Kuribo64
Views: 7,906,385 Home | Forums | Uploader | Wiki | Object databases | IRC
Rules/FAQ | Memberlist | Calendar | Stats | Online users | Last posts | Search
01-19-18 12:55 AM
Guest:

0 users reading net neutrality | 1 bot

Main - Serious discussion - net neutrality New reply

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
ScarletWavez
Posted on 11-23-17 02:46 AM Link | #91334
The FCC apparently still wants to abolish net neutrality by next Wednesday. If the US is affected, other countries may follow their poor example and start doing the same thing.

What is net neutrality?
Means equality of data transmitted over the internet.

What happen if net neutrality goes?
It means that companies can throttle websites and if the big companies pay: it means they will get accelerated speeds. This means Skype, Netflix etc. could pay big money in order to make themselves faster than equivalents. This will be a huge loss to decentralised networks and non-profit organisations. Of course, there will be niche providers who will pop up probably but net neutrality won't be a thing to most ISPs.

IceFairyAmy, what's your view?
My view is that all data transmitted on the Internet should be equal. As a supporter of decentralised networks and the like I am strongly in favour of net neutrality, and especially don't want it to be abolished elsewhere as the result of the USA's pathetic actions.

www.battleforthe.net

Belsaw
Posted on 11-23-17 05:29 AM Link | #91337
Unfortunately, it seems quite a bit of supporters of net neutrality are also supporters of FascistBook, Goolag, and Twatter censoring anyone they disagree with in order to effectively turn those platforms into echo chambers. No, I am not talking about censoring actual Nazis and other bigots. I'm talking about literally censoring anyone they disagree with. You don't believe in the Muh Russia narrative? Russian shill! You criticize Hillary Clinton? Misogynist Nazi!

But whatever. We need to fight against censorship by both ISPs and social media platforms. Though it's probably best to just keep net neutrality and abandon FaceBook, Google, and Twitter en masse. If they become echo chambers, so what there are other alternatives. Then again Google is a very large corporation.

GalacticPirate
Posted on 11-23-17 06:59 AM Link | #91342
Yeah, the classical "censorship" from the US, the country where you can openly say nazis were right, say gas whambers never existed or say black people are monkeys with no consequence cuz "freedom of speech". I agree with the philosopher C. Popper, absolute freedom of speech is not viable. See, now the producers of massive fake news like Trump call people they disagree with "fake news".
Anyways, I don't see a problem with Net Neutrality disappearing. It isn't in the French law, and it allows us to have certainly the cheapest data plans on Earth (yeah sorry Staple, but at least this time capitalism worked when Free became a mobile ISP and crushed the prices, that's why we can have 100-200GB for 20 bucks and triple-play.)
I can't see why ISPs couldn't propose things like "Pay 5 bucks a month to have unlimited FB use regardless of how many data you have left", that's a good thing.

Swingball
(post deleted) #91347

StapleButter
Posted on 11-23-17 10:56 AM Link | #91350
Posted by GalacticPirate
Anyways, I don't see a problem with Net Neutrality disappearing. It isn't in the French law, and it allows us to have certainly the cheapest data plans on Earth (yeah sorry Staple, but at least this time capitalism worked when Free became a mobile ISP and crushed the prices, that's why we can have 100-200GB for 20 bucks and triple-play.)

Phone internet is kind of a different thing. Regardless of whether French law has something about neutrality (I don't actually know), landline internet providers all provide the same service. Different prices, different speeds, but you get unlimited, unmetered internet access.

Posted by GalacticPirate
I can't see why ISPs couldn't propose things like "Pay 5 bucks a month to have unlimited FB use regardless of how many data you have left", that's a good thing.

My opinion on this is mixed. Like, why would access to one site be charged differently? It's the same service that is provided regardless of which site you access.

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

what do you use to measure bolts? a boltmeter

Belsaw
Posted on 11-23-17 11:39 AM (rev. 2 of 11-23-17 11:40 AM) Link | #91351
Yeah, I don't see how ISPs charging for access to different sites is a good thing. I mean, if Netflix were to pay a lot of money it would get fast loading speeds. This place, Kuribo64? "Oh because FireCharge or whoever reported this site, it will now be throttled unless X amount of money is paid". Keep in mind what may be one thing in France may be something else entirely in the US. Some US States do not have consumer protection laws specifically for protecting customers from being ripped off by ISPs and other utilities. Add loss of net neutrality to the mix and it'll be even worse.

