Slashdot Mirror
FCC Falsely Claims Community Broadband an 'Ominous Threat To First Amendment' (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: The Trump FCC has declared towns and cities that vote to build their own broadband networks an "ominous threat to the First Amendment." The claims were made last week during a speech given at the telecom-funded Media Institute by FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly. In his speech, O'Rielly insinuated, without evidence, that community owned and operated broadband networks would naturally result in local governments aggressively limiting American free speech rights. "I would be remiss if my address omitted a discussion of a lesser-known, but particularly ominous, threat to the First Amendment in the age of the Internet: state-owned and operated broadband networks," claimed O'Rielly.
In his speech, O'Rielly highlighted efforts by the last FCC, led by former boss Tom Wheeler, to encourage such community-run broadband networks as a creative solution to private sector failure. O'Rielly subsequently tried to claim, without evidence, that encouraging such networks would somehow result in government attempts to censor public opinion. "Municipalities such as Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Wilson, North Carolina, have been notorious for their use of speech codes in the terms of service of state-owned networks, prohibiting users from transmitting content that falls into amorphous categories like 'hateful' or "threatening," O'Rielly claimed. The closest O'Rielly gets to supporting evidence appears to be a 2015 white paper written by Professor Enrique Armijo for the ISP-funded Free State Foundation. That paper similarly alleges that standard telecom sector language intended to police "threatening, abusive or hateful" language somehow implies community-run ISPs are more likely to curtail user speech. But municipal broadband experts say the argument has no basis in fact.
In his speech, O'Rielly highlighted efforts by the last FCC, led by former boss Tom Wheeler, to encourage such community-run broadband networks as a creative solution to private sector failure. O'Rielly subsequently tried to claim, without evidence, that encouraging such networks would somehow result in government attempts to censor public opinion. "Municipalities such as Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Wilson, North Carolina, have been notorious for their use of speech codes in the terms of service of state-owned networks, prohibiting users from transmitting content that falls into amorphous categories like 'hateful' or "threatening," O'Rielly claimed. The closest O'Rielly gets to supporting evidence appears to be a 2015 white paper written by Professor Enrique Armijo for the ISP-funded Free State Foundation. That paper similarly alleges that standard telecom sector language intended to police "threatening, abusive or hateful" language somehow implies community-run ISPs are more likely to curtail user speech. But municipal broadband experts say the argument has no basis in fact.
where doublespeak is the norm.
Thanks to all you ass hats that voted for Trump.
That's an interesting perspective, since it's the FCC that is in charge of actual censorship.
They're the ones who won't let you swear on broadcast television, not your local municipality.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
It's stunning how dishonest this administration has been. I mean, all politicians lie, but none have ever done it with such relish and fervor as the Trump administration, and certainly none has ever come close to the sheer volume of falsehoods. It's a daily torrent of horseshit.
"Community broadband is a threat to the First Amendment" is like saying "Republicans are the ones who want to protect coverage for pre-existing conditions," even though they've voted like 60 times to end coverage for pre-existing conditions.
I guess what surprises me most is that there are so many willing participants, like the FCC, and the GOP caucus in congress and members of the cabinet. They lie and then they laugh at you for buying it.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"insinuated, without evidence" does not mean it is false. It may be false. It may also be true. We won't know until it plays out.
to codify the Corporate Access to Profits, since they obviously do not want any governmental body providing a service that the corporations could glean a profit from.
Of course, they just have to eliminate any potential competitor so that they can charge us whatever they want.
Isn't that what the Founding Fathers wanted? Just ask kavanaugh
and Comcast making executive deal with HOA's with no network neutrality is ok as well?
to the first amendment; the FCC.
The greatest threat to the FCC is if lobbyists can't continue to control legislation with their generous "campaign contributions"
More evidence of malfeasance by the FCC would include the suppression of public comments on net neutrality.
