"I am just telling you guys that your solution is getting you LESS than you deserve as consumers!"
The current NN regs boil down simply to "Don't fuck over your customers, and if you are, tell them you are". That's it. Please explain how the hell that's not what consumers want and deserve.
If this is not trolling, you're level of ignorance and misunderstanding is impressive. If it is trolling (and I'm pretty sure it is), you need to re-evaluate your life choices if this is what you do for entertainment.
It's really hard to what the hell your point is. This article and many before provides the evidence and facts you claim are required to prove the claim. The logical conclusion based on this evidence is that Pai is lying and he knows it. If someone lies, they get called a liar. Real simple.
"Pai is set to destroy one of the most marvelous libraries and means of communication ever invented..."
You seem to be suffering from the same misunderstanding as the "don't let the government control the internet" clowns. If Pai succeeds in his goals US ISP customers will suffer and the rest of the world will barely notice. The internet is not going anywhere.
"That FCC Order substantially restricted internet freedom by sharply increasing FCC powers."
Do you seriously expect to win an argument with straight-up, disingenuous lies? It's almost like you think we can't all read the rules and see this for ourselves. How stupid are you?
"I have offered plenty, but the mantra for you guys is to always advance the lie that I never have..."
Oh you have? Hang on, let me go look that up by searching under your user name....
Oh wow, you have made a lot of posts! Very inconsistent positions though. Some very smart posts, some very stupid ones. Almost like you're not actually one person...
"Okay another lie, the constant mantra is "free-market bad" and you know it..."
No TD writer and very few regular commenters have made this simplistic claim. A totally unfettered, regulation-free market would be terrible. A government-controlled, heavily regulated market would also be very bad. History has proven both of these points well, which is why we want a sensible middle ground that maximises the net benefit to society. Nobody here is interested in anarchists or authoritarians.
"You cannot say you are vigilant about liberty in the same breath your actions lead to giving it up."
This is why it's hard to believe you have a clue what you're talking about. We're arguing about regulations that curtail bad behavior by ISP's and do nothing else. The public are not losing any freedoms here; these are popular, functioning consumer protections that you want to kill. Why would anyone want that unless they have a vested interest in those who would directly benefit from it?
"But Techdirt has already judged him innocent without seeing any evidence -- willfully blind I'd say."
"Just on surface is the fact of traveling to DC and being among the few violent rioters to "livestream" their destruction. I'd guess that isn't coincidence, but that role was planned in conspiracy."
I'm guessing the irony of making these two claims goes right over your head.
"I mean, there's only two explanations for such a thing; That the charges against him are bogus and only being used a leverage, or the prosecution is willing to let criminals off easy, either of which looks good for the prosecution."
Their metric of success is the number of successful prosecutions, not whether the correct person was appropriately punished. Maximising the number of successful prosecutions is the only goal, and all possible steps will be taken to achieve this. Thus the popularity of legal blackmail, sorry, plea deals, which get the best results with the least effort. Not really a 'justice' system is it...
"Hollow points aren't meant for wounding someone; they're meant to kill, full stop."
What makes you think cops intend to just wound? You don't empty your mag into someone to injure them. SOP is keep pulling the trigger until you're not scared anymore.
"This is why a police officer is justified in punching you in the face if you order him or her to get you a glass of water."
And this is why I seriously doubt you're an actual LEO. I doubt even real cops would be so crass and ignorant to make this claim in seriousness. Just another wannabe thug I think.
"I don’t think this will hurt from a business perspective..."
You'd think that being public and angrily dropped by a client as well-know as the NYT would be a pretty bad look.
"It is not going to harm his reputation with most clients. When you hire Boies, you are hiring an aggressive lawyer."
Being aggressive for your client's benefit is surely good for a lawyers rep, but aggressively and duplicitously working against your client's interests is something completely different.
" What the first commenter meant was that just being civil to police isn't a burden compared to the likelihood of police actually getting shot at while protecting the rights of idiots who despise them."
No, that's not what the first commenter meant. What he meant, because he stated it quite clearly, is that he thinks the reporter should be throw in jail (after being physically assaulted) for not talking nicely enough.
There is no basis in law or common sense for the officers' ridiculous over-reaction. If the burden of the (statistically very low) likelihood of being shot at is so great then they should find another damn job.
