Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: regulating speech from the perspective of FCC. They can future regulate political websites, enact taxes and fines on various services provided on the Internet... it gives them broad sweeping powers.
This was the the goal. The liberals hated hearing the conservative voices on talk radio that exposed the truth in the obama administration and hypocrisy of liberal politics. The liberals hated that they had a minority share of air time on radio so they had limited opportunity for propaganda. So the solution was to make things "nutral" through regulations. All of the other regulations were sold as packaging to minimize the political nature of the net neutrality.
This was the the goal. The liberals hated hearing the conservative voices on talk radio that exposed the truth in the obama administration and hypocrisy of liberal politics. The liberals hated that they had a minority share of air time on radio so they had limited opportunity for propaganda. So the solution was to make things "nutral" through regulations. All of the other regulations were sold as packaging to minimize the political nature of the net neutrality.
Exactly... I mean, they even talked about this regularly as something they were concerned about (Democrats, concerned about the freedom of Republican websites and media). That was the very essence of the goal of Net Neutrality. Which is hilarious because it's like calling a Pro-Abortion bill something like "Right to Life" or some nonsense. But Democrats have always been masters of propaganda, and many Democrat voters truly are so ignorant, that they simply believe whatever nonsense they're told to believe.
I honestly cannot believe how gullible many people are.
I am just going to quote what you said in response to me.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
ALL of your comments about why Net Neutrality is good, is based on PURE hypotheticals about what COULD happen.
So we can agree, we have two hypothetical scenarios.
A The government could control free speech.
B Private corporations could control free speech.
Ignoring the fact that the first one violates the first amendment and the citizen/group such as the ACLU would certainly win a court a case if it were happening(there is nothing protecting us from the second one), lets move on.
Both of these situations have one higher power controlling the internet, the question becomes: Which one do we have more control over to give us more freedom? For scenario A, we have a vote in the government and the constitution. That is our only sense of control, and I agree that it is far from efficient or effective. For scenario B, we have control over the corporation due to our ability to choose a different service if one of them is silencing certain sites(this assumes that you would know if they were silencing certain sites). This has proven to be a much more effective way of controlling a good service, its the free market at work.
In 99% of cases, scenario B is a no brainer, it makes more sense, reacts to the people more quickly, and does not contain burdensome government. However, this is that 1% of cases, and here is why: 1. The vast majority of Americans do not have a choice of internet providers. They can not go to a competing service because more often than not there is not one. 2. The consumer has almost no way of knowing if they are not receiving equal access to content. Even if they did have other options, they would not be able to conclusively tell that certain sites are slowing down because of the ISP or the hosting servers(and ISPs could just lie about it). 3. The internet has become a necessity. Nearly every job requires some form of internet access, and we are only growing more dependent on it. The internet allows for unparalleled access to communication channels between business and consumer(hell, even my plumber has an app he had to create for his small company) 4. By forcing companies to report to the government, the government has some possibility to stop these companies(which are often monopolies) from blocking content. The consumer does not have access to enough resources to prove that an ISP is throttling their connection to certain areas of content.
I agree that it is not perfect, and I agree that it is possible for the government to abuse this, but it is the only real option. With the government regulating ISPs, at least we have some amount of control over keeping equal access to the internet, but without NN we give all the power to a few people at a few companies with no way of tracking how they use that power.
[This message has been edited by Threedog (edited 12-23-2017).]
Seems to me the "government" is supposed to protect "free speech".
The citizenry determines what they want to listen to. Not to throw this discussion off track but, let me bring up the last election, all the media (corporations) and pollsters said HRC was leading and to expect a landslide. The citizenry or viewers said and did something else. I'm not qualified to intelligently discuss Net Neutrality but, this I know. Less government regulations means more freedom for all of us, it means less money wasted trying to enforce silly regulations. Less government regulations allows capitalism to flourish. It also means those who chose to suckle off the government tit will not flourish. At least, that's my uninformed opinion.
