Breaking :: The FCC Just Killed Net Neutrality

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
Wouldn't it be even more preferable if nobody had control over what you see?

That it would but lefty's want to control the population. With corporate control it simply means you might have to pay a bit more for certain things while government control generally means some bureaucrat simply says NO you can not see that because I don't want you to.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
Then let's have that.

I don't see why we have a binary choice between corporations controlling what you see and the government controlling it. Surely another option is possible.

DO you want everyone to access to kiddy porn? Because that is what no controls means.
 

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,505
2,198
113
The harder it is to get child porn the more money the perves will pay for it.
SOP for anything illegal

I think Kim.com has the right idea:
A block chain internet that has NO government or corporate control

You control your end if you need to.
 

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
Wouldn't it be even more preferable if nobody had control over what you see?

That it would

DO you want everyone to access to kiddy porn? Because that is what no controls means.

I don't think that's what no controls mean, but apparently you did because you just said it. You also agreed when it said no control would be preferable, so.... that means you want everyone to access child pornography?

I doubt that's true. You made a mistake somewhere.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,888
126
63
I don't think that's what no controls mean, but apparently you did because you just said it. You also agreed when it said no control would be preferable, so.... that means you want everyone to access child pornography?

I doubt that's true. You made a mistake somewhere.
Kiddie porn is illegal no matter who controls the internet.
 

B00Mer

Make Canada Great Again
Sep 6, 2008
47,127
8,145
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.canadianforums.ca
Kiddie porn is illegal no matter who controls the internet.

In certain countries it is illegal to view, but as usual you’re talking through your ass..

Notice how many European countries allow it?!



Many servers use IP rouses to hide their location, and there are hackers paid well to find the servers and shut them down. Extremely well.. ;)
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
Killing Net Neutrality Has Brought On a New Call for Public Broadband

Seattle’s Socialist Alternative Council Member Kshama Sawant — the prime mover of the city’s successful bid to enact a $15 an hour minimum wage — has another idea. She wants her city to simply build its own broadband network to compete with the private providers, guaranteeing a free flow of unthrottled information.
It may sound radical but it’s not unheard of. Today, around 185 communities in the United States offer some form of public broadband service. Because these services are controlled by public entities, they are also accountable to the public — a perk that anybody who has tried to get a broadband company on the phone can appreciate. (In November, residents of Fort Collins, Colorado, rejected an industry fear-mongering attempt and voted to authorize the creation of a citywide broadband network.)


http://theintercept.com/2017/12/15/fcc-net-neutrality-public-broadband-seattle/
 

HarperCons

Council Member
Oct 18, 2015
1,865
74
48
DO you want everyone to access to kiddy porn? Because that is what no controls means.
is this how the stupid ****ing backwards mongoloids are defending killing net neutrality now?

backwards brain clown whines about government control all day, and yet defend the destruction of net neutrality. explain that one.
 

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
Kiddie porn is illegal no matter who controls the internet.

I think you meant to quote taxslave on that. He's the one who implied that no control of the internet would mean anyone could access child pornography.

Although... I'm not sure what he meant because it clearly contradicts his previous statement. We'll have to wait for him to clear it up.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,888
126
63
is this how the stupid ****ing backwards mongoloids are defending killing net neutrality now?

backwards brain clown whines about government control all day, and yet defend the destruction of net neutrality. explain that one.
Totally incoherent. How is giving the net back to the free market going to kill it. It’s the Free market that took the tiny thing created by the US military (sorry Al) and made it into the biggest communication device the world has ever seen.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
Totally incoherent. How is giving the net back to the free market going to kill it. It’s the Free market that took the tiny thing created by the US military (sorry Al) and made it into the biggest communication device the world has ever seen.



So you agree that Google should be able to sensor conservative videos.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
I don't think that's what no controls mean, but apparently you did because you just said it. You also agreed when it said no control would be preferable, so.... that means you want everyone to access child pornography?

I doubt that's true. You made a mistake somewhere.

I was trying to make you think about your statement but that appears to be too difficult for you. No controls means that kiddie porn and everything that is on the black web is available for everyone to accessing if they chose to. WHich is what you asked for. Are you sure that is what you want? I favor no controls for several reasons.
1 controlling access is not curing the problem of things like kiddie porn, it just forces it underground.
2 controlling access , especially by governments will be patchwork at best with competing and overlapping thought police trying to push their agenda.
3 controls always make winners and losers based on politics. I would prefer that there be unlimited ISPs and you get the kind of access you pay for.
 

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
I was trying to make you think about your statement but that appears to be too difficult for you. No controls means that kiddie porn and everything that is on the black web is available for everyone to accessing if they chose to. WHich is what you asked for. Are you sure that is what you want? I favor no controls for several reasons.
1 controlling access is not curing the problem of things like kiddie porn, it just forces it underground.
2 controlling access , especially by governments will be patchwork at best with competing and overlapping thought police trying to push their agenda.
3 controls always make winners and losers based on politics. I would prefer that there be unlimited ISPs and you get the kind of access you pay for.

I get it. You were being condescending. Even though we agreed in your mind I couldn't have understood on your level, right? :roll:

On my part, I wrongly assumed you were contradicting yourself, which is common around here, but not something I'd expect from you, so I asked for clarification.

So putting all the tension aside, we agree. No government or corporate control of the internet is preferable.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,888
126
63
It means that the device providers have decided that they can determine what you want to write, instead of letting what you type exist as you write it.
Not quite.