(As for free speech and hate speech, I'll probably make a thread on that later.)

fiver
Posted on 11-23-17 03:02 PM Link | #91355
Posted by GalacticPirate
Yeah, the classical "censorship" from the US, the country where you can openly say nazis were right, say gas whambers never existed or say black people are monkeys with no consequence cuz "freedom of speech".

untrue, the consequence is becoming a social outcast, lol

and hate speech isn't exactly legal. you CAN get in trouble for some of the things you publicly say.
-fiverpost™
[image]

Swingball
(post deleted) #91358

StapleButter
Posted on 11-23-17 03:25 PM Link | #91361
Posted by fiver
untrue, the consequence is becoming a social outcast, lol

up until you find other social outcasts and the resulting group is called KKK

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

what do you use to measure bolts? a boltmeter

RanAS
Posted on 11-23-17 03:44 PM Link | #91362
As far as I'm aware, this net neutrality that people are talking about right now is some weird bill on the FCC and not actual net neutrality. I might be wrong though, I've literally got no idea because politics are stupid.

Actual net neutrality is here.

Against the real, true issue of net neutrality, as in, all data is equal, I don't believe there's any possible reason to be against it. Trasmitting some bytes from website A is the same amount of work for an ISP as trasmitting the same amount of data from website B and the ISP should not get to choose which one gets the faster internet. The only thing that should slow down a page is how much data the actual server itself can send, how much data you can receive depending on the plan you paid for and how big is the data. Whenether an ISP likes that website or not should not come into the equation for how fast they'll provide that data.
"I forgot what I was going to say."

fiver
Posted on 11-23-17 05:40 PM Link | #91365
Posted by StapleButter
up until you find other social outcasts and the resulting group is called KKK

you are still typically frowned upon by the greater society, though
Posted by GalacticPirate
Anyways, I don't see a problem with Net Neutrality disappearing. It isn't in the French law, and it allows us to have certainly the cheapest data plans on Earth (yeah sorry Staple, but at least this time capitalism worked when Free became a mobile ISP and crushed the prices, that's why we can have 100-200GB for 20 bucks and triple-play.)
I can't see why ISPs couldn't propose things like "Pay 5 bucks a month to have unlimited FB use regardless of how many data you have left", that's a good thing.

I'm completely confused as to what you mean, here. Wording is a bit strange but that could just be me
-fiverpost™
[image]

GalacticPirate
Posted on 11-24-17 11:15 AM Link | #91397
Remember that like half of Europeean countries never had Net Neutrality, and that even in the US it's fairly new.

ScarletWavez
Posted on 11-26-17 12:29 AM Link | #91432
yeah, because the US need to have laws in order to prevent some forms of corporate greed

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 11-26-17 04:18 PM Link | #91441
Posted by Belsaw
Unfortunately, it seems quite a bit of supporters of net neutrality are also supporters of FascistBook, Goolag, and Twatter censoring anyone they disagree with in order to effectively turn those platforms into echo chambers. No, I am not talking about censoring actual Nazis and other bigots. I'm talking about literally censoring anyone they disagree with. You don't believe in the Muh Russia narrative? Russian shill! You criticize Hillary Clinton? Misogynist Nazi!

This seems a little irrelevant and I don't think you know what "censorship" even means in this case. It sounds like you're just complaining that people block you on Twitter. That's not censorship. And if they shout you down for being a Russia shill or a "misogynist Nazi", that's not censorship either, they're just being morons. On the other hand, I do think there is something fishy going on (like WikiLeaks and Trump being all chummy with Russian politicians) and Russia is related. There is no hard evidence for it but there is suspicious activity and it would make sense that Russia would want to influence U.S. elections because they don't like Hillary at all but I think that if Bernie was up against Trump, they probably would leave him alone. Russia would like to see division in society for complicated reasons.

Marionumber1
Posted on 11-26-17 06:19 PM Link | #91456
Posted by LeftyGreenMario
On the other hand, I do think there is something fishy going on (like WikiLeaks and Trump being all chummy with Russian politicians) and Russia is related. There is no hard evidence for it but there is suspicious activity and it would make sense that Russia would want to influence U.S. elections because they don't like Hillary at all but I think that if Bernie was up against Trump, they probably would leave him alone. Russia would like to see division in society for complicated reasons.


There certainly is for Trump, but on what basis do you say Wikileaks is friendly with Russia? Aside from the US intelligence community's libelous and unsupported claims that Wikileaks is an asset of Russian intelligence, I'm not aware of any evidence for that. And the fact that Russia might have a motive to interfere with US elections does not constitute evidence that they did. The fact that the Russiagate narrative is being fueled by the CIA, a tool of America's corporate elite responsible for untold bloodshed around the world (and likely inside the US as well) in the name of clearing the way for Western capitalist dominance, makes it beyond suspect, as there's at least as much of a motive for them to impugn Russia as a rogue state.

Belsaw
Posted on 11-26-17 08:17 PM Link | #91457
Well, I don't even a Twitter account so uhh...