I have one choice of wired broadband provider in my central FL neighborhood - Spectrum. It's overpriced, slow, has frequent outages, and they constantly send me junk mail for their overpriced pay TV services (which I have no interest in ever subscribing). I'd gladly switch to government-run broadband if it was a better value for my hard earned, rapidly inflating dollar.
The big telcos don't want their monopoly threatened, so they're spreading FUD. Hell, where I live it's all Republican-controlled anyway - they're certainly not going to ban anyone from ranting endlessly online about how much they love their guns and Trump.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
So........ municipal broadband threatens free speech? We have a thing to prevent that kind of thing.......
THE FIRST ADMENDMENT!!!!!!!!!!
What kind of fucking morons do these ass clowns think we are? Is that the intelligence level they expect to deal with?
Yeah, I can certainly see that local police monitoring could get unconstitutional real fast, just a buddy-buddy arrangement, no need for warrants.
But as far as First Amendment rights, I'd think we'd be better off with municipal-run broadband, if it were considered a government agency. Then if a city starts blocking "hate groups" or whatever, we'd have constitutional protections we wouldn't have with a private monopoly.
Personally, I just want people to have a choice of ISPs - that solves almost everything. Make the "last mile" a utility (and just a dumb pipe). Let many ISPs, local and giant, compete for the no-monopoly business from there.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Hardly, Ajit is just a shill for corporations who want to control you to get your money. That's bad enough but government is even worse, government wants to control your actions and behavior, even manipulate you. The people behind that motivation are some combination of power grabbers, corporate puppets, and fanatics who want to impose their own political agenda on others.
The only ones who can be trusted to decide what you do and share online are the people themselves. Even access to the infrastructure should be limited to repair personnel and require public notice and transparency.
or Iran Contra? This is nothing new. The difference here is that the media isn't calling him on it. To be blunt, they never do when the checks are cashing in the form of multi billion dollar tax cuts and military budgets. But that same media has been trying to get a sound bite out of Bernie and Occassio Cortez where they say they'll raise middle class taxes to pay for healthcare for months now.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The main fact-checking sites (FCS) give T the worst scores ever of any major politician. If these sites are significantly flawed, then take say 15 evaluations from each and carefully explain how they are clearly wrong. (Two is not a sufficient sample size.) I welcome your results...
While I've disagreed with some of their scoring logic, for the most part FCS appear to be reasonably accurate, based on spot-checking scrutiny I've done.
T, on the other hand, has failed my spot-checking test bigly. T-or-FCS: one or the other is really out of whack. Enlighten me with your careful attention to details in the "fifteen" test. (Actually, both can be out-of-whack, but that still means T is a significant liar. Two wrongs don't make a right.)
Table-ized A.I.
Personally, I'd prefer to see the entire thing handed over to a non-profit with a board filled with privacy advocates. And we really need some stronger and more modern personal protections on communications and media in the Constitution. There should not be a risk of compromise because of some perceived national security nonsense or every time a new technology becomes available. We need to explicitly take the power to water down warrants and apply censorship out of the hands of all three branches of national government as well as state and local government. We could do a better job on the commerce clause as well and probably.
Really interesting take on what's the real threat to the First Amendment when it's the Government that is bound by it. Corporations are in no way accountable to free speech protections, and this is how we loose them.
When the corporations own all the conduits of speech, there will be no free speech.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
Oh, and I forgot one more group of people (note there is overlap, this isn't an entirely separate group): the people who think that they are "temporarily inconvenienced" millionaires. They think that, at some point in the future, they will be rich and they want to benefit from the tax cuts when that happens.
For most of these people, their only plan to become rich is to buy lottery tickets.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
If the government provides it, the government can take it away.
Or filter it as it deems necessary.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
Have gnu, will travel.
There's a nugget of truth there. Municipal ISPs can't put in the same kinds of restrictions on behavior that private ISPs can. Government is covered by the first amendment, but private industry is not.
