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

44 minutes ago, Wiw said:

You realise that when this goes through, there won't be any more 270soft or anything?

270soft is not a U.S. corporation (surprisingly). It's based in Vancouver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wiw said:

Then it'll definitely be the end of YouTube, Facebook, and all the rest.

That maybe easy to say or think. But the U.S. tech giants in Silicon Valley, Redmont, etc. are not so easily downed by the U.S. Federal Government as you might think. The U.S. Federal Government doesn't make any of it's own proprietary operating systems, Internet platforms, programming languages, or significant software. It's already pretty much (with some internal modification and innovation by Government programmer, technicians, engineers) by those self-same tech giants, who have been well-known for, despite marketplace competition, to band together to put pressure on the U.S. Government when such draconian laws are threatened. And, honestly, I don't see the Trump Administration going and replacing almost all of the hardware and software systems with things both made in, designed in, and owned by people, institutions and corporations in China, Japan, South Korea, and Germany, do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

270soft is not a U.S. corporation (surprisingly). It's based in Vancouver.

While that is true, its main userbase is American. Aside from you, and our token Austrian, this site essentially American in all but name. Now the new changes to the regulations can make it harder for an American to see this site unless 270soft pays Comcast a special fee(that is not at all a shakedown, or racketeering) so they will not be relegated to the slow lane. Of course, could they(Comcast and other American ISPs) even do that? Regulate the speed and access to foreign websites such as this one, or the BBC? If yes, would putting a site like this in the slow lane-or having its customers pay more to access said site- constitute as a tariff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

While that is true, its main userbase is American. Aside from you, and our token Austrian, this site essentially American in all but name. Now the new changes to the regulations can make it harder for an American to see this site unless 270soft pays Comcast a special fee(that is not at all a shakedown, or racketeering) so they will not be relegated to the slow lane. Of course, could they(Comcast and other American ISPs) even do that? Regulate the speed and access to foreign websites such as this one, or the BBC? If yes, would putting a site like this in the slow lane-or having its customers pay more to access said site- constitute as a tariff?

But you missed my second point. The big sites whose traffic will be hugely impacted (YouTube, Facebook, Google, Twitter) are generally cooperative in applying on the U.S. government with other corporations like Apple, Microsoft, Dell, Acer, Hewlitt-Packard, IBM, etc., against broad-sweeping regulations of whole Internet and computer industries in broad sweeps - the latter set of corporations actually manufacturing and designing almost all the hardware and software that the U.S. Federal Government and corporations like Comcast would even have at all as tools to enforce these laws (and, as we've seen, Apple and Microsoft, at least, have backdoors and work-arounds in their own products to circumvent security on even government contract items while having features to them that can unexpectedly screw around the government when using them). While that state of affairs may end up being beneficial in stymying short-term tyranny of the Internet, it does also blatantly display corporate power to ignore and get-around government laws (and taxes) and put pressure to force (or dismiss) legislation and action on governments highly disproportionately powerful compared to said governments' own constituents, even governments of world powers and Superpowers. And THAT is a big problem in the long-term...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are so grossly uninformed on the topic. Net neutrality is bad already. While I support a repeal, abolishing the FCC is better. Ending net neutrality wouldn't get rid of Facebook, YouTube and all that shit, if anything it'd strengthen those sites. Government doesn't need to regulate the internet, and I guarantee you businesses won't censor stuff. It'll make the internet faster and more reliable for everyone. I hope a full repeal goes through. (And 270soft would be just as fast under net neutrality even if it was a US business)

Besides, the internet isn't a human right. If I have the money as a consumer, I should be able to purchase better internet services. As a company I should be able to purchase better access to my sites.

Prove me wrong. Pro tip: you can't 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone can show that you're wrong when you say businesses won't censor stuff.  For example, we saw ISPs block access to sites of labor unions they were having disputes with before 2015.  You think an ISP would be above censoring unfavorable articles or sites that criticize them?

Share this post


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

People are so grossly uninformed on the topic. Net neutrality is bad already. While I support a repeal, abolishing the FCC is better. Ending net neutrality wouldn't get rid of Facebook, YouTube and all that shit, if anything it'd strengthen those sites. Government doesn't need to regulate the internet, and I guarantee you businesses won't censor stuff. It'll make the internet faster and more reliable for everyone. I hope a full repeal goes through. (And 270soft would be just as fast under net neutrality even if it was a US business)

Besides, the internet isn't a human right. If I have the money as a consumer, I should be able to purchase better internet services. As a company I should be able to purchase better access to my sites.

