While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
I found the comments portion, but whenever I try to submit a comment it tells me to input a valid email. I tried using my private email and my federal email, neither worked.
This is outrageous;firstly the censorship by the /r/videos mods is entirely unacceptable.
But then their censorship has the knock on effect of hiding the FCC's bullshit tactic of taking down the comment link from Oliver's instructions in the video.
It's fucked when the mods of /r/videos end up playing the role of useful idiot for the FCC's corrupt chairman.
Removal of net neutrality is official Republican policy, in opposition to official Democratic policy. It's clearly a political issue, in addition to being a technology issue.
yeah people are completely wrong when they say in in non-partisan. the card holding and voting members of the GOP might not be for it, but their corrupt-ass and beloved party holds a different stance as do the paid politicians that represent the ISPs and not their constituents. 'bi-partisan' issue is wrong as fuck.
Does the vote split on party lines? Then it's a divisive political issue. If you folks can't comprehend this then conspiracies may be a bit above your pay grade.
I also believe that republicans in congress don't really represent the interests of republicans as a whole but that's an entirely other conversation about broken politics.
I don't like that argument though. Just because Republicans are anti-common sense doesn't make something political. If Donald Trump said the sun was going to rise in the west, all his supporters would fall in line behind him, but it wouldn't make the sun political or not.
Politics is the discussions and process around the making of laws and other things involved in government. At present, there's considerable disagreement over the changes to law needed to remove net neutrality. It's a matter of current politics, despite how obvious it seems. Remember that things like slavery have been political issues in the past
It's true that politics overlaps with tech. You can gauge by the comments, though. Most likely: a bunch of trump tards reported them relentlessly. They do that. (It's hilarious when mods post their tantrums for all to see...)
Or you know.... The underlying conservative principle that the markets should be free. I'm against net neutrality I'm the same way I'm against local monopolies than ISPs keep getting granted.
I do understand it. Nice on paper, but Netflix shows where it stifles them heavily. The first I'm is an in. I don't like regulating isp on what data they want to transfer, and I don't like granting ISPs local monponlies either.
I do, I just know it's not a popular opinion, lot of people have drank the net neutrality kool-aid too hard. Netflix makes the perfect case why it stifles them heavily.
the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.
This revocation doesn't allow throttling or blocking of anyones content though. They can't go less than advertised speed. Your not allowed to throttle others because no more net neutrality. You're allowed to charge companies if they want their stuff ran at higher than advertised speeds or without effecting the data cap
the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.
This revocation doesn't allow throttling or blocking of anyones content though. They can't go less than advertised speed. Your not allowed to throttle others because no more net neutrality. You're allowed to charge companies if they want their stuff ran at higher than advertised speeds or without effecting the data cap. Some people some how invented this idea that now Google can go block duck duck go or some shit for all charter users if they want. When really it's that Google can put a server at charters locations with most popular at moment videos, and pay them to not have youtube take toll on their monthly data cap or allow them to watch 4k YouTube even if they are paying for speeds not capable of jt
there has been proof of isps throttling. i'm not going to say you're wrong, but i'm currently unaware what, besides title II, that prevents isps from throttling other companies. perhaps you can share? i also like to point out that i'm not attempting to argue with you. if you do have a point to make, i'm very willing to hear you out. perhaps this is like the situation where the gov't wanted to allow isps to sell user data, where ppl argued that limiting isps is unfair?
Getting rid of net neutrality will only give more power to ISPs. They will be able to charge different rates based on the content of the data packets rather than the speed or quantity, such that 10mb of data from Facebook might cost you more than 10mb of data from Netflix, or they could do the "package" thing like cable tv does with channel bundles but instead of channels it's website bundles. Removing net neutrality would kill any internet startups.
I do not think you understand this as well as you think you do.
I know just saying the problem is natural monopolies granted by goverment, or too much regulation on laying more fiber. I want to break charter and time Warner into multiple companies, not let them fucking merge. Split media company off isp companies.
No net neutrality is restrictions on isp. No, you shouldn't be able to throttle an Isp, but t-mobile has deals with a few different companies where their apps don't count towords data caps, cause the company pays them. That is great imo, something Obama isp was litigating
There's this weird brand of libertarian thought that doesn't mind the loss of individual freedom if it's to a wealthy non-government agency. If a government agency were to regulate that non-government agency and force them to allow more freedom to those of us who rely on the infrastructure, that is the real tragedy.
The conversation is more nuanced than that, obviously, and I admire the ability of people to stick by their free market guns even when it does incredible harm to the majority of consumers, but I still consider the philosophy to be weird.
I love Anarchistic theories but, anarcho-captialism seems to be the worst end all be all of Anarchism. I love Anarchistic philosophy and love poking holes in the philosophies only to see another branch of Anarchism fill the hole with a good idea but, Anarcho-captialism is just one giant shit on everything. Basically, most Anarchistic philosophy seeks to give power to the individual but, Anarcho-captialism is the one that's full circle back to dictatorship, it'd be amazing if it wasn't so sad.
Possibly, if it weren't for the fact that they (I think Verizon was the example?) admitted in investor callings that net neutrality doesn't impact their infrastructure spending at all. It's all the bad and none of the good of tolls.
Just ignore this dude. Looking through his post history I thought he'd be a troll but he's actually a racist moron. For the sake of pointlessly trying to educate you, net neutrality is the very thing stopping the monopolies NOT the other way around. I will not be responding to you again, I've debated enough /r/The_Donald retards to know its futile.
How am I rascist, and to which race? I don't like Islam, in the same way I don't like super duper fundamentalist of any other religion, Islam is just the most fundamental one out there.
Big companies can't go to ISPs and say don't let this content pass through. It says we pay you so your customers can have faster access to our content. The advertised speed is still legally binding for companies that don't have an agreement with that isp.
The example you used, is exactly what killing net neutrality will accomplish
in the same way [I'm] against local monopolies
Killing net neutrality opens the door for monopolies on data, content, access. Hate the ISP monopolies now? Just wait until they can monopolize your experience online, not just how you connect.
Or at least you could use another ISP if they didn't already have a local monopoly so you'd have no choice but to use ones that will throttle your connection.
My area has 3 ISPs avaliable because the local goverment won't grant anyone a monopoly. The best part is none of the companies are Charter, Time Warner, AT&T, Google or Verizon.
Did you not see the other bit where I said not granting local monopolies, or did you miss the bit where revoking net neutrality doesn't mean they can censor others, it means they can make it not count against your cap or provide it at greater than advertised speeds
Charter Time Warner shouldn't have been allowed to merge
And yet. They did.
My apologies for not having faith in the government to act in my best interest when experience has shown me that the government really likes the corporate best interest over my best interest.
I agree with you. I really dislike that they were allowed to merge. Just simply saying net neutrality isn't a regulation I'm in favor of. I was way supportive of it, but then Netflix launched open connect and I saw their viewpoint made a ton of sense.
You cant't just "use another ISP" if all the ISPs in your area are using the same backbone. What if it's Level 3 or Cogent that starts invoking restrictions on content? Good luck finding another local ISP that doesn't use them.
Except revoking net neutrality doesn't mean you can't access parts of theInternet at your advertisied speed. Revoking it allows Netflix to make an agreement with x to serve their content at a higher speed or Spotify to go to t-mobile and say make our music streaming not count against the data cap.
Except that's illegal. They can't go less than advertised speed. Your not allowed to throttle others because no more net neutrality. You're allowed to charge companies if they want their stuff ran at higher than advertised speeds or without effecting the data cap
Yes, charge companies. Who do you think that cost will fall back on? The customer.
Net neutrality is what keeps the internet a level playing field. You want to create the next 'google'? Good luck when you'll be fighting to over come the search results pushed up ahead of your site, if they'll even show your site as a result. Since you're 'not one of their paying customers who pays to have their page boosted'; they don't give a fuck if people go to your page, in fact, it's better for them if they don't go to your page and go instead to a paying business' page. Because with that added site traffic the user will be more likely to buy or use the first site than to search and find yours.
Have you ever been in the grocery store and seen items on sale for the regular price, or even on sale for more than they were the week before? That deal didnt' get better, they just marked up the price to mark it on sale and hoepfully trick people into thinking they're getting a deal because it's now "50% off!" yet it's the same price as last week. Same situation.
They advertise speeds, technology gets better, throttle service to stay at same speed, improve network, get bills passed in your favor to exploit your new venture, then keep "same low rates for internet as before" but added bonus availability for speed with a higher rate.
Also, I'm pretty sure few people actually get the speeds that they're paying for, I very often see people bitching in my area about slow ass internet and they they call the provider who adjusts some things because they were on vacation last month and the company recognized they're reduced use and moved that bandwidth elsewhere. Only after calls and complaints do their download/upload rates return to normal.
Either way, you've mentioned twice now about things that shouldn't or can't be done, that from my experience have seen done; and it's exactly why I don't believe most corporations anymore. They do what they want, until they get caught and deal with a minor slap on the wrist if at all; then they lobby to make the laws beneficial for themselves and exploit everyone else.
I have no faith that a company/corporation will do the "right" thing when the "illegal/wrong" thing is more profitable.
Search results aren't protected by net neutrality right now.
People not getting their speeds should contact the FCC with proof of how long, what times, etc, they can mandate you get huge parts of your bill back, and penalize the isp with fees.
What if the same ISP merged with all the others and just sold you the same Service under different names (T-Mobile owns MetroPCS as an example) so you're tricked into believing that you have options when you have none. Time-Warner wanting to Merge with Comcast would have given one entity about 65% of the whole US market and in some areas that would've been 100%. So, there's a monopoly but, granted it's only a Monopoly in a few areas and probably have enough power to force the other carriers to do what they want in the others.
A good example is in Georgia where I live, although not related to the internet, A Southern Company has a literal legal Monopoly on electricity in Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. I know this because, I wanted to start a Solar business and saw that A Southern Company set the price per Watt and basically forced me to never start because, I could make no profit.
I said at another point anti trust. We should break up charter and time Warner into 6 or 7 companies, separate media and isp elements, not fucking let them merge. I fully believe in anti trust laws
Net neutrality is literally a regulation telling businesses what they can and cannot do.... I'm anti regulation in terms of almost all them except Sherman anti trust.
So.. Trumplings hate the scary british man because he makes fun of orange daddy sometimes, so fuck anything he likes even if it goes against our own interests. Is that what it is?
You literally said its to do with John Oliver. Your reason for destroying the internet is because you don't like someone with nothing to do with it. Do you not see how fucking stupid that is? I know we're meant to treat you guys like you're human but seriously I hope you spin into a road.
I never called anyone a fascist. That being said, if you want to hold laughable positions, mock "PC culture" and "librul snowflakes who can't deal with criticism," and then demand that no one criticize you ever, you should be prepared to be laughed at.
Also if the "dehumanization" you hear from the left is appalling, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on Trump's wish to bomb the families of terrorists. Is that humanizing? Or is it okay cause he has the little R by his name? I await your response with baited breath, I have noooooooooooooooooo idea what you're going to say.