If we didn't already know about the very special access the big telecoms offer to police, that might wash. If community broadband precluded private companies from offering their own, even moreso.
The fact is, the police already have their taps and they get less public scrutiny than a municipal broadband provider would.
Personally, I just want people to have a choice of ISPs - that solves almost everything. Make the "last mile" a utility (and just a dumb pipe). Let many ISPs, local and giant, compete for the no-monopoly business from there.
That's exactly how my municipal fiber works, the city only owns the network and ISPs (or phone or television providers) can provide service over it. I have never heard of an instance where the city tried to exert any control over the content of the network, they just provide the pipe. The Republicans in the state legislature keep passing laws to try to shut the network down (in the service of their masters, the local cable and telco companies) but so far they haven't been successful. I've been on the network for years and it's always been lightning fast and way less expensive than cable internet. It's easier to be cheaper than cable if you just need to pay off your network instead of having to have the network pay for itself plus make profits every quarter in perpetuity.
Enigma
NoogaNet seems to fit description nicely. 2. There is no guarantee of privacy associated with any User's use of the Service. 3. Your wireless-enabled device used to access the Internet will be logged and associated with your browsing. 7. The City reserves the right to impose time, place or manner restrictions on the viewing of certain materials accessed through the Service. 8. The City may suspend or terminate your use of the Service if it reasonably believes that you are in violation of any provision of this Policy. 9. Persons who use the Service for abusive, malicious or illegal activity are subject to prosecution.
It could be raining.
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
Hey man, the lottery is my retirement plan, don't knock it. xD
..yeah, the so-called 'tax cuts' are more fucking bullshit. Only benefits the rich. I'm sitting down here in lower-middle-class land, and I haven't seen a dime more in my paychecks.
It's really a twist of logic to see how the governments that created and nurtured the monopolies would do any better than the actual monopolies.
Would you want the people in your home owners association deciding how your internet works ?
It's hyperbole, but it's not completely ungrounded. The internet, as we all know, has a *lot* of porn on it. There are also a lot of people who would like to see porn banned. It gets a lot easier for them to get their way when the government is involved in operating an internet service, for much the same reason that the FCC is able to regulate indecency transmitted on government-allocated radio frequencies. The argument that "we don't want our tax money to pay for other people to watch smut" is going to be a pretty powerful one, and anti-porn activists generally do not consider themselves as violating the first amendment because they do not recognize pornography as a form of speech. Similar concerns can be raised about government being pressured to block copyright infringement.
But bizarrely, the federal government is currently dominated by a faction which supports banning the porn! There's a weird double standard going on here that shows the writer of this speech does not care at all about everything outlined in the above paragraph. The strongest argument that could be made in relation to the point raised is the possibility of anti-pornography efforts, but the FCC can't even acknowledge that possibility because they are allied to the people who are pushing it. Instead he is using the current bogeyman of liberal censorship of 'threatening' behavior - which every conservative is supposed to fear right now, though any attempt by a municipal provider to do that would likely be smacked down in the courts. It's quite the fear on the right though - you need only skim a few suitably skewed news sites to find them full of stories about how prominent right-wing activists have been 'censored' on social media and punished for their political views. Strangely though, very few of these stories actually repeat the contents of the banned posts, and the victims invariably turn out to be raging homophobes or conspiracy theorists. Usually both.
I can't even interpret this at near-midnight. It's too deep in political dog-whistles and codephrases. None of it makes any sense, and I don't think it's supposed to. It works because most of the country loves the first amendment in the abstract sense, but is also very eager to disregard it when they have an agenda to advance - usually while accusing everyone else of doing the same.
If the FCC really cared about preserving freedom of speech on the internet, they'd be doing everything they can to promote the use of universal encryption at every level. But they aren't doing to do that. It would get in the way of things like keeping television free of dirty words and making sure the government can issue warrants worth the effort.