Have a safe day.
------------------ Rams
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun.... Open your frigg'n minds, think about all the other tools that can be made into WMDs.
My wife told me to grow up. I told her to get out of my fort!
Seems to me the "government" is supposed to protect "free speech".
The citizenry determines what they want to listen to. Not to throw this discussion off track but, let me bring up the last election, all the media (corporations) and pollsters said HRC was leading and to expect a landslide. The citizenry or viewers said and did something else. I'm not qualified to intelligently discuss Net Neutrality but, this I know. Less government regulations means more freedom for all of us, it means less money wasted trying to enforce silly regulations. Less government regulations allows capitalism to flourish. It also means those who chose to suckle off the government tit will not flourish. At least, that's my uninformed opinion.
Have a safe day.
Actually, the polls were mostly correct. They predicted that Hillary would win the popular vote by a few million, which she did.
As for NN. I have provided the information in the rest of my post about why net neutrality is the exception to the rule you just described(which I mostly agree with).
[This message has been edited by Threedog (edited 12-24-2017).]
Originally posted by Threedog: Actually, the polls were mostly correct. They predicted that Hillary would win the popular vote by a few million, which she did.
Could you be more defiant of reality?
The intent of the polls was to try to predict the election which they did not. The polls didn't have Hillary winning by a "few million votes", they predicted she'd win the electoral vote by a landslide.
The intent of the polls was to try to predict the election which they did not. The polls didn't have Hillary winning by a "few million votes", they predicted she'd win the electoral vote by a landslide.
Originally posted by Threedog: Actually, the polls were mostly correct. They predicted that Hillary would win the popular vote by a few million, which she did.
As for NN. I have provided the information in the rest of my post about why net neutrality is the exception to the rule you just described(which I mostly agree with).
LOL, no not true at all. I never saw one liberal poll that suggested that Trump would win. I never even saw a conservative poll that suggested the win would be by EC.
The net neutrality is dead because it deserves to die, just like obama care. Terrible liberal regulation falling under the weight of its own wasteful worthlessness.
Originally posted by Threedog:As for NN. I have provided the information in the rest of my post about why net neutrality is the exception to the rule you just described(which I mostly agree with).
Sir, Based on the first post I quoted in this conversation where you offered up the options of who would "control" free speech, it appears that you would prefer the "government" to control free speech versus protect it. If that's the way you see it then, you truly have bought into socialism.
Socialism breeds more socialism and more leaches on those who actually pull their own weight. This country was built on the backs of those who earned their way. I have no problem with a helping hand but, living off of the government tit forever will only bring this country down. Consider all the freebies now out there for those who don't pull their own weight. They have no incentive to even to try and get out from under that government control you want to promote. It's a consistent pattern, I shouldn't have to prove it to you. The evidence is overwhelming.
If, leftist programing can't make it on it's own then it obviously isn't what the citizenry wants provided. That's capitalism at work. I don't always get what I want but, I pull my own weight and the load of many others. I'm tired of doing that. If you wish to pull the load of others, I'm OK with that but don't think you have the right to give me more of someone else's share.
------------------ Rams
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun.... Open your frigg'n minds, think about all the other tools that can be made into WMDs.
My wife told me to grow up. I told her to get out of my fort!
So we can agree, we have two hypothetical scenarios.
A The government could control free speech.
B Private corporations could control free speech.
Ignoring the fact that the first one violates the first amendment and the citizen/group such as the ACLU would certainly win a court a case if it were happening(there is nothing protecting us from the second one), lets move on.
*You pose two hypothetical situations, shoot down the first then state,”There is nothing protecting us from the second one”. I do not expect someone else to protect me. I will not relinquish my God given right of free speech to anyone.
quote
Both of these situations have one higher power controlling the internet,
*Neither government nor industry are higher powers. Industries are people like us and the government is us.
quote
the question becomes: Which one do we have more control over to give us more freedom?