Prove me wrong. Pro tip: you can't 

This is what they call Libertarian propaganda (instead of Liberal, Conservative, Socialist, Communist, Religious Fundamentalist, or Fascist propaganda). It sounds potentially believable, and may have a few nuggets of truth at it's core, like all propaganda, but is in the end a load of misleading crap to a political end. A completely unregulated Internet would leave all common users at the utter mercy of predators of all sorts - both criminal and corporate - with no legal recourse or protections of any sort. And whether or not the Internet is a "right" is immaterial, as standing by and allowing acts to be commit online that would effectively be crimes offline would be a "wrong" for any responsible, civilized, modern government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, it seems to me that we can't have it both ways. Them fat-cats have made that clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2017 at 7:02 PM, 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.

why you think anti virus exist and heard of the deep web?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Presidentinsertname said:

that not this how this works. plus didnt 270soft exist before net neutrality???

Doesn't it? From what I understand, the deal involves sites having to pay extra to be seen on the fast lane, effectively killing the small sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wiw said:

Doesn't it? From what I understand, the deal involves sites having to pay extra to be seen on the fast lane, effectively killing the small sites.

It will give ISPs the option of doing that sort of thing.  There's no guarantee that they will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh they will, trust me! Ajit Pai is a fascist, just like Dolard Trimp is a fascist! They both mean the end of free speech! This is the fate of the FREE WORLD on the line here!

Share this post


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

Oh they will, trust me! Ajit Pai is a fascist, just like Dolard Trimp is a fascist! They both mean the end of free speech! This is the fate of the FREE WORLD on the line here!

Libertarians who support this law don't REALLY care about liberty as a social concept or a societal guarantee, they only want a package that they themselves (each Libertarian) gets the liberties they themselves want out of it and say screw anyone else or a workable, functional society at all. A highly nihilistic, selfish, anti-social, and, at times, even sociopathic political viewpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2017 at 3:41 PM, ThePotatoWalrus said:

People are so grossly uninformed on the topic. Net neutrality is bad already. While I support a repeal, abolishing the FCC is better. Ending net neutrality wouldn't get rid of Facebook, YouTube and all that shit, if anything it'd strengthen those sites. Government doesn't need to regulate the internet, and I guarantee you businesses won't censor stuff. It'll make the internet faster and more reliable for everyone. I hope a full repeal goes through. (And 270soft would be just as fast under net neutrality even if it was a US business)

Besides, the internet isn't a human right. If I have the money as a consumer, I should be able to purchase better internet services. As a company I should be able to purchase better access to my sites.

Prove me wrong. Pro tip: you can't 

How do you know it'd "strengthen those [Google,Youtube,Twitter etc.]" 

"businesses won't censor stuff" - So all the examples provided here that never happened apparently.

"It'll make the internet faster and more reliable for everyone. I hope a full repeal goes through." - On those websites that pay, ISP's will speed it up but for those that don't, they will be forced to chose between paying the ISP and having slow access or being blocked. 

"I should be able to purchase better internet services. As a company I should be able to purchase better access to my sites." - "Better access"  will more or less be what you had, it's akin to an energy company dimming your light bulbs and offering a "brighter bulb" package which is just like what you had before.

"Besides, the internet isn't a human right." - Only in your opinion, many disagree as the Internet is an enabler of rights like free speech and it can cause significant societal changes like what happened during the Arab Spring.

Image result for thats all folks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2017 at 8:12 PM, Patine said:

This is what they call Libertarian propaganda (instead of Liberal, Conservative, Socialist, Communist, Religious Fundamentalist, or Fascist propaganda). It sounds potentially believable, and may have a few nuggets of truth at it's core, like all propaganda, but is in the end a load of misleading crap to a political end. A completely unregulated Internet would leave all common users at the utter mercy of predators of all sorts - both criminal and corporate - with no legal recourse or protections of any sort. And whether or not the Internet is a "right" is immaterial, as standing by and allowing acts to be commit online that would effectively be crimes offline would be a "wrong" for any responsible, civilized, modern government.

I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he meant right as in you're allowed to do something and not as in morally right (which exists whether or not a body is there to promote it) although with today's Rousseau on acid mentality (that freedom is being aloud to do whatever you want) people often lump the two together.

Share this post


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

Libertarians who support this law don't REALLY care about liberty as a social concept or a societal guarantee, they only want a package that they themselves (each Libertarian) gets the liberties they themselves want out of it and say screw anyone else or a workable, functional society at all. A highly nihilistic, selfish, anti-social, and, at times, even sociopathic political viewpoint.

What's that got to do with the fact that Pai and Trump are fascists?

Share this post


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

What's that got to do with the fact that Pai and Trump are fascists?

@ThePotatoWalrus is supporting this all on Libertarian grounds, which is highly misguided.

Share this post


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

@ThePotatoWalrus is supporting this all on Libertarian grounds, which is highly misguided.

Libertarianism = Facism

Lmao ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Libertarianism = Facism

Lmao ok

Well maybe Corporate Fascism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Libertarianism = Facism

Lmao ok

I don't believe I used the word "Fascism" or any analog in the post you were replying to. But I suppose, in the limited political vocabulary most Americans are taught and understand the true definitions of the words of, that's one of the only words available to latch onto to correlate my statement.

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

×