Anyway Twitter says that by December 18 anyone who breaks their new rules must leave the platform. They are not just referring to Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other ilk but also anyone who does not fit their narrative, even if they are Jewish democratic socialists. Take for example Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, Jill Stein, and Ajamu Baraka all being accused by Clintonite trolls of being "Russian bots". Yes, it is not censorship... yet. I wouldn't be surprised if after December 18 these trolls have people critical of Hillary Clinton successfully banned for being "misogynists".

Speaking of Russia sowing division, The Daily Banter hilariously implies that Russia is behind the Catalan Independence vote. The Daily Banter claims to be "leftist" yet they are okay with semi-Falangists keeping largely leftist Catalonia from becoming independent.

Yes Putin is pretty much an imperialist tyrant but there are a few things he is right about. The double standards on Catalonia and Kosovo is one of those few things. Of course Milošević was a brutal dictator hellbent on ethnic cleansing but was it really necessary to bomb civilians all over Yugoslavia other than to appease the military-industrial complex? What about Turkey who at that time was (and still currently is) committing ethnic cleansing against Kurds? What about Israel and Palestine? Don't forget that it was the US who gave Saddam Hussein the WMDs he used to gas Kurds and he had used them all up by the time Dubya (with backing from Republicans and some Democrats) invaded Iraq for nonexistant WMDs.

I should also note the US has interfered in other countries too through the CIA as Marionumber1 points out. Iran 1953. Guatemala 1954. Chile 1971. The US even backed the Khmer Rouge when communist Vietnam overthrow Pol Pot. Not to mention Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, what would become Daesh in Libya, and what would become Haya'at Tahrir ash-Sham (al-Nusra, al-Qaeda) in Syria.

This may all seem off topic but it kinda does tie back to net neutrality. If net neutrality is successfully repealed then I can see ISPs throttling sites that dare criticize the establishmemt. Corporatists like the Koch Brothers and Tom Steyer will have a field day with this. Months back I saw I think Marionumber1 post somewhere on here an alleged establishment/corporatist-backed list of so-called "fake news sites". Without net neutrality, those sites can be throttled into oblivion. The loss of net neutrality would be a gift to the capitalist establishment in order to censor anything they don't like.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 11-27-17 02:31 AM Link | #91463
Posted by Marionumber1
There certainly is for Trump, but on what basis do you say Wikileaks is friendly with Russia? Aside from the US intelligence community's libelous and unsupported claims that Wikileaks is an asset of Russian intelligence, I'm not aware of any evidence for that.

https://20committee.com/2015/08/31/wikileaks-is-a-front-for-russian-intelligence/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/06/fsb-putins-modern-day-kgb

https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-russia-bank-2-billion/

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717458064324964352

(Twitter link is them defending Putin and invoking Soros conspiracy)

WikiLeaks in general has a major conflict of interest that is Julian Assange and they'll publish anything that'll make Clinton look bad, even if it means releasing private information. It's one thing to show information that Clinton was paid by Wall Street to do speeches, I commend transparency there. On the other hand, WikiLeaks seems very dishonest to me and since Russia hates Clinton so much, I wouldn't be surprised if WikiLeaks is okay with cooperating with Russian politicians.

I can't say I'm too educated otherwise on what's going on on Catalonia or Kosova. I just know Putin is competent and has actually done a few right things before he rode the crazy fan. I also know the people who don't like net neutrality are corporate control freaks. As you said, they'd love to cut off parts of the Internet and provide them in neat packages.

This is Portugal after net neutrality is gone. Lovely, isn't it?

[thumbnail]

For some reason, libertarians oppose net neutrality, because they think it's government overreach into the free market, which is actually the argument you'd use to defend net neutrality.
[image]

Marionumber1
Posted on 11-27-17 09:38 AM Link | #91467
Posted by LeftyGreenMario


Your first link is the only one that's somewhat concerning. Assange does to seem have embraced Russia as a means of protecting himself and others like Snowden from US retaliation, but that's not the same as being "friendly" with them. Though it's a cynical strategy, when US intelligence considers you hostile, has so thoroughly penetrated or subjugated a significant number of nations throughout the world, and has demonstrated its willingness to kill adversaries, it helps to have the support of an anti-US nation, even when that nation is also repressive and not otherwise a desirable ally. Those who assume the worst of Assange (in other words, US intelligence) will see it as complicity, but it really reflects the sad state of geopolitics, and how hard it is not to become associated with one side (West) or the other (Russia). His point about the CIA being able to target people in Latin America is well-made.