And if you really wanted what was best for people, you wouldn't support an incompetent buffoun who doesn't understand how the U.S. government works, hasn't appointed 90% of the positions he is obligated to as president, has golfed every weekend at his own courses on the taxpayers dime, has his obese cheeto-stained fingers within grabbing distance of nuclear launch codes, and is currently serving part-time as a oral repository for Vladimer Putin's member.
Because it goes against what the Trump admin wants. The previous chairman of the FCC wasn't perfect, but he was pro net neutrality. Well, he wasn't at first, but it seems like Obama influenced his policy (for better or worse). One of the first things the current admin did was nominate an ISP shill, Ajit Pai, as the new chairman.
It's safe to say that Trump is not pro net neutrality.
I like to think the ground swell of public outrage over net neutrality last time this happened is what caused the previous FCC chief to change direction.
Could be. He was being hounded by conservatives last time when he came out in support of it, claiming that Obama was controlling the FCC despite them being an independent agency.
Except now Trump supporters willbe going out of their way to defend this whereas the first time this came up there wasn't really anyone in favor of it :/
The previous chairman of the FCC wasn't perfect, but he was pro net neutrality. Well, he wasn't at first, but it seems like Obama influenced his policy (for better or worse).
Wheeler held generally pro-NN inclinations going back well before he even joined the FCC. Arguing that Obama influenced his policy is disingenuous because the Obama administration didn't even wade into the FCC/NN debate until very, very late in the game -- mere weeks/months before the Title II vote.
One of the first things the current admin did was nominate an ISP shill, Ajit Pai, as the new chairman.
Let there be NO misunderstanding, Ajit Pai (and Michael O'Reilly) is(are) Republican Party shills placed there by Mitch McConnell many years ago -- nominated by Obama in a "reaching across the aisle" gesture at the behest of Mitch.
Neither Pai nor O'Reilly have ANY prior experience (technical or otherwise) that qualifies them for positions at the FCC. The Trump Admin's move of Ajit Pai from commissioner to chairman is nothing more than a "this piece is in position, time to play it".
They are ISP shills inasmuch as that flows naturally out of the Republican Party's long-lived Pro-Business-At-Any-And-All-Cost agenda.
Trump supporters specifically, or just supposed conservatives? I think the reasoning that is used against net neutrality on the surface is supposedly that they don't like the government intervening. The idea that more regulation doesn't fix regulation problems.
What we currently have are monopolies in place that have ruined how people receive service. Those monopolies are in place in small part due to government regulation. Now, what people want to do is put in more regulation which makes them upset.
The difference though, is instead of acknowledging the issue, and coming up with a solution, they want to oppose any efforts to actually fix it. They don't seem to understand that companies don't self regulate in a market place that has already stifled and killed off any competition. This fully eliminates any and all reason not to do something to fix the problem. Since they haven't come up with any plans, just opposition, their position has always been "let the market sort it out" despite cities deciding to create their own ISPs as voters approve of them, or other solutions. They want to create the illusion of competition, but aren't interested in letting it come about or flourish.
Now, what I have stated is a generalisation of conservatives, and there will be outliers, but the policies that have been put in place, and the conversations I have been privy to have all gone this way. Those outliers can speak up, but they likely aren't speaking for their party, just themselves. None of what I have said gives liberals a pass either, as there are just as many problems with the way they view the world as well.
They put people in charge of the departments who hate the department. It's part of the "not a traditional politician" bit. Tear it all down. Fuck if it's useful or not, tear that shit down because regulation is bad.
So they defund the ones they can, and here, they just put in a guy who has all the power to tear it down from the top without needing a lot of extra help.
It started in January before the inauguration. He immediately dropped a bill that would have force cable companies to allow 3rd party cable boxes.
Then, in february, they dropped subsidies for low income internet access. Then he announced "Net Neutrality all must go". Then comcast rolled out a fee for people using a roku instead of a cable box. $5. So you now have to pay them to rent their shitty cable box, or pay them to use your own device instead. Either way, they're getting that $5 from you. The old FCC would have blocked this.
Then, they loosened the restrictions on your ISP selling your data. Not some website you have the option of not using, the ISP, which in most parts of the country you don't have a choice for.
He was put in place to destroy the FCC because it was doing so well under Obama. We thought Wheeler was going to be an ex-Verizon corporate shithead, but the guy ended up really doing some great things for consumers. Net Neutrality being one of them.
But fuck all that blue shit I guess. Red all the way! I have no idea why!
Frankly the ACA is going down soon anyway. There needs to be an alternative in place. Also males benefit significantly less than females with the ACA as well as the middle class (You know just about all of America)
Trump supporters are against John Oliver because his program is liberal-sided and regularly calls out Trump on his corruption and general obviousness and ignorance.
They are also against net neutrality because cognitive dissonance doesn't allow them to be against anything that the GOP and Trump support.
Many Republicans that I know think the government is inept and that the Internet would be better if the government didn't have a hand in it. They don't think telecommunications companies will use the lack of NN to screw over customers because on the free market those customers would be able to just find another provider. They think NN reduces competition between ISPs and that the consumer pays the price. The whole regional monopoly thing doesn't really resonate with them because many of them live in rural areas and just got high speed internet pretty recently. They think in the city there is bound to be lots of competition and that one can easily vote with their wallets. They don't realize that without NN and with government sanction monopolies that the mega ISPs will become even more tyrannical than they already are.
Some things are more political than others. Stuff about the actions of the government in making/changing laws is pretty heavily into politics. You might be able to make everything political if you really try, but something like this is innately more political than a video of someone playing with their pet or whatever.
I'm not really sure I buy that as I don't think there's anything really polarizing about it and being about government doesn't make something inherently political, but even if it was you'd think they'd address that before it made it to /r/all.
Hello, I'm the CEO of Comcast, and I am opposed to net neutrality.
Seriously though, even most libertarians I know are pro net neutrality. It doesn't make sense for an industry with a natural monopoly like ISPs to be able to discriminate against traffic or charge more to reach certain sites. The internet is a utility, not just a service that most could do without. It's way to ingrained in our world now.
Likewise. I got in a heated discussion with a co-worker over it who identifies as a strict libertarian (the type that, if a model existed, would prefer to have a private police and military over a publicly funded one). His outlook is that they are a business and the government shouldn't tell them what they can and cannot do with their privately created and funded service. Period. No other ways to around it. Even if they may have accepted public money at some point to expand, the company itself isn't publicly owned or operated, therefore the gov't shouldn't tell them how to manage their own data.
Yeah this would definitely fall under their category of "political".
Say what you want about the mods of /r/politics, but they're at least pretty bipartisan when it comes to what they'll label as political. They might be quick to remove an vid even remotely considered political, but at least they're fair in their removal.
gofccyourself.com still worked for me, but everything is taking forever to load. Could just be the increased amount of traffic from people trying to comment again? Though once you get to the page clicking express is taking even longer, so you could be right.
Maybe they made it so that the pages for expressing comments run on a different host than everything else. Learning from the last time the FCC was taken down
Yea, I saw an article that said there was possibly some DDoS going on after his show, so it might've been that slowing me down. Makes sense. But I think it was just a large amount of people. Got my comment in like 30 mins after I posted this. All waiting for 2 pages to load haha
People get the government they deserve. I don't know why people ever trust the government anyway. It's a bunch of rich people following their own self-interests.
Sometimes you have to be vocal about these things. Not every person knows about this, and you'll be surprised how many people gets sucked on by the words of the government so easily.
It's not their (people's) fault sometimes, and being vocal about this could show them the correct ways (in this case, giving us the rights to our privacy rather than it being sold off to who knows what).
That maybe true...but I'm still interested in what you mean with the talking point "right to privacy". if you can indulge me a bit, I would like your perspective on it.
Maybe it's not the right way to say, but we've all been affected by the internet for a long time now, and privacy has been the biggest factor of it. From Facebook to Windows 10, we've been largely affected by them (in terms of privacy).
To keep it short, i believe that we should have some power over what businesses such as Facebook to even ISPs are trying to do to gain advantage over what we do on the internet just for the sake of making a ton of money behind the scenes. And being vocal about it, raising our own unique opinions to issues like this is what makes businesses guessing (and not put them into being dominant in a certain market while they freely use any internet activity that we do for their own purposes - like Google for example) and be "respectful" for our privacy in our lives. I believe that by focusing on major issues such as Net Neutrality being offered freely for ISPs to use for their own gains, we can make USA (and probably the rest of the world) a better place.
Hopefully you can understand what i'm trying to say. Most of these things go under our naked eyes and whatever the result this will give us right now will surely affect the outcomes in the future. It's why everyone needs to fight together for these issues.
Hopefully you can understand what i'm trying to say.
I get the emotion, in that you (and others) just want the world to be nice. I'm not sure if people realize what they're suggesting though.
Like in regards to google or facebook, do you think people should be stopped from supplying personal data or that the company should be forced to never use this data after the people supply it free of charge? I assume it's the later, except these companies provide a free service in exchange for peoples privacy. So if these companies can no longer have your privacy, then they will lose their business model.
It's the latter, but this is a business world and of course it will definitely ruin their business model (i mean most corporations are based on taking personal info for ad uses).
Still, it's not so easy to abandon these corporations when it's an essential need for anyone in their lives these days.
Just trying to say that giving the pressure (aka voicing opinions in relation to certain changes and stuff) to these corporations can probably eliminate their total domination and freedom of using private and personal user data for their own gains.
Do you think collecting a tax to pay for google and facebook, while forcing these two companies to strictly protect privacy would be fair? So you pay a $500 yearly tax for these public services and they become akin to how the roads are managed by government.
Well in the US alone, if they taxed everyone $500, it would a multi-billion dollar business. So I'm just suggesting that their ad revenue be replaced by tax revenue. I think people nowadays consider it a public service anyway, so if people are concerned that their privacy is being sold, then this can be solved by paying a tax instead.
"It's not political" every comment is "omg republicans are so mean" "we need Bernie". Nobody wants this but nobody wants to hear a condescending sales pitch for the democrat party.
Its intended to limit the internet. When the left controls it, it limits ISPs. When the right controls it, they limit the internet itself. Its incredibly more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it.
If we're to control an industry with a natural monopoly, there needs to be some sort of governing body that can prevent them from controlling the entire industry. If not the FCC, then Congress needs to pass laws regulating them. ISPs are no different now than the phone company conglomerates were years ago when anti trust laws broke them up.
No other companies can get into the industry due to the massive amount of capital required to set up the infrastructure. Even Google stopped rolling out their fiber internet because it's so expensive. The top 4 ISPs have a monopoly, plain and simple.
Gone from? The US was never established to be a full democracy. It has always been a lauded elite seeking to secure their property and profits, be it against the rebellious proles or foreign powers that were threats to their established power. There is a lot of nostalgia for a theoretical historical vision of a democratic USA. The closest you might have gotten was in the aftermath of the war and before the implementation of the US Constitution, and only on a state by state basis.