This posts is bleh and rambling... I shouldn't write these while barely awake. Screw it, too tired to care. Night.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So many of you have gripped about net neutrality, which was a fucking joke. The best thing to do was to allow net neutrality to go. After all, the argument went that it was freedom for these companies. Ok.
Now, I have been arguing that the Sats esp. Starlink, along with utility style broadband, should be allowed and would make a HUGE difference. In fact, with net neutrality gone, these will grow fast.
However, I was wondering if Trump's ppl would pull their BS. The first one is to go after 'rural broadband' and is trying to come up with solution whereby the same monopolies that pushed to rid net neutrality, now want to have another monopoly in the rural areas, again without net neutrality, but in control of all access.
Now, they are pushing against utility broadband.
This is where the REAL fight is at. Net Neutrality was simply a waste of effort.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If our federal government were cut back to the 18 enumerated powers in the constitution the FCC would not have the authority to tell states and municipalities how to build broadband networks.
Many on this site advocate for a continually expanding federal government and then complain about government agencies sticking their nose where it doesn't belong.
The federal government should only have the authority to regulate EM spectrum and the states could grant that authority to the federal government with a constitutional amendment.
As a libertarian, I am always guarded against the government getting more involved in my life. I truly understand the statement of "the scariest phrase you will ever hear is 'We are from the government, we are here to help.' I can definitely see how something like this could lead to abuses, not just first amendment but also fifth amendment.
At the same time I think that a municipality (not just wireless but also last-mile connectiions to the customer) needs to be an independent, unbiased, 3rd party. Every potential service provider needs to have equal access to the customers. It is important to create a counter to the monopolies created by the 1 cable company and 1 incumbent in your area. This is more of a problem for residential than businesses. As a ISP myself, it's a lot easier to provide service to a business because the cost of entry is not as egregious to a business whereas it is much more so to a residential customer.
Maybe the solution is to require the municipalities to create the infrastructure of Layer2 but let independent isp's provide the layer3 on top of it, via tunneling, so that they lack the ability to do any sort of censoring, snooping, or data collection.
The FCC, of all the organizations possible, call something a threat to free speech. For real. The FCC. The same organization who made it its business to make broadcasters bleep and bloop every word that could remotely be called a "bad" word.
The hypocrisy is so far off the chart that I can't even find a suitable parallel anymore to make a snide comment along the lines of "that's like X saying Y".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That's exactly the thing, government COULD NOT do this, exactly because of the first amendment. ANY commercial provider can censor and dictate what may or may not be transported through its cables, but a municipal provider COULD NOT.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
We're doing fine without Ashit Pile.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That's true. But when the government goes too far and starts subsidizing public transportation by taxing those who drive cars, it's a threat to our freedom to travel independently and under our own control.
OTOH, it helps your freedom of travel by cutting back on the number of cars on the road, at least if done well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
We have seen posters adamantly supporting attacks against free speech on Gab by PayPal, etc.
Because advocating government intervention in the freedom of companies to decide who they choose to do business with, is the antithesis of conservatism.
If you can simultaneously believe that insurance companies have the right not to do business with customers with preexisting medical conditions, but PayPal doesn't have the right to tell a controversial nationalist social media site to get lost, that's known as cognitive dissonance. Both sides of the political spectrum have gravitated towards pushing agendas where the ends justifies a hypocritical means, rather than focusing on a consistent ideology.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
Yes, just like the government cannot restrict your access to guns, cannons, artillery, or any type of weapons of war.
Expect, not only do they do this, but they are the only one preventing many American citizens from owning guns or any kind, and all american citizens from owning the plethora of weapons of war that they used to be able to buy in the founding fathers time and most of the ones developed afterwards.
