for Lyft to eat their lunch.
An Onymous Coward (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 12:52pm
Re: One commenter here railed about criminal Uber for years.
If you spent half as much time debating the real point instead of grinding your anti-Masnick axe you might be worth reading. As it stands, no, you are not.
That's a really good point. Facebook is full of unlawful content. They take down what gets reported but plenty remains. Is this Comcast admitting they're going to throttle Facebook traffic?
Prioritization is, by definition, throttling of competing traffic. They are one and the same. In order to give traffic A full access you must necessarily restrict B and C if not doing so would require more bandwidth than is available.
But congratulations America. You got what you voted for. Now suffer in it a while so you really feel, deep down, the stab of "We told you so."
Re: You've long argued for cities making "public-private" partnerships...
> Techdirt also argues that "internet corporations" especially Google and Facebook must have special privileges in law to shield them from the liability that publishing on paper would bring...
> So WHY do you advocate fascism at times, then rail at it other times?
I can't tell whether you seriously believe what you wrote or you're just trolling.
Nobody is arguing that Google and Facebook be shielded from liability for publishing their own content. Nobody is arguing that individual users of those services be shielded from liability. What we're arguing is that Google and Facebook should not be held liable for the drivel that you publish on their platforms because it's not possible for Google and Facebook to "police" your drivel at internet scale.
The internet is nothing like a newspaper. Stop trying to equate the two. It's disingenuous at best, straight up deceit at worst. And there's nothing "fascist" about not holding Techdirt responsible for your lies.
Are you willfully ignorant or is yours just plain old ignorance?
Yes, it's regulation. Yes, it's about content. But no, it's not about regulating content, it's about regulating that content may not be interfered with. Calling this content regulation is disingenuous.
It's not even that. The guy he was aiming at didn't appear to be aware he was in the crosshairs. This is just a cop being a dick, exactly the problem with police departments all over this country today.
On the post: German Government Official Wants Backdoors In Every Device Connected To The Internet
Fuck you.
Sincerely,
The World
On the post: Senator Wyden Asks DHS To Look Into Cell Tower Spoofer Use By Foreign Entities In Washington DC
On the post: Trump Tweet About Surveillance Undercuts FBI's Glomar Responses In FOIA Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Trump Tweet About Surveillance Undercuts FBI's Glomar Responses In FOIA Lawsuits
Re: Re:
On the post: After Attacking Random Hollywood Supporters Of Net Neutrality, Ajit Pai Attacks Internet Companies
Re: Corporations are not in Constitution, do not have First Amendment Right.
On the post: After Attacking Random Hollywood Supporters Of Net Neutrality, Ajit Pai Attacks Internet Companies
Re:
On the post: After Attacking Random Hollywood Supporters Of Net Neutrality, Ajit Pai Attacks Internet Companies
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: After Attacking Random Hollywood Supporters Of Net Neutrality, Ajit Pai Attacks Internet Companies
Re: Re: Re: We've always been at war with EastAsia.
To quote the moron-in-chief himself, "Sad."
On the post: Drug Dog Testing Process Eliminates Handler Bias. Unsurprisingly, Cops Don't Like it.
Re: Resist
On the post: The FCC's Attack On Net Neutrality Is Based Entirely On Debunked Lobbyist Garbage Data
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As the foundation for your entire argument this proves your opponents' point.
The free market cannot correct a situation wherein the base problem is a total or near total lack of competition enforced by laws written by the monopolies.
How many high speed ISP choices do you have where you live? Are you aware that the vast majority of the nation has only 1 choice? Do you think the free market has any influence whatsoever in those markets when competition is prevented via bad legislation?
On the post: Judge Backs AT&T, Comcast Nuisance Suit Against Google Fiber In Nashville
Re:
On the post: Judge Backs AT&T, Comcast Nuisance Suit Against Google Fiber In Nashville
Re: Everything Google does requires special privileges.
On the post: Uber Waymo Trial Delayed After Justice Department Jumps In, Unprompted, To Tell Judge That Uber Was Withholding Evidence
Re:
Beside that, Uber isn't profitable. Maybe they will be once they start using self-driving cars. Even if they're the worst company on Earth they represent expenditure and competition in a world that can use more of that. They're paving the way for Lyft to eat their lunch.
On the post: Uber Waymo Trial Delayed After Justice Department Jumps In, Unprompted, To Tell Judge That Uber Was Withholding Evidence
Re: One commenter here railed about criminal Uber for years.
On the post: Comcast Spent Millions Repealing Net Neutrality, Now Wants You To Believe It Won't Take Full, Brutal Advantage
Re:
On the post: Comcast Spent Millions Repealing Net Neutrality, Now Wants You To Believe It Won't Take Full, Brutal Advantage
Re: Goo problem?
On the post: Comcast Spent Millions Repealing Net Neutrality, Now Wants You To Believe It Won't Take Full, Brutal Advantage
Re: Re:
But congratulations America. You got what you voted for. Now suffer in it a while so you really feel, deep down, the stab of "We told you so."
On the post: Comcast Spent Millions Repealing Net Neutrality, Now Wants You To Believe It Won't Take Full, Brutal Advantage
Re: You've long argued for cities making "public-private" partnerships...
> So WHY do you advocate fascism at times, then rail at it other times?
I can't tell whether you seriously believe what you wrote or you're just trolling.
Nobody is arguing that Google and Facebook be shielded from liability for publishing their own content. Nobody is arguing that individual users of those services be shielded from liability. What we're arguing is that Google and Facebook should not be held liable for the drivel that you publish on their platforms because it's not possible for Google and Facebook to "police" your drivel at internet scale.
The internet is nothing like a newspaper. Stop trying to equate the two. It's disingenuous at best, straight up deceit at worst. And there's nothing "fascist" about not holding Techdirt responsible for your lies.
On the post: Ajit Pai's Big Lie
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, it's regulation. Yes, it's about content. But no, it's not about regulating content, it's about regulating that content may not be interfered with. Calling this content regulation is disingenuous.
On the post: Sheriff Says He Won't Deploy Body Cameras Because He Doesn't Want His Deputies Criticized
Re:
Next >>