Actual grassroots democracy always fails. India, Egypt, Iran, France, Germany, China, and Russia are all testaments to that throughout the 2 centuries. Either the rebellion is hijacked and usurped by a powerful extremist elite (because a peasant revolt can't have enough organizational rigidity to survive) or the global elite outside of the rebellion starve the country post-revolt of trade and support until it devolves into anarchy and a puppet can be put in its place. Or they just put the puppet in directly, through the first method.
When "We, the People" was written, it was written by a room full of white aristocratic men who all encompassed the colonies 1% elite landowners who feared the enforcement of British tarrifs and more relevantly regulations and laws they had the luxury of ignoring completely for the better part of half a century because Britain was too busy fighting wars in Europe to enforce the law in the colonies. For most of that time period, the colonies were absolute oligarchy, where bought off governors enforced the will of this same group of aristocrats. They took an extreme measure to preserve their fortunes and power structure, but succeeded feasting on the blood of the poor and a promise of prosperity few got to participate in, intentionally.
what do you mean this is a non partisan issue? republicans are clearly for getting rid of net neutrality. it is part of their platform. democrats are not.
I don't know what group I'm considered I've never really titled myself.
Trump doesn't hurt my feelings. I'd rather Trump over Hilary but I'd never ever imagine or agree with Trump running a country (even with the best team) or having a president to begin with.
I feel we have outgrown this system. We are dozens of countries within a country who named ourselves after the continent we stole. A few hundred million people being represented in a way that really isn't in their hands and electing candidates who represent the two parties who have the least support.
We need a roundtable. An ever refreshed, true random, bi-monthly, live aired feed of discussion between groups of people who have never met and were selected at random.
The democratic obama administration ended up formally protecting net neutrality. all democratic candidates in last election vowed to protect it.
the republicans are trying to kill it. i understand that you may have other issues more important to you causing you to vote republican, but a vote for a republican is a vote against net neutrality. a vote for a democrat is a vote for net neutrality.
no one with any credibility was saying she was winning 90%, good lord...
the polls were accurately showing her ahead by a few points but could not call the states that decided the electoral college.
the american people soundly rejected trump by millions of votes in the popular election. he only won the electoral college by around 70k votes.
for someone claiming to be wise, old, and unswayed by propaganda you have a shocking lack of common sense and seem unable to grasp basic facts. most likely you are trapped in a right wing facebook bubble though :(
And the rest of the media is liberal.....
Your not really making a point here even if they don't control all of it if they control 60% that's millions of people they lie to.
I didn't say liberals lie that's just what you wanted to hear.
I said politicians lie and if you don't believe that then you're gonna live a life full of disappointment.
And the rest of the media is liberal.....
Your not really making a point here** even if they don't control all of it if they control 60% that's millions of people they lie to.**
What does pipa have to do with this? A bipartisan anti piracey bill that was killed by democrats after a backlash doesnt change the fact the democrats are the ones who formally implemented net neutrality rules, vowed to protect them, and now republicans are trying to kill them
these false equivalencies, and what aboutisms are why it is so easy for politicians to get away with being bought - you claim to have a certain stance on an issue but then vote for a politician with the opposite stance and whine that the opposition (who actually agrees with you) isnt perfect
Fine I'll give you a crazy conspiracy rant. Here we go.
What does one internet law example have to do with another internet law example? I'm sorry if you think all we should care about is Net Neutrality, but I have the expectation that politicians understand the mentality and purpose of the internet. It's not enough that they happen to cave to pressure one time because that just means they'll go right back to the same shit. It's clear neither party knows what to do with the internet, so how about you stop trying to make your party look good. Also, let's not accuse me of voting one way or another. Not that it's any of your business, but I'd never vote main party.
You want to know what the problem is? You want to know why politicians are so easily purchased? Easy: Two-Party System, and the fact that everyone plays along with it because they're too scared to split the vote. Big shock, but when you only have two shitty options you lose the ability to punish them. If one party goes way too far with something (like, idk rigging their primaries), the only option to punish them is the opposite party. The lesser of two evils just sets the standard for how evil you can get away with being. Best case scenario: No change. More likely both parties get a little bit eviler. They have no incentive to get less evil because the corruption we call evil keeps them in power. The money as speech, the redrawing of political maps, and other rigging of elections at various levels with various that happens with both parties all that crap that's attached to the two party system makes out politicians easy to buy.
Of course we're losing the internet. It's the biggest tool to organize against the purchasing of politicians. Not a damn thing we can do but fix the two party crap and everything that comes with it (money as speech, first past post, gerrymandering, etc etc etc) if we want to stop this crap. But what do we do? Do we try to fix all the things leading to the loss of the internet? Nope! We blame the other party! Because it's so easy to believe other party is evil and our party while not perfect is a way better than them and if only our party had control of the everything things would be just dandy. Jesus, what a bullshit fantasy. You want to know what would be happening right now if the democrats had swept everything? Roughly the same fucking thing. There'd be some different issues, sure, but we'd still be facing this net neutrality issue. There would still be concerns of mass corruption. Our democracy would still be headed right down the drain. I mean it's great that the democrats get to complain about all these issues since they lost, but we didn't hear a word of it from them until they lost so there's not a doubt in my mind the republicans would be in the same place if the roles were switched.
republicans are clearly for getting rid of net neutrality.
republicans are clearly getting paid for getting rid of net neutrality. It is not a partisan issue because no real politicians are honestly is fighting for it. Only trader surrogates for corporations.
It is the business of both sides to rid our parties of them
To add to this because for whatever reason it hasnt been stated. Obama administration and Hillary Clinton were for TPP, and those who know what the TPP was (which was shut down but Donald Trump via excutive order) knows that it wouldve destroyed internet neutrality.
Soo this whole "b-b-but its the republicans!" is complete and utter bullshit, the Democrats were pushing the TPP as hard as they could and they probably would have succeeded if it was planned earlier and Obama had more time with it, or if Hillary won.
FCC is still a threat though, internet neutrality is one of the few things keeping the status quo.
They have an extremly lucrative history of removing posts, comments, entire comment threads, locking comment threads, making users sign a separate TOS to comment. The mods need to be removed.
Yeah if you clicked the comment box it the reply button a separate window would pop up and you'd have to agree to the pop-up before you could continue.
If net neutrality gets passed, its time to attack the severs that are trying to watch us. A digital revolution if you will. How will they hide their shit from us? They are not scaring the internet they are pissing them off. I cant see why they want a war on the digital front against its own people. Almost like they want us to have a revolution to remind the government theres more of us then there is you. Serve the people or get served.
Someone definitely made it difficult and weird when searching and trying to submit your comment, but KEEP TRYING. In Last Week Tonight's yt video people are commenting with workable links (I imagine here as well). Let's rally people!!! We will be heard!!
No, the URLs work fine. Just checked both sites, and filed 8 May 2017. I can't speak for /r/videos...but /r/television has it, and it is currently climbing, and sits on /r/all @ #13.
FCC IT team resets servers to create room for the traffic created by Oliver and the massesLink doesn't work while down for maintenance
- HOLY SHIT THEY'RE CORRUPT AF QUICK MAKE A REDDIT POST
4 hours later
- oh it works never mind :)
I scoff when I see a video removed for being political. There was a span of months on /r/videos where every top post video was a black man telling other blacks to be good little negroes and listen to the white man. Can't recall any of those being removed. Many were gilded in fact. Police abuse videos regularly get removed for witch hunting or politics. It's all perspective and spin, videos get removed when they violate THEIR politics.
This isn't the same as a video about bridge construction laws. This is dealing with change coming to Internet laws due to politics. It's a controversial political topic. Whether it's partisan or not doesn't determine if it's political.
It's more like a video about trumps healthcare plan. Just some laws, right? But you'd definitely consider that to be politics.
I just tried to send them my thoughts, but lo and behold the search button stops working once I enter that number. I disabled Privacybadger too, still nothing. Ended up just shooting them an e-mail explaining my discontent with their ruling AND site.
Hello, I'm the CEO of Comcast, and I am opposed to net neutrality.
Seriously though, even most libertarians I know are pro net neutrality. It doesn't make sense for an industry with a natural monopoly like ISPs to be able to discriminate against traffic or charge more to reach certain sites. The internet is a utility, not just a service that most could do without. It's way to ingrained in our world now.
That maybe true...but I'm still interested in what you mean with the talking point "right to privacy". if you can indulge me a bit, I would like your perspective on it.
Well in the US alone, if they taxed everyone $500, it would a multi-billion dollar business. So I'm just suggesting that their ad revenue be replaced by tax revenue. I think people nowadays consider it a public service anyway, so if people are concerned that their privacy is being sold, then this can be solved by paying a tax instead.
How am I rascist, and to which race? I don't like Islam, in the same way I don't like super duper fundamentalist of any other religion, Islam is just the most fundamental one out there.
Frankly the ACA is going down soon anyway. There needs to be an alternative in place. Also males benefit significantly less than females with the ACA as well as the middle class (You know just about all of America)
To add to this because for whatever reason it hasnt been stated. Obama administration and Hillary Clinton were for TPP, and those who know what the TPP was (which was shut down but Donald Trump via excutive order) knows that it wouldve destroyed internet neutrality.
Soo this whole "b-b-but its the republicans!" is complete and utter bullshit, the Democrats were pushing the TPP as hard as they could and they probably would have succeeded if it was planned earlier and Obama had more time with it, or if Hillary won.
FCC is still a threat though, internet neutrality is one of the few things keeping the status quo.
no one with any credibility was saying she was winning 90%, good lord...
the polls were accurately showing her ahead by a few points but could not call the states that decided the electoral college.
the american people soundly rejected trump by millions of votes in the popular election. he only won the electoral college by around 70k votes.
for someone claiming to be wise, old, and unswayed by propaganda you have a shocking lack of common sense and seem unable to grasp basic facts. most likely you are trapped in a right wing facebook bubble though :(
250 comments
n/a AutoModerator 2017-05-08
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
n/a 500my 2017-05-08
no way jose
n/a martini-meow 2017-05-08
So the page can still be found? Or that's the now-broken page that can be found?
n/a AnArzonist 2017-05-08
The docket page can still be found through the FCC's normal search function; however, the Electronic Comment Filing System page has been removed.
I'll edit in a comment for clarity.
n/a SpiritOfSpite 2017-05-08
I found the comments portion, but whenever I try to submit a comment it tells me to input a valid email. I tried using my private email and my federal email, neither worked.
n/a AssuredlyAThrowAway 2017-05-08
This is outrageous;firstly the censorship by the /r/videos mods is entirely unacceptable.
But then their censorship has the knock on effect of hiding the FCC's bullshit tactic of taking down the comment link from Oliver's instructions in the video.