Re: Re: Techdirt keeps overlooking that Youtube is NOT a "Good Samaritan" nor acting in "good faith".
"The Techdirt position is that a corporation can CENSOR YOU for any or no reason, and you've no recourse."
Why don't you entertain us with what you think that recourse is. If this is merely Techdirt's position, and not actually well-established law, this should be pretty easy for you.
"Yeah, that's the law. But AC is at least somewhat in the neighborhood of something approaching an actual point."
No, he was clearly trying to claim that is is law, hence the word 'protected'. Completely wrong.
"If somebody (NBC or Fox, take your pick) just makes stuff up and calls it news, isn't there something wrong?"
Actually no, humans have been doing that forever. What would really be wrong is if people kept watching/listening/believing made-up stuff claimed to be news and allowing companies that do that to stay in business.
On the post: As Net Neutrality Repeal Nears, Comcast's Promise To Avoid 'Paid Prioritization' Disappears
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I am just telling you guys that your solution is getting you LESS than you deserve as consumers!"
The current NN regs boil down simply to "Don't fuck over your customers, and if you are, tell them you are". That's it. Please explain how the hell that's not what consumers want and deserve.
On the post: Judge Backs AT&T, Comcast Nuisance Suit Against Google Fiber In Nashville
Re:
"You asked for it by laughing at the folks that told you it was coming because of your stance on regulation."
This comment makes absolutely zero sense. You seem to have a very tenuous grasp on the concept of cause and effect.
On the post: Comcast Spent Millions Repealing Net Neutrality, Now Wants You To Believe It Won't Take Full, Brutal Advantage
Re: ha ha ha
On the post: Ajit Pai's Big Lie
Re: Re: Re: Inflamatory headline
On the post: Ajit Pai's Big Lie
Re:
"Pai is set to destroy one of the most marvelous libraries and means of communication ever invented..."
You seem to be suffering from the same misunderstanding as the "don't let the government control the internet" clowns. If Pai succeeds in his goals US ISP customers will suffer and the rest of the world will barely notice. The internet is not going anywhere.
On the post: Ajit Pai's Big Lie
Re:
On the post: FCC Releases Net Neutrality Killing Order, Hopes You're Too Busy Cooking Turkey To Read It
Re: Re: Re: Re: what problem
"That FCC Order substantially restricted internet freedom by sharply increasing FCC powers."
Do you seriously expect to win an argument with straight-up, disingenuous lies? It's almost like you think we can't all read the rules and see this for ourselves. How stupid are you?
On the post: FCC Plan To Use Thanksgiving To 'Hide' Its Attack On Net Neutrality Vastly Underestimates The Looming Backlash
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners
"I have offered plenty, but the mantra for you guys is to always advance the lie that I never have..."
Oh you have? Hang on, let me go look that up by searching under your user name....
Oh wow, you have made a lot of posts! Very inconsistent positions though. Some very smart posts, some very stupid ones. Almost like you're not actually one person...
"Okay another lie, the constant mantra is "free-market bad" and you know it..."
No TD writer and very few regular commenters have made this simplistic claim. A totally unfettered, regulation-free market would be terrible. A government-controlled, heavily regulated market would also be very bad. History has proven both of these points well, which is why we want a sensible middle ground that maximises the net benefit to society. Nobody here is interested in anarchists or authoritarians.
"You cannot say you are vigilant about liberty in the same breath your actions lead to giving it up."
This is why it's hard to believe you have a clue what you're talking about. We're arguing about regulations that curtail bad behavior by ISP's and do nothing else. The public are not losing any freedoms here; these are popular, functioning consumer protections that you want to kill. Why would anyone want that unless they have a vested interest in those who would directly benefit from it?
On the post: FCC Plan To Use Thanksgiving To 'Hide' Its Attack On Net Neutrality Vastly Underestimates The Looming Backlash
Re: Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality
On the post: Angry Lawyer Already Engaged In A SLAPP Suit Promises To Sue More Critics, Use His Machine Gun If Sanctioned
Re: Re: I was with you right up until..
On the post: Trial Set To Start For Journalist Facing Decades In Prison For Covering Inauguration Day Protests
Re: IF innocent, then a fair trial will show it.