If history has taught us anything, it is that the only major threat to a citizens constitutional rights is the government in all cases.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
You are aware that when the 2nd amendment was written, nobody could have foreseen that you want to stash nukes in your basement, yes?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Are you aware that when the when the 2nd amendment was written you could order machine gun automatic cannons with from catalogs, that shotguns designed to kill crowds of animals over wide areas were common, and that the government placed no restrictions on private ownership of artillery capable of leveling any building, castle or fortification and indeed the ownership of such was fairly common among the merchant classes?
The geneva convention, and a series of other laws and rulings have made guns of today wimpy and non-lethal compared to what you would buy even in the infancy of gun design.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
We already know police, etc, get a room where they can install wiretap in private companies. We've seen on Slashdot eyewitness accounts of such rooms.
Police get no better access in municipal nets, arguably it may even be less access. Harder to threaten a government with new regulations.
Further, you can replace a government, you can't replace a corporation. There's no competition and the CEO doesn't answer to the populace.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Why? How?
Simply stating something as fact doesn't make it so.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I'm sitting here in top 10% land and the tax "cuts" mean that I will pay thousands more in tax.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
... full blown dictatorship and repression of citizens through corporate monopoly is there.
Calling citizen initiatives against the constitution usually is the start.
Glad I'm not an USA citizen.
Bach says it all.
Don't blame others for your conduct or your imagination.
Nothing leftwing about the Soviet Union. You really need to learn a bit about terminology. Socialism is the antithesis of communism.
The left has deplatformed nobody. The right has. That's why the right is so obsessed with the issue. As long as they can accuse others of their own cruelty and censorship, as long as they can drown out others, they'll be able to impose their Orwellian fantasies.
I doubt you saw anything over your drinking glass. You were too busy reading The Sun, page 3, to care about freedoms. As long as you voted Tory or whatever other neo-fascist government you had in your country, you were alright. Never mind the suffering, the censorship, the spying, the illegal arrests, the outright executions of dissidents by the state. You had your point of beer.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
He probably just wants to whip it out in front of a kiosk and get his rocks off.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm kinda torn. On one hand I'd love to see what it would be like if every redneck goofball could buy a 155mm howitzer, on the other hand I kinda like the US.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In other words, you have no logical refutation of what I said, just some words to put in my mouth drawn from your own bias.
" I have never heard of an instance where the city tried to exert any control over the content of the network, they just provide the pipe."
It doesn't matter if they are doing it, the question is whether they can. Also, you wouldn't likely know. How often did you see the NSA interference before Snowden leaked it?
Actually, consider an alternative:
Municipal broadband service might be well described as a 'lifeline'-like service, intended to be lowest cost, minimum necessary, to provide access to government services, universally required services such as job search, bill payment, enrollments, etc. It may not be intended to, nor even provide, access to a variety of services or sources. If this is disclosed, is it a problem?
Disclosure would be the first step.
So would LinkNYC be deficient if it did not provide access to pornography? Or games? Or would it be efficient? And if kiosks were relatively public, would pornography be a tolerable use, since it might, possibly, offend some casual observers? Should LinkNYC spend more money on privacy filters and such?
Of course, when we move on from pron and consider access to news, information, and opinion sources, we get into significantly less obvious use cases. But I, sadly, know people who are just as offended by seeing certain 'news' and opinion sources as they are seeing pron, even by accident, and they plainly tell me that these need to be kept off of municipal broadband systems.
Not simple, but worthy of discussion.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
"Police get no better access in municipal nets, arguably it may even be less access. Harder to threaten a government with new regulations."
Get no better access? They literally just walk up and do what they want without supervision. Who exactly is it you think stands between police and access at the local level other than self-enforcement?
The police come up with some rationale to explain why they are allowed, choose to believe themselves, and it only gets questioned if they get caught. Even then it could go either way in court and the worst that happens is the court says no.
Since when has the FCC EVER been concerned about the first amendment?
It is patently absurd that they decry small community broadband projects as a risk to Free Speech while
ignoring the inherent risk to free speech that National Broadband Providers pose --- providers who WON'T agree to become
a common carrier -- providers they can't even impose a regular requirement on to maintain a Neutral (non-free-speech killing) network.