It's fucked when the mods of /r/videos end up playing the role of useful idiot for the FCC's corrupt chairman.
n/a flappytowel 2017-05-08
They don't allow political videos as per their rules
n/a AssuredlyAThrowAway 2017-05-08
I believe this is a technology issue.
n/a forgeRin 2017-05-08
You say that like it can't be both.
n/a Tsorovar 2017-05-08
Removal of net neutrality is official Republican policy, in opposition to official Democratic policy. It's clearly a political issue, in addition to being a technology issue.
n/a mrsande 2017-05-08
yeah people are completely wrong when they say in in non-partisan. the card holding and voting members of the GOP might not be for it, but their corrupt-ass and beloved party holds a different stance as do the paid politicians that represent the ISPs and not their constituents. 'bi-partisan' issue is wrong as fuck.
n/a pvXNLDzrYVoKmHNG2NVk 2017-05-08
Republicans voted their representatives into office. They're responsible for this.
n/a broodmetal 2017-05-08
It's not clear. I don't give a fuck who's policy it is. It's bullshit.
n/a laxdstorn 2017-05-08
Just because the two sides have opposing views doesn't make it political.
n/a Tsorovar 2017-05-08
It does when those two sides are political parties who are actively making laws about it.
n/a onetoughmotherfucker 2017-05-08
Basically the GOP will turrn anything political for their own benefit...even well-established science (see: climate science).
Want an easy way to entirely dismiss a yuge problem? Call it political.
n/a Nomandate 2017-05-08
Does the vote split on party lines? Then it's a divisive political issue. If you folks can't comprehend this then conspiracies may be a bit above your pay grade.
n/a laxdstorn 2017-05-08
I don't think this issue splits on party lines. Plenty of people who identify as republican don't like it either.
n/a rmwe 2017-05-08
Not the ones who actually vote in Congress.
n/a laxdstorn 2017-05-08
I also believe that republicans in congress don't really represent the interests of republicans as a whole but that's an entirely other conversation about broken politics.
n/a Tchocky 2017-05-08
Wat
n/a laxdstorn 2017-05-08
I'll rephrase, just because politics has an interest doesn't mean it is primarily a political conversation.
n/a omegian 2017-05-08
Telling people to log onto a government server and leave a particular comment, however, is pure fucking political activism.
n/a Triggered_Trumpette 2017-05-08
I don't like that argument though. Just because Republicans are anti-common sense doesn't make something political. If Donald Trump said the sun was going to rise in the west, all his supporters would fall in line behind him, but it wouldn't make the sun political or not.
n/a Tsorovar 2017-05-08
Politics is the discussions and process around the making of laws and other things involved in government. At present, there's considerable disagreement over the changes to law needed to remove net neutrality. It's a matter of current politics, despite how obvious it seems. Remember that things like slavery have been political issues in the past
n/a Tehmaxx 2017-05-08
If we perform enough mental gymnastics everything is political.
n/a Nomandate 2017-05-08
It's true that politics overlaps with tech. You can gauge by the comments, though. Most likely: a bunch of trump tards reported them relentlessly. They do that. (It's hilarious when mods post their tantrums for all to see...)
n/a x0diego0x 2017-05-08
Why would Trump supporters be against net neutrality?
n/a olivias_bulge 2017-05-08
Likely its the messenger
n/a dylan522p 2017-05-08
Or you know.... The underlying conservative principle that the markets should be free. I'm against net neutrality I'm the same way I'm against local monopolies than ISPs keep getting granted.
n/a slowe417 2017-05-08
What
n/a dylan522p 2017-05-08
I do understand it. Nice on paper, but Netflix shows where it stifles them heavily. The first I'm is an in. I don't like regulating isp on what data they want to transfer, and I don't like granting ISPs local monponlies either.
https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/
n/a Cam3Ran 2017-05-08
Do you know what net neutrality is or are you just spouting bullshit.
n/a slowe417 2017-05-08
This has to be a bot
n/a dylan522p 2017-05-08
Why is that? I have shitty typos, varying arguments.
n/a dylan522p 2017-05-08
I do, I just know it's not a popular opinion, lot of people have drank the net neutrality kool-aid too hard. Netflix makes the perfect case why it stifles them heavily.
n/a Cam3Ran 2017-05-08
You do know what happened between netflix and comcast... do you?
Also, you clearly don't.
n/a dylan522p 2017-05-08
Yes I do.
OK continue this holier than thou bs
n/a Cam3Ran 2017-05-08
I'd like you to define net neutrality, please.
n/a dylan522p 2017-05-08
This revocation doesn't allow throttling or blocking of anyones content though. They can't go less than advertised speed. Your not allowed to throttle others because no more net neutrality. You're allowed to charge companies if they want their stuff ran at higher than advertised speeds or without effecting the data cap
n/a Cam3Ran 2017-05-08
It's in the definition. It doesn't allow them to block different sites because it competes with them.
Read the definition before commenting.
n/a dylan522p 2017-05-08
This repeal doesn't allow Google to go to charter and say block duck duck go or whatever company.
n/a Stranex 2017-05-08
yes, i too would like to know what you think net neutrality is. are you saying netflix is against net neutrality?
n/a dylan522p 2017-05-08
This revocation doesn't allow throttling or blocking of anyones content though. They can't go less than advertised speed. Your not allowed to throttle others because no more net neutrality. You're allowed to charge companies if they want their stuff ran at higher than advertised speeds or without effecting the data cap. Some people some how invented this idea that now Google can go block duck duck go or some shit for all charter users if they want. When really it's that Google can put a server at charters locations with most popular at moment videos, and pay them to not have youtube take toll on their monthly data cap or allow them to watch 4k YouTube even if they are paying for speeds not capable of jt
n/a Stranex 2017-05-08
so you are saying that net neutrality allows isp's to throttle?
n/a dylan522p 2017-05-08
No you are not allowed to throttle, even if net neutrality doesn't exist. There are other laws that protect your site from being throttled.
n/a Stranex 2017-05-08
there has been proof of isps throttling. i'm not going to say you're wrong, but i'm currently unaware what, besides title II, that prevents isps from throttling other companies. perhaps you can share? i also like to point out that i'm not attempting to argue with you. if you do have a point to make, i'm very willing to hear you out. perhaps this is like the situation where the gov't wanted to allow isps to sell user data, where ppl argued that limiting isps is unfair?
n/a Beersaround 2017-05-08
You should check with a doctor. You may be retarded.
n/a dylan522p 2017-05-08
So I guess you didn't read the open connect thing? I don't like granting monopolies via goverment. If wanting freedom of markets is retarded so be it.
n/a Codename_Fluffy 2017-05-08
Getting rid of net neutrality will only give more power to ISPs. They will be able to charge different rates based on the content of the data packets rather than the speed or quantity, such that 10mb of data from Facebook might cost you more than 10mb of data from Netflix, or they could do the "package" thing like cable tv does with channel bundles but instead of channels it's website bundles. Removing net neutrality would kill any internet startups.
I do not think you understand this as well as you think you do.
n/a dylan522p 2017-05-08
I know just saying the problem is natural monopolies granted by goverment, or too much regulation on laying more fiber. I want to break charter and time Warner into multiple companies, not let them fucking merge. Split media company off isp companies.
n/a Codename_Fluffy 2017-05-08
Okay so you're against net neutrality because of a reason that has nothing to do with net neutrality?
n/a dylan522p 2017-05-08
No net neutrality is restrictions on isp. No, you shouldn't be able to throttle an Isp, but t-mobile has deals with a few different companies where their apps don't count towords data caps, cause the company pays them. That is great imo, something Obama isp was litigating
n/a servohahn 2017-05-08
There's this weird brand of libertarian thought that doesn't mind the loss of individual freedom if it's to a wealthy non-government agency. If a government agency were to regulate that non-government agency and force them to allow more freedom to those of us who rely on the infrastructure, that is the real tragedy.
The conversation is more nuanced than that, obviously, and I admire the ability of people to stick by their free market guns even when it does incredible harm to the majority of consumers, but I still consider the philosophy to be weird.
n/a FnordFinder 2017-05-08
I believe you're referring to anarcho-capitalism, and it's a brand of libertarian-ism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
n/a PUNKLOVESTORY 2017-05-08
I love Anarchistic theories but, anarcho-captialism seems to be the worst end all be all of Anarchism. I love Anarchistic philosophy and love poking holes in the philosophies only to see another branch of Anarchism fill the hole with a good idea but, Anarcho-captialism is just one giant shit on everything. Basically, most Anarchistic philosophy seeks to give power to the individual but, Anarcho-captialism is the one that's full circle back to dictatorship, it'd be amazing if it wasn't so sad.
n/a FnordFinder 2017-05-08
Yeah, it's an entirely unsustainable system in my point of view as well. Just spreading the relevant information for the conversation.
n/a joondori21 2017-05-08
Sounds like then you don't understand what net neutrality does
n/a cyanblur 2017-05-08
No net neutrality makes the market free like tolls make a highway free
n/a dylan522p 2017-05-08
So more infrastructure than would exist without the tolls?
n/a cyanblur 2017-05-08
Possibly, if it weren't for the fact that they (I think Verizon was the example?) admitted in investor callings that net neutrality doesn't impact their infrastructure spending at all. It's all the bad and none of the good of tolls.
n/a dylan522p 2017-05-08
Because regulatory hurdles of actually being approved for laying down lines, and preventing expansion by already granted local monopolies
n/a benjaxx 2017-05-08
Just ignore this dude. Looking through his post history I thought he'd be a troll but he's actually a racist moron. For the sake of pointlessly trying to educate you, net neutrality is the very thing stopping the monopolies NOT the other way around. I will not be responding to you again, I've debated enough /r/The_Donald retards to know its futile.
n/a dylan522p 2017-05-08
How am I rascist, and to which race? I don't like Islam, in the same way I don't like super duper fundamentalist of any other religion, Islam is just the most fundamental one out there.
n/a Cam3Ran 2017-05-08
It literally does, in a way that bigger companies cannot crush small startups.
n/a dylan522p 2017-05-08
Big companies can't go to ISPs and say don't let this content pass through. It says we pay you so your customers can have faster access to our content. The advertised speed is still legally binding for companies that don't have an agreement with that isp.
n/a mappersdelight 2017-05-08
The example you used, is exactly what killing net neutrality will accomplish
Killing net neutrality opens the door for monopolies on data, content, access. Hate the ISP monopolies now? Just wait until they can monopolize your experience online, not just how you connect.
n/a dylan522p 2017-05-08
Then I can use another isp. The problem is currently the various state and local and even federal goverment keep granting local monopolies
n/a cyanblur 2017-05-08
Or at least you could use another ISP if they didn't already have a local monopoly so you'd have no choice but to use ones that will throttle your connection.
n/a dylan522p 2017-05-08
My area has 3 ISPs avaliable because the local goverment won't grant anyone a monopoly. The best part is none of the companies are Charter, Time Warner, AT&T, Google or Verizon.
n/a cyanblur 2017-05-08
Great, so fuck anyone else who's only provider selection is a major company. You've got yours, why should you care amirite?
n/a dylan522p 2017-05-08
Did you not see the other bit where I said not granting local monopolies, or did you miss the bit where revoking net neutrality doesn't mean they can censor others, it means they can make it not count against your cap or provide it at greater than advertised speeds
n/a mappersdelight 2017-05-08
What happens when the federal government allows those three to 'merge'?
n/a dylan522p 2017-05-08
Anti trust.
n/a mappersdelight 2017-05-08
And yet. They did.