*Neither government nor industry give us freedom. It is given by God. See above.
quote
For scenario A, we have a vote in the government and the constitution. That is our only sense of control, and I agree that it is far from efficient or effective.
*I disagree. We are the government and the Constitution is efficient and effective. We the people have God given rights. See above.
quote
For scenario B, we have control over the corporation due to our ability to choose a different service if one of them is silencing certain sites(this assumes that you would know if they were silencing certain sites). This has proven to be a much more effective way of controlling a good service, its the free market at work.
*You said it: “we have control over the corporation due to our ability to choose ... its the free market at work”
quote
In 99% of cases, scenario B is a no brainer, it makes more sense, reacts to the people more quickly, and does not contain burdensome government. However, this is that 1% of cases, and here is why: 1. The vast majority of Americans do not have a choice of internet providers. They can not go to a competing service because more often than not there is not one.
2. The consumer has almost no way of knowing if they are not receiving equal access to content. Even if they did have other options, they would not be able to conclusively tell that certain sites are slowing down because of the ISP or the hosting servers(and ISPs could just lie about it).
*This is simply not true. There will always be radio and print media, and they will rush in to fill in the gaps because they are (evil capitalist profit mongering) industries.
quote
3. The internet has become a necessity. Nearly every job requires some form of internet access, and we are only growing more dependent on it. The internet allows for unparalleled access to communication channels between business and consumer(hell, even my plumber has an app he had to create for his small company)
*See above. If one industry doesn't provide us with what we need, another will step in (unless, of course government regulates industry)
quote
4. By forcing companies to report to the government, the government has some possibility to stop these companies(which are often monopolies) from blocking content. The consumer does not have access to enough resources to prove that an ISP is throttling their connection to certain areas of content.
*See above re: government regulation
quote
I agree that it is not perfect, and I agree that it is possible for the government to abuse this, but it is the only real option. With the government regulating ISPs, at least we have some amount of control over keeping equal access to the internet, but without NN we give all the power to a few people at a few companies with no way of tracking how they use that power.
*Again, see above. Government regulation can block that which free enterprise can provide.
Much of liberal philosophy is predicated on the erroneous concept that we are given freedoms and rights by other people who you describe as higher powers.
Much of liberal philosophy is predicated on the erroneous concept that we are given freedoms and rights by other people who you describe as higher powers.
Much of liberal philosophy is predicated on emotions, regardless of laws or common sense. And most of the World does not even believe in the God of the Bible. (of wich, the founding fathers based the notion of rights) MANY forms of religions, versions and interpretations of the Biblical texts dominate (perverting) the Worlds view of the true God, that is of coarse excluding those that deny the existence of God. So it should not shock anyone that Americans do not understand or accept where Constitutional rights come from.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 12-27-2017).]
Much of liberal philosophy is predicated on emotions, regardless of laws or common sense.
This is so true. What's frustrating to me is that... while the vast majority of liberal philosophy is driven by pure emotion, the solution is that "someone (else) must do something about this!"
If there are poor in the streets, then the Government MUST do something. If there are hungry people, then the Government MUST do something. If there are people who need healthcare, then the Government MUST do something.
... what needs to be stated is that it's always "someone else" who must solve the problems for them.
I hate to even bring it up, but I think we all know and have seen the statistics many times before. Conservatives donate to charitable organizations (food / homeless / education / etc...) more than 10 times that of "progressives."
The idea is that... while they really think something should be done, they're OK with it as long as THEY aren't the ones being affected by it. Which is despicable. It shows not only the hypocrisy of the left, but the sheer stupid-arrogance that exists in the minds of many Democrat voters.
and did something else. I'm not qualified to intelligently discuss Net Neutrality but, this I know. Less government regulations means more freedom for all of us, it means less money wasted trying to enforce silly regulations. Less government regulations allows capitalism to flourish. It also means those who chose to suckle off the government tit will not flourish. At least, that's my uninformed opinion. 
