Jump to content
270soft Forum
NYrepublican

Net Neutrality

Do you support net neutrality?  

26 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you support net neutrality?



Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, pilight said:

Exodus 22 suggests that self defense in the case of thievery is only permissible if you can't contact the proper authorities.  "If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed."

Uh no, in the previous verse the burgular was prepared to kill the person if necessary to take their stuff, in that case killing is permissible, in that verse it says that if it's evident that the burgular is peacefully disposed toward you (the phrase "if the sun has risen on him" being metaphorical) only then is killing not permitted, it has nothing to do with authorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/07/2017 at 1:24 AM, NYrepublican said:

Americans,do you support net neutrality; for non-americans do you support the equivalent measure in your country?

To answer to the question

I defend the international non-neutrality when the question is about human rights like the Balkans in 1995 but I am not an American :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

Uh no, in the previous verse the burgular was prepared to kill the person if necessary to take their stuff, in that case killing is permissible, in that verse it says that if it's evident that the burgular is peacefully disposed toward you (the phrase "if the sun has risen on him" being metaphorical) only then is killing not permitted, it has nothing to do with authorities.

Nonetheless, Christianity differs from Judaism in, among other ways, the sacrifice of Christ and the shedding of His blood for all mortals to have a path to Salvation by the New Covenant means the same laws are there (with a few exceptions stated by Christ), they're no longer enforced righteously by mortal authorities acting on God's behalf as His judges, but He Himself will all equally and perfectly on Judgement Day. And, as the sacrifice of Christ's Body (his death) pays the wages of sin (which are death) the shedding of His Blood ends all need and justification for bloodshed, bloody punishment, blood vendetta, and blood ritual upon the Earth by religious law. I'm just explaining to you the difference between Jewish and Christian doctrine on this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

Uh no, in the previous verse the burgular was prepared to kill the person if necessary to take their stuff, in that case killing is permissible, in that verse it says that if it's evident that the burgular is peacefully disposed toward you (the phrase "if the sun has risen on him" being metaphorical) only then is killing not permitted, it has nothing to do with authorities.

Metaphorical?  You mean we're not supposed to take it literally?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, pilight said:

Metaphorical?  You mean we're not supposed to take it literally?

Yes it is metaphorical as per Jewish understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Patine said:

Nonetheless, Christianity differs from Judaism in, among other ways, the sacrifice of Christ and the shedding of His blood for all mortals to have a path to Salvation by the New Covenant means the same laws are there (with a few exceptions stated by Christ), they're no longer enforced righteously by mortal authorities acting on God's behalf as His judges, but He Himself will all equally and perfectly on Judgement Day. And, as the sacrifice of Christ's Body (his death) pays the wages of sin (which are death) the shedding of His Blood ends all need and justification for bloodshed, bloody punishment, blood vendetta, and blood ritual upon the Earth by religious law. I'm just explaining to you the difference between Jewish and Christian doctrine on this issue.

I only felt the need to bring that up because he bought up Exodus and applied an understanding I believed to be misguided and incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arf I did not understand the definition rightly now I do.

About the net-neutrality of internet....there are good and bag things

For me on the "political expression" everybody should be free to express its concerns.

But the laws should be applied for those who use internet to do "cyber harassment" 

The main gain with Internet is the liberty of information and expression, the net-neutrality for me is in this goal.

But from another point of view, the net-neutrality can create enterprises of fake news.

A single example of fake news that can become popular thanks to net-neutrality:

The main gain with internet is the exchange of information.

So the net-neutrality is perfect to share information, but there should be people from many sides to be able to contradict such informations like the one I gave.

For the rest, I can criticize internet for some "fake or partial news"

But it always will be less worst than the press.

I am not a Donald Trump supporter but the Catalan case is clear enoguh to tell me that I see few differences between the video I shared, and the papers who ask to Spanish what do they feel about Catalan independence, who make easy judgements or even a journalist I corrected, who dared to take a poll from June 2017 and transform it into a number of efficient polls made for 3 months later in October while in reality it was totally fake and in opposition with all the real lattest polls of the period to say "the polls are saying what I say in my article" when it was wrong.

So...even if internet would be free of any enterprise and that the informations could be gave freely, maybe the amound of fakes news would not be worse than in reality.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sami said:

Arf I did not understand the definition rightly now I do.

About the net-neutrality of internet....there are good and bag things

For me on the "political expression" everybody should be free to express its concerns.

But the laws should be applied for those who use internet to do "cyber harassment" 

The main gain with Internet is the liberty of information and expression, the net-neutrality for me is in this goal.

But from another point of view, the net-neutrality can create enterprises of fake news.

A single example of fake news that can become popular thanks to net-neutrality:

The main gain with internet is the exchange of information.

So the net-neutrality is perfect to share information, but there should be people from many sides to be able to contradict such informations like the one I gave.

For the rest, I can criticize internet for some "fake or partial news"

But it always will be less worst than the press.