"But Techdirt has already judged him innocent without seeing any evidence -- willfully blind I'd say."
"Just on surface is the fact of traveling to DC and being among the few violent rioters to "livestream" their destruction. I'd guess that isn't coincidence, but that role was planned in conspiracy."
I'm guessing the irony of making these two claims goes right over your head.
On the post: Trial Set To Start For Journalist Facing Decades In Prison For Covering Inauguration Day Protests
Re: Re:
"I mean, there's only two explanations for such a thing; That the charges against him are bogus and only being used a leverage, or the prosecution is willing to let criminals off easy, either of which looks good for the prosecution."
Their metric of success is the number of successful prosecutions, not whether the correct person was appropriately punished. Maximising the number of successful prosecutions is the only goal, and all possible steps will be taken to achieve this. Thus the popularity of legal blackmail, sorry, plea deals, which get the best results with the least effort. Not really a 'justice' system is it...
On the post: Deputy Shoots Family's Terrier; Complains About Cost Of The Bullet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hollowpoint? WTH?
"You should never, ever point a gun at someone, let alone pull the trigger unless your intent is to kill them."
That's just pussy military training! What would they know?!
On the post: Deputy Shoots Family's Terrier; Complains About Cost Of The Bullet
Re: Re:
"Hollow points aren't meant for wounding someone; they're meant to kill, full stop."
What makes you think cops intend to just wound? You don't empty your mag into someone to injure them. SOP is keep pulling the trigger until you're not scared anymore.
On the post: Deputy Shoots Family's Terrier; Complains About Cost Of The Bullet
Re: Re: Attitudes incompatible with good policing
"This is why a police officer is justified in punching you in the face if you order him or her to get you a glass of water."
And this is why I seriously doubt you're an actual LEO. I doubt even real cops would be so crass and ignorant to make this claim in seriousness. Just another wannabe thug I think.
On the post: David Boies Accused Of Running Horrifying Spy Operation Against Harvey Weinstein's Accusers
Re: No penalty for Boies
"I don’t think this will hurt from a business perspective..."
You'd think that being public and angrily dropped by a client as well-know as the NYT would be a pretty bad look.
"It is not going to harm his reputation with most clients. When you hire Boies, you are hiring an aggressive lawyer."
Being aggressive for your client's benefit is surely good for a lawyers rep, but aggressively and duplicitously working against your client's interests is something completely different.
On the post: Reporter Arrested, Thrown To The Ground For Cursing
Re: Re: Re:
" What the first commenter meant was that just being civil to police isn't a burden compared to the likelihood of police actually getting shot at while protecting the rights of idiots who despise them."
No, that's not what the first commenter meant. What he meant, because he stated it quite clearly, is that he thinks the reporter should be throw in jail (after being physically assaulted) for not talking nicely enough.
There is no basis in law or common sense for the officers' ridiculous over-reaction. If the burden of the (statistically very low) likelihood of being shot at is so great then they should find another damn job.
On the post: Dennis Prager Sues YouTube For Filtering His Videos In A Way He Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Techdirt keeps overlooking that Youtube is NOT a "Good Samaritan" nor acting in "good faith".
"The Techdirt position is that a corporation can CENSOR YOU for any or no reason, and you've no recourse."
Why don't you entertain us with what you think that recourse is. If this is merely Techdirt's position, and not actually well-established law, this should be pretty easy for you.
On the post: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Popehat, Dissent Doe And Others Over A Smiley Emoji Tweet
Re: "So, here's a fun one."???
Wow, you really suck at irony. That's gotta make you pretty dull.
On the post: Trump May Not Be Serious About His NBC Threats... But He May Have Violated The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: NBC is not a "private person",
"Yeah, that's the law. But AC is at least somewhat in the neighborhood of something approaching an actual point."
No, he was clearly trying to claim that is is law, hence the word 'protected'. Completely wrong.
"If somebody (NBC or Fox, take your pick) just makes stuff up and calls it news, isn't there something wrong?"
Actually no, humans have been doing that forever. What would really be wrong is if people kept watching/listening/believing made-up stuff claimed to be news and allowing companies that do that to stay in business.
Next >>