My apologies for not having faith in the government to act in my best interest when experience has shown me that the government really likes the corporate best interest over my best interest.
n/a dylan522p 2017-05-08
I agree with you. I really dislike that they were allowed to merge. Just simply saying net neutrality isn't a regulation I'm in favor of. I was way supportive of it, but then Netflix launched open connect and I saw their viewpoint made a ton of sense.
n/a kthxhello 2017-05-08
You cant't just "use another ISP" if all the ISPs in your area are using the same backbone. What if it's Level 3 or Cogent that starts invoking restrictions on content? Good luck finding another local ISP that doesn't use them.
n/a dylan522p 2017-05-08
Except revoking net neutrality doesn't mean you can't access parts of theInternet at your advertisied speed. Revoking it allows Netflix to make an agreement with x to serve their content at a higher speed or Spotify to go to t-mobile and say make our music streaming not count against the data cap.
n/a mappersdelight 2017-05-08
No. Bass ackwards.
Netflix won't get faster, everything else will get throttled to a slower rate making netflix faster by default.
n/a dylan522p 2017-05-08
Except that's illegal. They can't go less than advertised speed. Your not allowed to throttle others because no more net neutrality. You're allowed to charge companies if they want their stuff ran at higher than advertised speeds or without effecting the data cap
n/a mappersdelight 2017-05-08
Yes, charge companies. Who do you think that cost will fall back on? The customer.
Net neutrality is what keeps the internet a level playing field. You want to create the next 'google'? Good luck when you'll be fighting to over come the search results pushed up ahead of your site, if they'll even show your site as a result. Since you're 'not one of their paying customers who pays to have their page boosted'; they don't give a fuck if people go to your page, in fact, it's better for them if they don't go to your page and go instead to a paying business' page. Because with that added site traffic the user will be more likely to buy or use the first site than to search and find yours.
Have you ever been in the grocery store and seen items on sale for the regular price, or even on sale for more than they were the week before? That deal didnt' get better, they just marked up the price to mark it on sale and hoepfully trick people into thinking they're getting a deal because it's now "50% off!" yet it's the same price as last week. Same situation.
They advertise speeds, technology gets better, throttle service to stay at same speed, improve network, get bills passed in your favor to exploit your new venture, then keep "same low rates for internet as before" but added bonus availability for speed with a higher rate.
Also, I'm pretty sure few people actually get the speeds that they're paying for, I very often see people bitching in my area about slow ass internet and they they call the provider who adjusts some things because they were on vacation last month and the company recognized they're reduced use and moved that bandwidth elsewhere. Only after calls and complaints do their download/upload rates return to normal.
Either way, you've mentioned twice now about things that shouldn't or can't be done, that from my experience have seen done; and it's exactly why I don't believe most corporations anymore. They do what they want, until they get caught and deal with a minor slap on the wrist if at all; then they lobby to make the laws beneficial for themselves and exploit everyone else.
I have no faith that a company/corporation will do the "right" thing when the "illegal/wrong" thing is more profitable.
n/a dylan522p 2017-05-08
Search results aren't protected by net neutrality right now.
People not getting their speeds should contact the FCC with proof of how long, what times, etc, they can mandate you get huge parts of your bill back, and penalize the isp with fees.
n/a mappersdelight 2017-05-08
Yep, and Charter - Time Warner should be two separate companies.
What should happen, and what actually happen are most often two terribly different things.
n/a PUNKLOVESTORY 2017-05-08
What if the same ISP merged with all the others and just sold you the same Service under different names (T-Mobile owns MetroPCS as an example) so you're tricked into believing that you have options when you have none. Time-Warner wanting to Merge with Comcast would have given one entity about 65% of the whole US market and in some areas that would've been 100%. So, there's a monopoly but, granted it's only a Monopoly in a few areas and probably have enough power to force the other carriers to do what they want in the others.
A good example is in Georgia where I live, although not related to the internet, A Southern Company has a literal legal Monopoly on electricity in Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. I know this because, I wanted to start a Solar business and saw that A Southern Company set the price per Watt and basically forced me to never start because, I could make no profit.
n/a dylan522p 2017-05-08
I said at another point anti trust. We should break up charter and time Warner into 6 or 7 companies, separate media and isp elements, not fucking let them merge. I fully believe in anti trust laws
n/a sdubstko 2017-05-08
You can't be for a free market and against net neutrality. Why are you pro regulation if you believe in the market so much?
Sincerely, a real free market supporter.
n/a dylan522p 2017-05-08
Net neutrality is literally a regulation telling businesses what they can and cannot do.... I'm anti regulation in terms of almost all them except Sherman anti trust.
n/a bakuninsbart 2017-05-08
They have been relentlessly prosecuted by the diversity cabal for so long that now it is there time to fuck others over.
n/a Triggered_Trumpette 2017-05-08
Because the Trump administration is against it and Trump supporters fall in line like no others.
n/a Phoenix1427 2017-05-08
I'd say it's got more to do with Jon Oliver than it does to do with Trump. But your generalizations and stereotypes are tight, keep it up!
n/a reekybobby 2017-05-08
So.. Trumplings hate the scary british man because he makes fun of orange daddy sometimes, so fuck anything he likes even if it goes against our own interests. Is that what it is?
n/a Phoenix1427 2017-05-08
I think you might be spinning it a bit.
n/a benjaxx 2017-05-08
You literally said its to do with John Oliver. Your reason for destroying the internet is because you don't like someone with nothing to do with it. Do you not see how fucking stupid that is? I know we're meant to treat you guys like you're human but seriously I hope you spin into a road.
n/a Phoenix1427 2017-05-08
You're pathetic. I wish you the best in life.
n/a reekybobby 2017-05-08
That's where this thread started.
n/a Phoenix1427 2017-05-08
And I'm saying they're not. They're against Jon Oliver's politicization of everything he touches. Jesus.
n/a reekybobby 2017-05-08
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur
n/a Phoenix1427 2017-05-08
So you can't argue with it? That's why the video was reported and taken down. Sorry it hurts your fee fees that Jon Oliver is a hack.
n/a reekybobby 2017-05-08
that's not what this thread is about
n/a Phoenix1427 2017-05-08
It's what the comment thread is about tho and you didn't attack him
n/a reekybobby 2017-05-08
No no, keep going.
n/a Phoenix1427 2017-05-08
So you agree that you don't have a logical argument to make.
n/a reekybobby 2017-05-08
I just want you to keep going.
n/a Triggered_Trumpette 2017-05-08
If you think Trump supporters don't march in lockstep go to the_donald and say one thing against the circlejerk. See how quickly you get banned.
Oh wait, you won't, because you need your safespace.
n/a Phoenix1427 2017-05-08
Lol
n/a Triggered_Trumpette 2017-05-08
I never called anyone a fascist. That being said, if you want to hold laughable positions, mock "PC culture" and "librul snowflakes who can't deal with criticism," and then demand that no one criticize you ever, you should be prepared to be laughed at.
Also if the "dehumanization" you hear from the left is appalling, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on Trump's wish to bomb the families of terrorists. Is that humanizing? Or is it okay cause he has the little R by his name? I await your response with baited breath, I have noooooooooooooooooo idea what you're going to say.
And if you really wanted what was best for people, you wouldn't support an incompetent buffoun who doesn't understand how the U.S. government works, hasn't appointed 90% of the positions he is obligated to as president, has golfed every weekend at his own courses on the taxpayers dime, has his obese cheeto-stained fingers within grabbing distance of nuclear launch codes, and is currently serving part-time as a oral repository for Vladimer Putin's member.
n/a Phoenix1427 2017-05-08
Exactly what I expected. At least I fucking tried.
n/a moosic 2017-05-08
Whatever. You didn't try, you threw up a wall of BS.
n/a servohahn 2017-05-08
It's either that or admit how bad their vote fucked themselves and everyone else.
n/a Why_You_Mad_ 2017-05-08
Because it goes against what the Trump admin wants. The previous chairman of the FCC wasn't perfect, but he was pro net neutrality. Well, he wasn't at first, but it seems like Obama influenced his policy (for better or worse). One of the first things the current admin did was nominate an ISP shill, Ajit Pai, as the new chairman.
It's safe to say that Trump is not pro net neutrality.
n/a Annakha 2017-05-08
I like to think the ground swell of public outrage over net neutrality last time this happened is what caused the previous FCC chief to change direction.
n/a Why_You_Mad_ 2017-05-08
Could be. He was being hounded by conservatives last time when he came out in support of it, claiming that Obama was controlling the FCC despite them being an independent agency.
n/a onetoughmotherfucker 2017-05-08
Except now Trump supporters willbe going out of their way to defend this whereas the first time this came up there wasn't really anyone in favor of it :/
n/a nspectre 2017-05-08
Wheeler held generally pro-NN inclinations going back well before he even joined the FCC. Arguing that Obama influenced his policy is disingenuous because the Obama administration didn't even wade into the FCC/NN debate until very, very late in the game -- mere weeks/months before the Title II vote.
Let there be NO misunderstanding, Ajit Pai (and Michael O'Reilly) is(are) Republican Party shills placed there by Mitch McConnell many years ago -- nominated by Obama in a "reaching across the aisle" gesture at the behest of Mitch.
Neither Pai nor O'Reilly have ANY prior experience (technical or otherwise) that qualifies them for positions at the FCC. The Trump Admin's move of Ajit Pai from commissioner to chairman is nothing more than a "this piece is in position, time to play it".
They are ISP shills inasmuch as that flows naturally out of the Republican Party's long-lived Pro-Business-At-Any-And-All-Cost agenda.
n/a Bizoza9 2017-05-08
Trump supporters specifically, or just supposed conservatives? I think the reasoning that is used against net neutrality on the surface is supposedly that they don't like the government intervening. The idea that more regulation doesn't fix regulation problems.
What we currently have are monopolies in place that have ruined how people receive service. Those monopolies are in place in small part due to government regulation. Now, what people want to do is put in more regulation which makes them upset.
The difference though, is instead of acknowledging the issue, and coming up with a solution, they want to oppose any efforts to actually fix it. They don't seem to understand that companies don't self regulate in a market place that has already stifled and killed off any competition. This fully eliminates any and all reason not to do something to fix the problem. Since they haven't come up with any plans, just opposition, their position has always been "let the market sort it out" despite cities deciding to create their own ISPs as voters approve of them, or other solutions. They want to create the illusion of competition, but aren't interested in letting it come about or flourish.
