Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 22 Nov '17 13:48 / 1 edit
    https://www.battleforthenet.com/[WORD TOO LONG]

    Magnificent weblink, if I say so myself.

    Anyway, haven't seen this discussed here at all. Are American RHP-ers not worried about this?

    Edit, full link is too long, apparently.
  2. Standard member HandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    22 Nov '17 13:56
    Originally posted by @great-king-rat
    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.
    Don't we have enough to worry about already?
  3. 22 Nov '17 15:08
    Originally posted by @great-king-rat
    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.
    Not to worry, the government will take care of everything.
  4. 22 Nov '17 15:27
    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."
  5. Standard member HandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    22 Nov '17 15:29
    Originally posted by @great-king-rat
    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.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/technology/fcc-net-neutrality.html?_r=0

    Another sortie by Trump and his gang to overturn the accomplishments of the Obama administration.
  6. Standard member HandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    22 Nov '17 15:40
    Originally posted by @great-king-rat
    My oh my... Handy Andy has apparently been bullied into apathy...
    Not bullied, just bewildered by your deformed OP.
  7. 22 Nov '17 16:19
    Originally posted by @handyandy
    Not bullied, just bewildered by your deformed OP.
    Not 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.

    No biggie. I was just curious why all you Americans aren't talking about this. Seemed like a pretty big deal to me.
  8. Subscriber mchill
    cryptogram
    22 Nov '17 17:01
    Originally posted by @great-king-rat
    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.
    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.
  9. 22 Nov '17 18:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @mchill
    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.
    “Sadly most American RHP-ers have other things to worry about,...”

    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.
  10. Standard member HandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    22 Nov '17 18:14
    Originally posted by @great-king-rat
    No biggie. I was just curious why all you Americans aren't talking about this. Seemed like a pretty big deal to me.
    Link to New York Times story above.
  11. 29 Nov '17 11:51
    Originally posted by @mchill
    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.
    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.
  12. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    29 Nov '17 14:59
    Originally posted by @great-king-rat
    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 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.

    I'm sure Verizon and pals are quite pleased with Trumpf now.