The evidence for the article's thesis - that Wikileaks is an asset of Russian intelligence - is still ridiculously thin, and I'm disappointed to see you linking an article that makes that claim. Its "evidence", aside from Assange's cynical but necessary ploy that I mentioned, is appearing on RT (the same McCarthyist tactic used to smear US progressives on RT who can't get on mainstream outlets) and meeting with Assad (a target of US imperialism). But I shouldn't be surprised: this blog is by someone with a "background in counterintelligence" (in other words, a former US intelligence agent) and it also accuses Philip Agee, who candidly exposed the CIA's abuses of power, of spreading "Kremlin lies and disinformation". To US intelligence, anyone who substantially opposes the American system is a Russian agent.

The third article tries to insinuate that Wikileaks willfully refused to publish details of a bank transfer from Russia, again without any convincing evidence. It says "the Moscow bank’s emails were, in fact, part of the larger backup file containing numerous emails currently found on the WikiLeaks site", but fails to indicate that the entire backup file was given to Wikileaks. And as the article admits, the hackers who got the emails joked about changing the emails they hacked and passing them along to Wikileaks, so maybe they're not the most reliable leakers.

As for the tweet "defending Putin", it seems that they're merely arguing that US elites like Soros funded a political hit job that primarily targets Russia and shifts focus away from the extensive corruption within the US. I don't know how true that is in the case of the Panama Papers, but pointing to Russia as a state rife with corruption and organzied crime (which is true) to distract from how the US is the same way is a common tactic of the corporate media. For all the stories on how Putin kills dissidents, whistleblowers, and journalists, where was the investigation into the deaths of Gary Caradori, Ray Lemme, Michael Connell, and others like them? The US press would be (rightly) crying bloody murder if deaths as suspicious as these occurred in Russia.

WikiLeaks in general has a major conflict of interest that is Julian Assange and they'll publish anything that'll make Clinton look bad, even if it means releasing private information. It's one thing to show information that Clinton was paid by Wall Street to do speeches, I commend transparency there. On the other hand, WikiLeaks seems very dishonest to me and since Russia hates Clinton so much, I wouldn't be surprised if WikiLeaks is okay with cooperating with Russian politicians.


I do suspect that Wikileaks has somewhat of an anti-Clinton bias. That's not exactly unjustified, since she does epitomize political corruption and might have even called for Assange's extrajudicial execution (she gave a standard politician non-denial that admits she might have joked about it). But it's troubling nonetheless, and I would prefer Wikileaks to make a greater effort to stay unbiased. Regardless, that still fails to support the claim of Wikileaks being friendly with Russia, and saying you "wouldn't be surprised" is not evidence either.

I can't say I'm too educated otherwise on what's going on on Catalonia or Kosova. I just know Putin is competent and has actually done a few right things before he rode the crazy fan.


US foreign policy is much crazier than Putin's, considering that the US is attempting/has succeeded to overthrow legitimate governments in Syria and Ukraine, while Putin has worked to support the old governments. The old governments in Syria and Ukraine were indeed authoritarian, but that doesn't justify flagrant violations of international law and the use of terrorists (Islamists in Syria, neo-Nazis in Ukraine) to foment an uprising.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 11-27-17 09:14 PM Link | #91480
I mean, I'm not super into Russian stuff and all so most of what people talk about makes me cross-eyed. For the articles I did link, they don't seem to have a reputation for being terrible at reporting so I maybe it's a good thing I shared.

Their accusation of Soros funding things as their comeback or their accusations of critics as being "Hillary shills" do raise a stink, as well as their threatening journalists. I generally call honesty into question whenever somebody brings up Soros conspiracies.

"It is disappointing to see Daily Dot pushing the Hillary Clinton campaign’s neo-McCarthyist conspiracy theories about critical media." (WikiLeaks threatened to retaliate against the reporters if they pursued the story: “Go right ahead,” they said, “but you can be sure we will return the favour one day.”)


this entire quote is just... ugh

Belsaw
Posted on 11-27-17 09:25 PM (rev. 2 of 11-27-17 09:28 PM) Link | #91482
Not everything on George Soros is a bunk conspiracy theory. His Open Society Foundation has funded CAIR, who are ironically anti-abortion and who claim to be "representative of Muslims" when in reality they are just the Hamas lobby. They character assassinate their critics as "Islamophobes", "white supremacists", "Zionists", among other terms. It doesn't matter to them if their critics are Muslims or ex-Muslims.

I should also add that despite all this, CAIR is actually one of the least worst groups out there. There are Saudi-linked "charities" that are currently being sued by families of 9/11 victims for funding al-Qaeda.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Main - Serious discussion - net neutrality New reply

Page rendered in 0.055 seconds. (2048KB of memory used)
MySQL - queries: 28, rows: 233/233, time: 0.029 seconds.
[powered by Acmlm] Acmlmboard 2.064 (2017-11-20)
© 2005-2008 Acmlm, Xkeeper, blackhole89 et al.