Now, what I have stated is a generalisation of conservatives, and there will be outliers, but the policies that have been put in place, and the conversations I have been privy to have all gone this way. Those outliers can speak up, but they likely aren't speaking for their party, just themselves. None of what I have said gives liberals a pass either, as there are just as many problems with the way they view the world as well.
n/a gidonfire 2017-05-08
Because it was instituted under Obama.
They put people in charge of the departments who hate the department. It's part of the "not a traditional politician" bit. Tear it all down. Fuck if it's useful or not, tear that shit down because regulation is bad.
So they defund the ones they can, and here, they just put in a guy who has all the power to tear it down from the top without needing a lot of extra help.
It started in January before the inauguration. He immediately dropped a bill that would have force cable companies to allow 3rd party cable boxes.
Then, in february, they dropped subsidies for low income internet access. Then he announced "Net Neutrality all must go". Then comcast rolled out a fee for people using a roku instead of a cable box. $5. So you now have to pay them to rent their shitty cable box, or pay them to use your own device instead. Either way, they're getting that $5 from you. The old FCC would have blocked this.
Then, they loosened the restrictions on your ISP selling your data. Not some website you have the option of not using, the ISP, which in most parts of the country you don't have a choice for.
He was put in place to destroy the FCC because it was doing so well under Obama. We thought Wheeler was going to be an ex-Verizon corporate shithead, but the guy ended up really doing some great things for consumers. Net Neutrality being one of them.
But fuck all that blue shit I guess. Red all the way! I have no idea why!
n/a Final21 2017-05-08
They're not. Trump supporters are the hardest hit by net neutrality. They need it the most.
n/a onetoughmotherfucker 2017-05-08
Right, I'm sure Trump supporters willput the blame on Trump and notdeflect blame to LIEberals...
n/a OniExpress 2017-05-08
Trump supporting states are also some of the most in need of the ACA, but that doesn't seem to register.
n/a Final21 2017-05-08
Frankly the ACA is going down soon anyway. There needs to be an alternative in place. Also males benefit significantly less than females with the ACA as well as the middle class (You know just about all of America)
n/a FnordFinder 2017-05-08
Trump supporters are against John Oliver because his program is liberal-sided and regularly calls out Trump on his corruption and general obviousness and ignorance.
They are also against net neutrality because cognitive dissonance doesn't allow them to be against anything that the GOP and Trump support.
n/a digiorno 2017-05-08
Many Republicans that I know think the government is inept and that the Internet would be better if the government didn't have a hand in it. They don't think telecommunications companies will use the lack of NN to screw over customers because on the free market those customers would be able to just find another provider. They think NN reduces competition between ISPs and that the consumer pays the price. The whole regional monopoly thing doesn't really resonate with them because many of them live in rural areas and just got high speed internet pretty recently. They think in the city there is bound to be lots of competition and that one can easily vote with their wallets. They don't realize that without NN and with government sanction monopolies that the mega ISPs will become even more tyrannical than they already are.
n/a Beersaround 2017-05-08
Because they don't understand the issue and liberals are for it.
n/a Burkey 2017-05-08
Literally everything can be said to be "Political".
n/a mxzf 2017-05-08
Some things are more political than others. Stuff about the actions of the government in making/changing laws is pretty heavily into politics. You might be able to make everything political if you really try, but something like this is innately more political than a video of someone playing with their pet or whatever.
n/a AnArzonist 2017-05-08
I'm not really sure I buy that as I don't think there's anything really polarizing about it and being about government doesn't make something inherently political, but even if it was you'd think they'd address that before it made it to /r/all.
n/a Tchocky 2017-05-08
What?
n/a IAmTheFartThatKnocks 2017-05-08
There are tons of nonpartisan offices in government.
n/a vbullinger 2017-05-08
The mental gymnastics are insane
n/a LittleUpset 2017-05-08
An informational video about the current jurisdiction of the EPA would be about government but not political. Don't play dumb.
n/a Tchocky 2017-05-08
Net neutrality is a highly visible issue right now.
n/a SolaceInSilence 2017-05-08
Sure but good luck finding a citizen against net neutrality.
n/a Why_You_Mad_ 2017-05-08
Hello, I'm the CEO of Comcast, and I am opposed to net neutrality.
Seriously though, even most libertarians I know are pro net neutrality. It doesn't make sense for an industry with a natural monopoly like ISPs to be able to discriminate against traffic or charge more to reach certain sites. The internet is a utility, not just a service that most could do without. It's way to ingrained in our world now.
n/a I_am_from_Kentucky 2017-05-08
Likewise. I got in a heated discussion with a co-worker over it who identifies as a strict libertarian (the type that, if a model existed, would prefer to have a private police and military over a publicly funded one). His outlook is that they are a business and the government shouldn't tell them what they can and cannot do with their privately created and funded service. Period. No other ways to around it. Even if they may have accepted public money at some point to expand, the company itself isn't publicly owned or operated, therefore the gov't shouldn't tell them how to manage their own data.
n/a lol-community 2017-05-08
This issue isn't political
n/a compellingvisuals 2017-05-08
Just because it's about government, doesn't mean its political.
n/a cryoshon 2017-05-08
perhaps it is time to change the rules, then. it's clear people don't like this rule.
n/a randomly-generated 2017-05-08
It's reddit, they can make a fucking decision to help the internet not be fucked.
n/a ___Not_The_NSA___ 2017-05-08
Yeah this would definitely fall under their category of "political".
Say what you want about the mods of /r/politics, but they're at least pretty bipartisan when it comes to what they'll label as political. They might be quick to remove an vid even remotely considered political, but at least they're fair in their removal.
n/a canonsolar 2017-05-08
this isn't outrageous, it's a psyop using a controlled narrative.
who gives a shit about manufactured sensationalist 'news'?
n/a edbLings- 2017-05-08
John Oliver is a fuckin cuck
n/a canonsolar 2017-05-08
this manufatured psyop is a fuckin cuck...
n/a broodmetal 2017-05-08
The obsession you guys have with cucks is just straight up weird.
n/a Why_You_Mad_ 2017-05-08
In starting to think that most the_Donald users have a cuckold fetish.
n/a FnordFinder 2017-05-08
Said the suspicious 7-day old account.
n/a canonsolar 2017-05-08
Reddit.com, where the argument is handily railroaded by PR police
n/a FnordFinder 2017-05-08
That psychological projection though.
n/a canonsolar 2017-05-08
Projection? Talk about my account age some more. Reddit or police won't be messed with.
Account age is the only factor you care about....your job is done here. You've accomplished your objective! Yay you!
n/a FnordFinder 2017-05-08
I'm starting to believe your account age is reflective of your real age.
n/a AllDepressedChips 2017-05-08
No one cares. Remember when they made you sign a separate TOS to comment on a thread? No one said a damn thing for months.
n/a Tchocky 2017-05-08
It's fucked when people mistake an overloaded server for censorship....
n/a CantCatchMeUnawares 2017-05-08
John Oliver broke the FCC site again is all.
n/a MingusDewfus 2017-05-08
Little writing tip, using "firstly" instead of "first" is needlessly complex and can make your writing sound pretentious.
n/a soveliss_sunstar 2017-05-08
Plus the video isn't even on YouTube's trending page like it usually is, and even this post has been removed.
n/a Hektik352 2017-05-08
why don't you just resubmit it to the /r/politicalvideo ?
n/a WishYouTheBestSex 2017-05-08
User base is not nearly the size as r/videos therefore less impact for action.
n/a suchdownvotes 2017-05-08
/r/videos gets much more exposure
n/a Styx_Dragon 2017-05-08
gofccyourself.com still worked for me, but everything is taking forever to load. Could just be the increased amount of traffic from people trying to comment again? Though once you get to the page clicking express is taking even longer, so you could be right.
n/a acousticrocks 2017-05-08
I was able to get on fairly quickly, just now.
n/a Styx_Dragon 2017-05-08
I saw an article that said there was possibly some DDoS going on after his show, so it might've been that slowing me down. Makes sense.
n/a dtracers 2017-05-08
Maybe they made it so that the pages for expressing comments run on a different host than everything else. Learning from the last time the FCC was taken down
n/a Styx_Dragon 2017-05-08
Yea, I saw an article that said there was possibly some DDoS going on after his show, so it might've been that slowing me down. Makes sense. But I think it was just a large amount of people. Got my comment in like 30 mins after I posted this. All waiting for 2 pages to load haha
n/a SelfDefenestrate 2017-05-08
Works now. Maybe it was just overloaded? DDoS of Oliver viewers?
n/a AnArzonist 2017-05-08
hmm, still not working for me. We walking about the same thing? The place you make public comments? Here: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/proceedings?q=name:((17-108))
n/a outbackdude 2017-05-08
getting a 503 error from their API domain. probably overloaded with requests. Also when it randomly did load I got an Your IP is Blocked error.
n/a Phinocio 2017-05-08
I still get this
n/a Tzarlexter 2017-05-08
Same thing I got
n/a Gredenis 2017-05-08
If the FCC is unable to make an uncrashable server, they should just all be fired from top down.
Just make the loadbalancer scale up to 1000 servers, I'd guarantee it wouldn't buckle under any regular traffic.
n/a aletoledo 2017-05-08
People get the government they deserve. I don't know why people ever trust the government anyway. It's a bunch of rich people following their own self-interests.
n/a SDF05 2017-05-08
That's true. But it doesn't mean people should stop fighting for their rights of privacy (in this case, for Net Neutrality).
Nobody should give an easy way for the government to do things like this. Fighting as one can cause many good things for the everyman/woman.
n/a aletoledo 2017-05-08
The solution was never through government though. That's a false sense of security.
What is needed is that people start using encryption for the things that they're concerned about.
n/a SDF05 2017-05-08
Sometimes you have to be vocal about these things. Not every person knows about this, and you'll be surprised how many people gets sucked on by the words of the government so easily.
It's not their (people's) fault sometimes, and being vocal about this could show them the correct ways (in this case, giving us the rights to our privacy rather than it being sold off to who knows what).
n/a aletoledo 2017-05-08
What exactly does this mean to you? Like why can't you take back your privacy on your own right now?
n/a SDF05 2017-05-08
Welll.....let's just say i live in Australia. And our current PM is the worst asshole i've ever seen (second only to Trump though).
n/a aletoledo 2017-05-08
That maybe true...but I'm still interested in what you mean with the talking point "right to privacy". if you can indulge me a bit, I would like your perspective on it.
n/a SDF05 2017-05-08
Maybe it's not the right way to say, but we've all been affected by the internet for a long time now, and privacy has been the biggest factor of it. From Facebook to Windows 10, we've been largely affected by them (in terms of privacy).
To keep it short, i believe that we should have some power over what businesses such as Facebook to even ISPs are trying to do to gain advantage over what we do on the internet just for the sake of making a ton of money behind the scenes. And being vocal about it, raising our own unique opinions to issues like this is what makes businesses guessing (and not put them into being dominant in a certain market while they freely use any internet activity that we do for their own purposes - like Google for example) and be "respectful" for our privacy in our lives. I believe that by focusing on major issues such as Net Neutrality being offered freely for ISPs to use for their own gains, we can make USA (and probably the rest of the world) a better place.