I am not a Donald Trump supporter but the Catalan case is clear enoguh to tell me that I see few differences between the video I shared, and the papers who ask to Spanish what do they feel about Catalan independence, who make easy judgements or even a journalist I corrected, who dared to take a poll from June 2017 and transform it into a number of efficient polls made for 3 months later in October while in reality it was totally fake and in opposition with all the real lattest polls of the period to say "the polls are saying what I say in my article" when it was wrong.

So...even if internet would be free of any enterprise and that the informations could be gave freely, maybe the amound of fakes news would not be worse than in reality.

 

In George Orwell's "1984," one of Big Brother and the Inner Party's biggest pillars of power was the control of all sources of information, both news and academic archives, and their dissemination. I fear laws that freely give the government (or mega-corporations, who I feel are getting about as bad, despite the common libertarian, fiscal-right-leaning narrative that in regulation, management, and free-hand, corporate empowerment is always "good" and government empowerment is always "bad" by default") the power to censor, monitor, and potentially content on the Internet, we could be well on our to such an Orwellian situation - not overnight, of course, but it could be on the horizon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

But what about pirates, hackers, viruses, Trojans, black-market websites, child pornography, Nigerian princesses, Russian mail-order brides, penis and breast enlargement and "get big and musclebound or thin and shapely fast" schemes, corrupt politicians offering a cut of embezzled money random e-mailed people who'll come to foreign shore to help offload it, fake games up for free download, phishing and scamming galore, and tonnes and tonnes of spam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

But what about pirates, hackers, viruses, Trojans, black-market websites, child pornography, Nigerian princesses, Russian mail-order brides, penis and breast enlargement and "get big and musclebound or thin and shapely fast" schemes, corrupt politicians offering a cut of embezzled money random e-mailed people who'll come to foreign shore to help offload it, fake games up for free download, phishing and scamming galore, and tonnes and tonnes of spam?

not sure what your point is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

not sure what your point is.

If the FCC (and assumably, ideally, other nations' equivalent agencies) are abolished and full net neutrality and complete lack of government regulation on the Internet becomes a firm policy, law-enforcement loses all of it's legitimate tools to fight or protect against the above stated cybercrimes. The Internet becomes like the Wild West, but where even the Sheriffs and Marshals have packed up and retired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2017 at 4:09 PM, Wiw said:

Better to deal with fake news than no news at all!

you do know governments could call what ever news should them no in favor fake newsd and get rid of it right? the mainstream media all have 6% trust rating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2017 at 6:54 PM, Patine said:

But what about pirates, hackers, viruses, Trojans, black-market websites, child pornography, Nigerian princesses, Russian mail-order brides, penis and breast enlargement and "get big and musclebound or thin and shapely fast" schemes, corrupt politicians offering a cut of embezzled money random e-mailed people who'll come to foreign shore to help offload it, fake games up for free download, phishing and scamming galore, and tonnes and tonnes of spam?

We're so fortunate that none of those things existed before the 2015 adoption of the current net neutrality rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pilight said:

We're so fortunate that none of those things existed before the 2015 adoption of the current net neutrality rules.

Oh, certainly they did. But, the net neutrality and promoted end further of government regulation on the Internet altogether much more limit law enforcement's power to deal with them effectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Presidentinsertname said:

you do know governments could call what ever news should them no in favor fake newsd and get rid of it right? the mainstream media all have 6% trust rating.

And then reiterate it's own fake news as a platform of popular control and mass dissemination of propaganda? I think Big Brother in 1984 was already doing this scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/11/2017 at 12:02 AM, Patine said:

If the FCC (and assumably, ideally, other nations' equivalent agencies) are abolished and full net neutrality and complete lack of government regulation on the Internet becomes a firm policy, law-enforcement loses all of it's legitimate tools to fight or protect against the above stated cybercrimes. The Internet becomes like the Wild West, but where even the Sheriffs and Marshals have packed up and retired.

It looks to me like we can't have it any other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2017 at 6:54 PM, Patine said:

pirates, hackers, viruses, Trojans, black-market websites, child pornography, Nigerian princesses, Russian mail-order brides, penis and breast enlargement

One of these is not like the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WVProgressive said:

One of these is not like the other.

Is it the pirates or the penis and breast enlargement schemes? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

Is it the pirates or the penis and breast enlargement schemes? :P

Pirates, I'm probably part of the minority here but i don't view digital piracy as that bad but i do see where others re coming from when they say it hurts small bushiness, which is why i only pirate from large multi-national companies .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

Pirates, I'm probably part of the minority here but i don't view digital piracy as that bad but i do see where others re coming from when they say it hurts small bushiness, which is why i only pirate from large multi-national companies .

Oh, I fully agree. I was making the list from a law-enforcement perspective. I've had my time apprenticed to a crew and learning the ropes way back years ago (back in the Kazaa, LimeWire, and BitTorrent days). The statute of limitations protects me making this statement here (and the fact that "piracy laws" were very lax in Canada in that day).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×