Definition of sensor

1 : a device that responds to a physical stimulus (such as heat, light, sound, pressure, magnetism, or a particular motion) and transmits a resulting impulse (as for measurement or operating a control)

So, it’s a noun not a verb. In post #81 it was used as a verb, hence my confusion as to its meaning. I believe the word wanted was censor. One letter can make all the difference between displaying intelligence or assholicity.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
Not quite.

Definition of sensor

1 : a device that responds to a physical stimulus (such as heat, light, sound, pressure, magnetism, or a particular motion) and transmits a resulting impulse (as for measurement or operating a control)

So, it’s a noun not a verb. In post #81 it was used as a verb, hence my confusion as to its meaning. I believe the word wanted was censor. One letter can make all the difference between displaying intelligence or assholicity.



If that confused you, then I understand your political stance. It says all that needs to be said about your thinking abilities.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
Here's a List of the Members of Congress Who Just Told Ajit Pai to Repeal Net Neutrality


And how much money they've taken from the telecom industry.


  1. Mo Brooks, Alabama, $26,000
  2. Ron Estes, Kansas, $13,807
  3. Thomas Massie, Kentucky, $25,000
  4. Ralph Norman, South Carolina, $15,050
  5. John Moolenaar, Michigan, $25,000
  6. Neal Dunn, Florida, $18,500
  7. Mike Bishop, Michigan, $68,250
  8. Alex Mooney, West Virginia, $17,750
  9. Glenn “GT” Thompson, Pennsylvania, $70,500
  10. Blaine Luetkemeyer, Missouri, $105,000
  11. Paul Gosar, Arizona, $12,250
  12. Richard W. Allen, Georgia, $24,250
  13. Kevin Cramer, North Dakota, $168,500
  14. Greg Walden, Oregon, $1,605,986
  15. Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee, $600,999
  16. Billy Long, Missouri, $221,500
  17. Gregg Harper, Mississippi, $245,200
  18. Brett Guthrie, Kentucky, $398,500
  19. Bill Johnson, Ohio, $196,666
  20. Jeff Duncan, South Carolina, $41,830
  21. Earl “Buddy” Carter, Georgia, $39,250
  22. Susan Brooks, Indiana, $168,500
  23. Gus Bilirakis, Florida, $234,400
  24. Markwayne Mullin, Oklahoma, $141,750
  25. Mimi Walters, California, $161,500
  26. Joe Barton, Texas, $1,262,757
  27. Bill Flores, Texas, $127,500
  28. Pete Olson, Texas, $220,500
  29. Morgan Griffith, Virginia, $198,900
  30. Tim Walberg, Michigan, $131,850
  31. Fred Upton, Michigan, $1,590,125
  32. Joe Wilson, South Carolina, $104,750
  33. Martha McSally, Arizona, $84,936
  34. Blake Farenthold, Texas, $64,250
  35. Steve Womack, Arkansas, $104,750
  36. Tom Marino, Pennsylvania, $130,700
  37. Louie Gohmert, Texas, $85,055
  38. Walter Jones, North Carolina, $72,800
  39. Leonard Lance, New Jersey, $290,550
  40. Steve Chabot, Ohio, $332,083
  41. Bob Goodlatte, Virginia, $815,099
  42. Andy Biggs, Arizona, $19,500
  43. Mark Walker, North Carolina, $35,750
  44. Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, $21,200
  45. Ken Buck, Colorado, $79,350
  46. Larry Bucshon, Indiana, $71,750
  47. Chuck Fleischmann, Tennessee, $42,00
  48. David Rouzer, North Carolina, $34,300
  49. Paul Mitchell, Michigan, $18,000
  50. Hal Rogers, Kentucky, $360,450
  51. Doug Collins, Georgia, $103,600
  52. Ralph Abraham, Louisiana, $27,300
  53. Mark Meadows, North Carolina, $14,500
  54. Michael McCaul, Texas, $216,500
  55. Jeb Hensarling, Texas, $270,198
  56. Mike Simpson, Idaho, $125,200
  57. Tom Emmer, Minnesota, $28,500
  58. Randy Weber, Texas, $13,750
  59. Rob Woodall, Georgia, $60,250
  60. Ted Budd, North Carolina, $15,500
  61. Ken Calvert, California, $219,212
  62. Diane Black, Tennessee, $104,750
  63. Virginia Foxx, North Carolina, $115,700
  64. Sam Johnson, Texas, $219,785
  65. James Comer, Kentucky, $22,750
  66. Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, $83,250
  67. Lamar Smith, Texas, $810,462
  68. Steven A King, Iowa, $210,810
  69. George Holding, North Carolina, $97,750
  70. Rob Wittman, Virginia, $57,250
  71. John Lee Ratcliffe, Texas, $53,950
  72. Jason Lewis, Minnesota, $21,050
  73. Jim Banks, Indiana, $16,303
  74. Bill Huizenga, Michigan, $34,000
  75. Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania, $202,500
  76. Steven Russell, Oklahoma, $23,500
  77. Adrian Smith, Nebraska, $165,834
  78. Jody B Hice, Georgia, $21,000
  79. Richard Hudson, North Carolina, $136,750
  80. Douglas L Lamborn, Colorado, $110,543
  81. Chris Collins, New York, $151,060
  82. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, Washington, $673,530
  83. Brad Wenstrup, Ohio, $33,750
  84. Andy Barr, Kentucky, $51,100
Rebecca Flowers contributed to this report.

http://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...-congress-fcc-letter?utm_campaign=sharebutton