Hopefully you can understand what i'm trying to say. Most of these things go under our naked eyes and whatever the result this will give us right now will surely affect the outcomes in the future. It's why everyone needs to fight together for these issues.
n/a aletoledo 2017-05-08
I get the emotion, in that you (and others) just want the world to be nice. I'm not sure if people realize what they're suggesting though.
Like in regards to google or facebook, do you think people should be stopped from supplying personal data or that the company should be forced to never use this data after the people supply it free of charge? I assume it's the later, except these companies provide a free service in exchange for peoples privacy. So if these companies can no longer have your privacy, then they will lose their business model.
n/a SDF05 2017-05-08
It's the latter, but this is a business world and of course it will definitely ruin their business model (i mean most corporations are based on taking personal info for ad uses).
Still, it's not so easy to abandon these corporations when it's an essential need for anyone in their lives these days.
Just trying to say that giving the pressure (aka voicing opinions in relation to certain changes and stuff) to these corporations can probably eliminate their total domination and freedom of using private and personal user data for their own gains.
n/a aletoledo 2017-05-08
Do you think collecting a tax to pay for google and facebook, while forcing these two companies to strictly protect privacy would be fair? So you pay a $500 yearly tax for these public services and they become akin to how the roads are managed by government.
n/a SDF05 2017-05-08
I'm not even sure if this has any effect for Google and FB. I mean would they even do that just for the tax?
n/a aletoledo 2017-05-08
Well in the US alone, if they taxed everyone $500, it would a multi-billion dollar business. So I'm just suggesting that their ad revenue be replaced by tax revenue. I think people nowadays consider it a public service anyway, so if people are concerned that their privacy is being sold, then this can be solved by paying a tax instead.
n/a thehamman277 2017-05-08
"It's not political" every comment is "omg republicans are so mean" "we need Bernie". Nobody wants this but nobody wants to hear a condescending sales pitch for the democrat party.
n/a AnArzonist 2017-05-08
A democrat proposed PIPA. I don't see how anyone in their right mind could spin internet law into being a left issue.
n/a Shark3900 2017-05-08
Dude you're like 8 months back in whatever time-travelling device you have.
I've read this entire thread and there wasn't even a single comment mentioning him except for yours.
The censorship of the people and abusive monopolies is absolutely a non-partisan issue.
If you think otherwise you're fucking retarded.
n/a FloodMoose 2017-05-08
Marching towards fascism and the clampdown. Good going murka...
n/a Blue-eyed-lightning 2017-05-08
The FCC is insanely unconstitutional. I really have no idea how it is possibly still aloud to exist.
n/a Setebaid 2017-05-08
Allowed*
n/a TGx_Slurp 2017-05-08
Its intended to limit the internet. When the left controls it, it limits ISPs. When the right controls it, they limit the internet itself. Its incredibly more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it.
n/a Blue-eyed-lightning 2017-05-08
The fact that an official federal organization is allowed to censor people seems like something that shouldn't happen in the home land of free speech.
n/a GloriousStarLord 2017-05-08
What amazing foresight they had in 1934 when the FCC was created to limit the internet...
n/a Why_You_Mad_ 2017-05-08
If we're to control an industry with a natural monopoly, there needs to be some sort of governing body that can prevent them from controlling the entire industry. If not the FCC, then Congress needs to pass laws regulating them. ISPs are no different now than the phone company conglomerates were years ago when anti trust laws broke them up.
No other companies can get into the industry due to the massive amount of capital required to set up the infrastructure. Even Google stopped rolling out their fiber internet because it's so expensive. The top 4 ISPs have a monopoly, plain and simple.
n/a xoites 2017-05-08
This really smacks of totalitarianism.
We have gone from, "We, the People," to, "The people be damned!"
n/a Xanny 2017-05-08
Gone from? The US was never established to be a full democracy. It has always been a lauded elite seeking to secure their property and profits, be it against the rebellious proles or foreign powers that were threats to their established power. There is a lot of nostalgia for a theoretical historical vision of a democratic USA. The closest you might have gotten was in the aftermath of the war and before the implementation of the US Constitution, and only on a state by state basis.
Actual grassroots democracy always fails. India, Egypt, Iran, France, Germany, China, and Russia are all testaments to that throughout the 2 centuries. Either the rebellion is hijacked and usurped by a powerful extremist elite (because a peasant revolt can't have enough organizational rigidity to survive) or the global elite outside of the rebellion starve the country post-revolt of trade and support until it devolves into anarchy and a puppet can be put in its place. Or they just put the puppet in directly, through the first method.
When "We, the People" was written, it was written by a room full of white aristocratic men who all encompassed the colonies 1% elite landowners who feared the enforcement of British tarrifs and more relevantly regulations and laws they had the luxury of ignoring completely for the better part of half a century because Britain was too busy fighting wars in Europe to enforce the law in the colonies. For most of that time period, the colonies were absolute oligarchy, where bought off governors enforced the will of this same group of aristocrats. They took an extreme measure to preserve their fortunes and power structure, but succeeded feasting on the blood of the poor and a promise of prosperity few got to participate in, intentionally.
n/a xoites 2017-05-08
Yeah, I know all that, but my way of saying it is simpler.
Remember, I didn't say when it went from one to the other.
n/a greemmako 2017-05-08
what do you mean this is a non partisan issue? republicans are clearly for getting rid of net neutrality. it is part of their platform. democrats are not.
n/a 1984BrainBot 2017-05-08
What? Democrats control the press.
n/a RaoulDuke209 2017-05-08
What? Trump controls the press
He hasn't fallen once while failing miserably
n/a Baultanis 2017-05-08
That's because normal people don't care when liberal media crys and whines and REEEEE's because Trump hurt their feelings.
Liberals lmao always shouting into an echo chamber and then wondering why the world doesn't work the way they think it does
n/a RaoulDuke209 2017-05-08
I don't know what group I'm considered I've never really titled myself.
Trump doesn't hurt my feelings. I'd rather Trump over Hilary but I'd never ever imagine or agree with Trump running a country (even with the best team) or having a president to begin with.
I feel we have outgrown this system. We are dozens of countries within a country who named ourselves after the continent we stole. A few hundred million people being represented in a way that really isn't in their hands and electing candidates who represent the two parties who have the least support.
We need a roundtable. An ever refreshed, true random, bi-monthly, live aired feed of discussion between groups of people who have never met and were selected at random.
Preferably with no political history.
n/a VisonKai 2017-05-08
Even if they did, what exactly does the press have to do with net neutrality?
n/a greemmako 2017-05-08
Im confused what point you are trying to make.
The democratic obama administration ended up formally protecting net neutrality. all democratic candidates in last election vowed to protect it.
the republicans are trying to kill it. i understand that you may have other issues more important to you causing you to vote republican, but a vote for a republican is a vote against net neutrality. a vote for a democrat is a vote for net neutrality.
these are just basic unarguable facts.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/online-privacy-democrats-net-neutrality-236669
n/a 1984BrainBot 2017-05-08
Why is that confusing? The Liberal media was saying Hillary was winning 90% when in fact all of us know she was not.
So who is controlling / manipulating the press?
Who said I did? Are you projecting or just assuming based on zero facts?
I enjoy seeing how easy the young minds can be swayed.
n/a greemmako 2017-05-08
no one with any credibility was saying she was winning 90%, good lord...
the polls were accurately showing her ahead by a few points but could not call the states that decided the electoral college.
the american people soundly rejected trump by millions of votes in the popular election. he only won the electoral college by around 70k votes.
for someone claiming to be wise, old, and unswayed by propaganda you have a shocking lack of common sense and seem unable to grasp basic facts. most likely you are trapped in a right wing facebook bubble though :(
n/a FnordFinder 2017-05-08
Really? Remind me what is the most widely watched network for news? Fox News?
TIL Fox News and the Associated Press are run by Democrats. Someone better tell The Five, I'm sure their collective heads will explode.
n/a Valac_ 2017-05-08
And the rest of the media is liberal.....
Your not really making a point here even if they don't control all of it if they control 60% that's millions of people they lie to.
n/a FnordFinder 2017-05-08
Go back to school. Here, off the top of my head:
Off the top of my head.
And your assertion that "liberal = lies" disqualifies you from any reasonable discussion.
n/a Valac_ 2017-05-08
I didn't say liberals lie that's just what you wanted to hear.
I said politicians lie and if you don't believe that then you're gonna live a life full of disappointment.
n/a FnordFinder 2017-05-08
You did say just that. Try again.
n/a Valac_ 2017-05-08
Oops this is a different thread.
You're missing the part where I said if a bunch of times. You're also far to triggered for me to bother trying to discuss anything with you.
n/a FnordFinder 2017-05-08
Just wow.
n/a AnArzonist 2017-05-08
I'm sorry remind me again which party proposed PIPA? Oh that's right Democrats. Seems both sides are easily purchased.
What a surprise./s
n/a greemmako 2017-05-08
What does pipa have to do with this? A bipartisan anti piracey bill that was killed by democrats after a backlash doesnt change the fact the democrats are the ones who formally implemented net neutrality rules, vowed to protect them, and now republicans are trying to kill them
these false equivalencies, and what aboutisms are why it is so easy for politicians to get away with being bought - you claim to have a certain stance on an issue but then vote for a politician with the opposite stance and whine that the opposition (who actually agrees with you) isnt perfect
n/a Valac_ 2017-05-08
No politician is actually for net neutrality give it a minute democrats will do the exact same shit.
n/a AnArzonist 2017-05-08
Fine I'll give you a crazy conspiracy rant. Here we go.
What does one internet law example have to do with another internet law example? I'm sorry if you think all we should care about is Net Neutrality, but I have the expectation that politicians understand the mentality and purpose of the internet. It's not enough that they happen to cave to pressure one time because that just means they'll go right back to the same shit. It's clear neither party knows what to do with the internet, so how about you stop trying to make your party look good. Also, let's not accuse me of voting one way or another. Not that it's any of your business, but I'd never vote main party.
You want to know what the problem is? You want to know why politicians are so easily purchased? Easy: Two-Party System, and the fact that everyone plays along with it because they're too scared to split the vote. Big shock, but when you only have two shitty options you lose the ability to punish them. If one party goes way too far with something (like, idk rigging their primaries), the only option to punish them is the opposite party. The lesser of two evils just sets the standard for how evil you can get away with being. Best case scenario: No change. More likely both parties get a little bit eviler. They have no incentive to get less evil because the corruption we call evil keeps them in power. The money as speech, the redrawing of political maps, and other rigging of elections at various levels with various that happens with both parties all that crap that's attached to the two party system makes out politicians easy to buy.
