Originally posted by @great-king-ratDon't we have enough to worry about already?
https://www.battleforthenet.com/[WORD TOO LONG]
Magnificent weblink, if I say so myself.
Anyway, haven't seen ...[text shortened]... at all. Are American RHP-ers not worried about this?
Edit, full link is too long, apparently.
Originally posted by @great-king-ratNot to worry, the government will take care of everything.
https://www.battleforthenet.com/[WORD TOO LONG]
Magnificent weblink, if I say so myself.
Anyway, haven't seen ...[text shortened]... at all. Are American RHP-ers not worried about this?
Edit, full link is too long, apparently.
My oh my... Handy Andy has apparently been bullied into apathy and Whodey... is being Whodey.
From the link I provided:
"Cable companies are famous for high prices and poor service. Several rank as the most hated companies in America. Now, they're lobbying the FCC and Congress to end net neutrality. Why? It's simple: if they win the power to slow sites down, they can bully any site into paying millions to escape the "slow lane." This would amount to a tax on every sector of the American economy. Every site would cost more, since they'd all have to pay big cable. Worse, it would extinguish the startups and independent voices who can't afford to pay. If we lose net neutrality, the Internet will never be the same."
...
"To win, we need to bring more members of Congress onto "Team Internet"—especially Republicans. Republican members of Congress face massive pressure from party leadership to oppose Net Neutrality, partly because of lobbying by Team Cable, and partly because they see it as "Obama era" policy. But Net Neutrality predates Obama, has always been a design principle of the Internet, and does not need to be a partisan issue. Some Republicans are open to the need for rules—but they won't break ranks from party leaders unless they hear from constituents. Tweets are surprisingly effective."
Originally posted by @great-king-rathttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/technology/fcc-net-neutrality.html?_r=0
https://www.battleforthenet.com/[WORD TOO LONG]
Magnificent weblink, if I say so myself.
Anyway, haven't seen ...[text shortened]... at all. Are American RHP-ers not worried about this?
Edit, full link is too long, apparently.
Another sortie by Trump and his gang to overturn the accomplishments of the Obama administration.
Originally posted by @great-king-ratNot bullied, just bewildered by your deformed OP.
My oh my... Handy Andy has apparently been bullied into apathy...
Originally posted by @handyandyNot entirely sure what is deformed about it... or what that even means. But anyway, if you're not interested in your country's net neutrality, you're not interested.
Not bullied, just bewildered by your deformed OP.
No biggie. I was just curious why all you Americans aren't talking about this. Seemed like a pretty big deal to me.
Originally posted by @great-king-ratAre American RHP-ers not worried about this?
https://www.battleforthenet.com/[WORD TOO LONG]
Magnificent weblink, if I say so myself.
Anyway, haven't seen ...[text shortened]... at all. Are American RHP-ers not worried about this?
Edit, full link is too long, apparently.
Yes, we are worried about this. The absence of net neutrality means the flow of information through the internet can be manipulated. Sadly most American RHP-ers have other things to worry about, considering our overweight Napoleon in the White House is just bent enough to start a nuclear war. 😞
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by @mchill“Sadly most American RHP-ers have other things to worry about,...”
Are American RHP-ers not worried about this?
Yes, we are worried about this. The absence of net neutrality means the flow of information through the internet can be manipulated. Sadly most American RHP-ers have other things to worry about, considering our overweight Napoleon in the White House is just bent enough to start a nuclear war. 😞
If that’s not part of the intentional design of this program, it’s a happy unintended consequence for the perpetrators. Are there existing historical precedents for a program of saturating the populace with both international existential threats and a domestic broadside against the population’s rights and protections, all in service of making the rich richer? Of course, democratic populaces ripe for the plucking have been relatively underrepresented in history.
Originally posted by @great-king-ratLink to New York Times story above.
No biggie. I was just curious why all you Americans aren't talking about this. Seemed like a pretty big deal to me.
Originally posted by @mchillThat's another vote for "bullied into apathy".
Are American RHP-ers not worried about this?
Yes, we are worried about this. The absence of net neutrality means the flow of information through the internet can be manipulated. Sadly most American RHP-ers have other things to worry about, considering our overweight Napoleon in the White House is just bent enough to start a nuclear war. 😞
Who knows, maybe you're lucky and Net Neutrality will be saved by the actions of fellow Americans who've not yet accepted defeat.
As I understand it, it's not very likely.
Originally posted by @great-king-ratI just hope that a subsequent actual civilized president will be able to correct the atrocities of the present bully president. Net neutrality is a done deal, it's dead. For now anyway.
That's another vote for "bullied into apathy".
Who knows, maybe you're lucky and Net Neutrality will be saved by the actions of fellow Americans who've not yet accepted defeat.
As I understand it, it's not very likely.
I'm sure Verizon and pals are quite pleased with Trumpf now.