Of course we're losing the internet. It's the biggest tool to organize against the purchasing of politicians. Not a damn thing we can do but fix the two party crap and everything that comes with it (money as speech, first past post, gerrymandering, etc etc etc) if we want to stop this crap. But what do we do? Do we try to fix all the things leading to the loss of the internet? Nope! We blame the other party! Because it's so easy to believe other party is evil and our party while not perfect is a way better than them and if only our party had control of the everything things would be just dandy. Jesus, what a bullshit fantasy. You want to know what would be happening right now if the democrats had swept everything? Roughly the same fucking thing. There'd be some different issues, sure, but we'd still be facing this net neutrality issue. There would still be concerns of mass corruption. Our democracy would still be headed right down the drain. I mean it's great that the democrats get to complain about all these issues since they lost, but we didn't hear a word of it from them until they lost so there's not a doubt in my mind the republicans would be in the same place if the roles were switched.
The two parties are exactly the same.
n/a Atomos128 2017-05-08
PIPA wasn't about neutrality
n/a slowe417 2017-05-08
republicans are clearly getting paid for getting rid of net neutrality. It is not a partisan issue because no real politicians are honestly is fighting for it. Only trader surrogates for corporations.
It is the business of both sides to rid our parties of them
n/a tin_foil_hat_x 2017-05-08
To add to this because for whatever reason it hasnt been stated. Obama administration and Hillary Clinton were for TPP, and those who know what the TPP was (which was shut down but Donald Trump via excutive order) knows that it wouldve destroyed internet neutrality.
Soo this whole "b-b-but its the republicans!" is complete and utter bullshit, the Democrats were pushing the TPP as hard as they could and they probably would have succeeded if it was planned earlier and Obama had more time with it, or if Hillary won.
FCC is still a threat though, internet neutrality is one of the few things keeping the status quo.
n/a slowe417 2017-05-08
Right, doesn't the fact that it is an issue for both sides make is non partisan, though? That's what I'm saying too haha.
TPP was obviously killed for reasons totally unrelated to NN though, given Trumps stance on NN.
n/a DronePuppet 2017-05-08
/r/videos Mods have a solid history of removing videos!
Why the Viral United Airlines Video Kept Getting Deleted From Reddit
http://observer.com/2017/04/united-airlines-video-reddit-delete/
n/a AllDepressedChips 2017-05-08
They have an extremly lucrative history of removing posts, comments, entire comment threads, locking comment threads, making users sign a separate TOS to comment. The mods need to be removed.
n/a Phinocio 2017-05-08
Separate TOS? What?
n/a AllDepressedChips 2017-05-08
Yeah if you clicked the comment box it the reply button a separate window would pop up and you'd have to agree to the pop-up before you could continue.
n/a gravitybong 2017-05-08
If net neutrality gets passed, its time to attack the severs that are trying to watch us. A digital revolution if you will. How will they hide their shit from us? They are not scaring the internet they are pissing them off. I cant see why they want a war on the digital front against its own people. Almost like they want us to have a revolution to remind the government theres more of us then there is you. Serve the people or get served.
n/a Fastball885 2017-05-08
Tried to leave a comment on a iPhone and the State field did not allow you to choose anything and was not able to submit comment due to this.
n/a StankyMcPootah 2017-05-08
Someone definitely made it difficult and weird when searching and trying to submit your comment, but KEEP TRYING. In Last Week Tonight's yt video people are commenting with workable links (I imagine here as well). Let's rally people!!! We will be heard!!
n/a AwayWeGo112 2017-05-08
Net Neutrality is a giant scam.
n/a Tehmaxx 2017-05-08
How many censorship disasters are the /r/videos mods going to go through in a single quarter?
n/a tulajeechilsamsachil 2017-05-08
No, the URLs work fine. Just checked both sites, and filed 8 May 2017. I can't speak for /r/videos...but /r/television has it, and it is currently climbing, and sits on /r/all @ #13.
n/a channelsideslowride 2017-05-08
If John Oliver is for it, I'm against it. By the way, r/videos has had the no politics rule for literally years now so...
n/a speakingcraniums 2017-05-08
I bet he also likes long walks on the beach and feeling of sunlight on your face in the morning.
n/a channelsideslowride 2017-05-08
He's a limey piece of shit. The kind we tried to jettison in 1776. He can't take the sun.
n/a speakingcraniums 2017-05-08
I thought we tried to jettison the monarchy. Seeing how most people were British at the time I'm going to say you might be mentally unstable.
n/a channelsideslowride 2017-05-08
Whatever
n/a speakingcraniums 2017-05-08
Cool train of thought bro. Nice chatting with you.
n/a channelsideslowride 2017-05-08
Personal insults are all you have
n/a speakingcraniums 2017-05-08
Well that still puts me one up on you.
n/a channelsideslowride 2017-05-08
Fight me loser I'll fucking kill you
n/a speakingcraniums 2017-05-08
Lol. That's cute. You're a qt.
n/a Ronasty 2017-05-08
FCC IT team resets servers to create room for the traffic created by Oliver and the masses Link doesn't work while down for maintenance - HOLY SHIT THEY'RE CORRUPT AF QUICK MAKE A REDDIT POST 4 hours later - oh it works never mind :)
n/a AnArzonist 2017-05-08
It's /r/conspiracy, don't take it too seriously.
n/a Ronasty 2017-05-08
I'm not I just think it's funny that no one even considered logical reason hahaha
n/a byoonbyoon 2017-05-08
Didn't work for me. I have my pitchfork at the ready.
n/a Moosetappropriate 2017-05-08
Is this surprising? No. The autocrats don't care about your opinion, they only care to satisfy their corporate masters.
n/a nigelli 2017-05-08
I scoff when I see a video removed for being political. There was a span of months on /r/videos where every top post video was a black man telling other blacks to be good little negroes and listen to the white man. Can't recall any of those being removed. Many were gilded in fact. Police abuse videos regularly get removed for witch hunting or politics. It's all perspective and spin, videos get removed when they violate THEIR politics.
n/a HaHaSoRandom 2017-05-08
I just made a comment using Oliver's link about 10 minutes ago. Worked fine for me.
n/a hopopo 2017-05-08
I just tried and it is dead.
n/a HaHaSoRandom 2017-05-08
Wtf. That's so strange. I did it after this was posted.
n/a lol_and_behold 2017-05-08
Initiating Streisand Effect in 3... 2... 1...
n/a CantCatchMeUnawares 2017-05-08
John Oliver broke the site again is all.
n/a vonshavingcream 2017-05-08
gofccyourself.com worked just fine for me.
n/a hopopo 2017-05-08
n/a vonshavingcream 2017-05-08
literally just tried it and it worked
n/a hopopo 2017-05-08
Yep, it worked for me too!
n/a hopopo 2017-05-08
Maybe it is time to post many, many videos on this matter to r/videos
n/a JustChrisMC 2017-05-08
Remove Ajit Pai
n/a xavplusplus2 2017-05-08
I got it to work about an hour ago
n/a SoCo_cpp 2017-05-08
Being brigaded by people tricked into thinking the FCC is removing Net Neutrality probably causes problems.
n/a buttaholic 2017-05-08
This isn't the same as a video about bridge construction laws. This is dealing with change coming to Internet laws due to politics. It's a controversial political topic. Whether it's partisan or not doesn't determine if it's political.
It's more like a video about trumps healthcare plan. Just some laws, right? But you'd definitely consider that to be politics.
n/a soullessgeth 2017-05-08
i'm pretty sure it was just the mainstream media, they are the only ones who care. also this isn't a conspiracy
n/a SpurdoBurdo 2017-05-08
They were being targeted by an internet harassment campaign /s
n/a IAmTheSysGen 2017-05-08
It's funny how the FCC is out of touch and removes things if they get attention on reddit while the CRTC has a fucking reddit account.
n/a byoonbyoon 2017-05-08
I just tried to send them my thoughts, but lo and behold the search button stops working once I enter that number. I disabled Privacybadger too, still nothing. Ended up just shooting them an e-mail explaining my discontent with their ruling AND site.
n/a Sex_anal_no_lube 2017-05-08
Ho ho and now the post is deleted.
n/a kazumitsu 2017-05-08
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak
John Oliver talking about the net Neutrality again. Also giving a quick link to where you can comment. It's gofccyourself.com
n/a Why_You_Mad_ 2017-05-08
Hello, I'm the CEO of Comcast, and I am opposed to net neutrality.
Seriously though, even most libertarians I know are pro net neutrality. It doesn't make sense for an industry with a natural monopoly like ISPs to be able to discriminate against traffic or charge more to reach certain sites. The internet is a utility, not just a service that most could do without. It's way to ingrained in our world now.
n/a SDF05 2017-05-08
Welll.....let's just say i live in Australia. And our current PM is the worst asshole i've ever seen (second only to Trump though).
n/a aletoledo 2017-05-08
That maybe true...but I'm still interested in what you mean with the talking point "right to privacy". if you can indulge me a bit, I would like your perspective on it.
n/a laxdstorn 2017-05-08
I'll rephrase, just because politics has an interest doesn't mean it is primarily a political conversation.
n/a hopopo 2017-05-08
I just tried and it is dead.
n/a aletoledo 2017-05-08
Well in the US alone, if they taxed everyone $500, it would a multi-billion dollar business. So I'm just suggesting that their ad revenue be replaced by tax revenue. I think people nowadays consider it a public service anyway, so if people are concerned that their privacy is being sold, then this can be solved by paying a tax instead.
n/a dylan522p 2017-05-08
How am I rascist, and to which race? I don't like Islam, in the same way I don't like super duper fundamentalist of any other religion, Islam is just the most fundamental one out there.
n/a Final21 2017-05-08
Frankly the ACA is going down soon anyway. There needs to be an alternative in place. Also males benefit significantly less than females with the ACA as well as the middle class (You know just about all of America)
n/a speakingcraniums 2017-05-08
I bet he also likes long walks on the beach and feeling of sunlight on your face in the morning.
n/a tin_foil_hat_x 2017-05-08
To add to this because for whatever reason it hasnt been stated. Obama administration and Hillary Clinton were for TPP, and those who know what the TPP was (which was shut down but Donald Trump via excutive order) knows that it wouldve destroyed internet neutrality.
Soo this whole "b-b-but its the republicans!" is complete and utter bullshit, the Democrats were pushing the TPP as hard as they could and they probably would have succeeded if it was planned earlier and Obama had more time with it, or if Hillary won.
FCC is still a threat though, internet neutrality is one of the few things keeping the status quo.
n/a channelsideslowride 2017-05-08
He's a limey piece of shit. The kind we tried to jettison in 1776. He can't take the sun.
n/a greemmako 2017-05-08
no one with any credibility was saying she was winning 90%, good lord...
the polls were accurately showing her ahead by a few points but could not call the states that decided the electoral college.
the american people soundly rejected trump by millions of votes in the popular election. he only won the electoral college by around 70k votes.
for someone claiming to be wise, old, and unswayed by propaganda you have a shocking lack of common sense and seem unable to grasp basic facts. most likely you are trapped in a right wing facebook bubble though :(