Providers that are massive and encompass most broadband access nationwide with very little competition, practically zero competition in MANY areas.
Meanwhile we have yet to ever see a SINGLE one small community broadband implementing even the most superficial sort of censorship without subscriber permission.... Give me an example of a community broadband provider that blocks HTTPS or Youtube or Facebook or a major website or protocol, then maybe i'll change my mind ----- I've seen plenty of LARGE providers blocking random ports or protocols or websites over the years; one of the most recent widespread examples was major ISPs blocking ThePirateBay at the behest of some large media companies.
If community broadband providers ever had committed censorship, then they could likely be circumvented very easily by people to get their message out --- such as by heading one town over ---- Also, in local communities the people are empowered to change the policies of their community ISP in a meaningful way - this is NOT the case for a large provider such as Verizon or ATT --- should they choose to block Netflix, for example, a very large percent of their users will have no recourse (Due to no local competition), and not even a local town council to complain to --- on the other hand a LOCAL small community provider or small business providing service can be influenced by concerned people in the local community much moreso than some national faceless corporation:
since COMMUNITY broadband networks are separate and not joined into one national collective with standardized policies, large byzantine customer service systems that keep customers from complaining or reaching actual management, and far-reaching power over users nationwide.
Furthermore, community broadband is another option on top of others - if there were a free speech issue at home due to community broadband, then you could pull out your cellphone that uses ATT or Verizon.
You're equating a medical condition to an ideology?
Insurance companies are in the business of making money. Refusing to cover someone who is likely to cost them buttloads of money is a sound fiscal decision. Paypal is also in the business of making money. Refusing to process payments for an organization whore ideology they detest is not a fiscal decision and it doesn't save them money; it's purely political. Both companies are, of course, free to make those decisions ... but let's not pretend that they're in any way equivalent.
Uhhh... the first amendment protects you from the government limiting free speech. It does not protect you from corporations limiting free speech. If anything a Govt. run ISP would legally have *MORE* 1A protections than a privately run ISP.
Are you aware that when the when the 2nd amendment was written you could order machine gun automatic cannons with from catalogs
No. The second amendment was adopted in 1791. The first real machine gun wasn't invented until the 1860s. While some earlier weapons were called "machine guns", they were shitty flintlock designs which were only capable of firing about 10 rounds per minute. Any pistol today can far exceed that rate of fire.
that shotguns designed to kill crowds of animals over wide areas were common
I couldn't find any source on when punt guns were first developed, but your own source says that they were used "in the 19th and early 20th century". Which, again, was after the second amendment was written.
Why would my city care what I post to the Internet? Just what, exactly, are you alleging they are doing or might do? Most of my traffic is encrypted anyway so even if they did want to censor me they couldn't selectively do it. Of course they COULD, but it would be illegal for them to do it. I worry much more about a private corporation censoring my speech since it's not illegal for them to do it. Like I said, I've been on a municipal network for years and I love it, if something changes that I will hold my elected officials responsible. It's way easier to get access to my mayor than it is to get access to the CEO of Comcast.
Enigma
"Of course they COULD, but it would be illegal for them to do it."
Actually it is illegal for the federal government to do it, it is not necessarily illegal for local government to do it especially if using public infrastructure. The government needs no warrant to search your trash or check your water lines. They can act as a man in the middle by connecting not to devices in your home where they need a warrant but to the public owned infrastructure one hop up.
"Why would my city care what I post to the Internet?"
Because you pissed off the local politician or cop, because you are stuck in an ultra-religious community forcing "values" laws down your throat like blue laws, decency laws etc, because you keep staging protests in the public square and they are trying to monitor your involvement with the next "occupy wall street." Maybe they just decide it would be more productive for everyone to shut down access between 10am and 2pm for the sake of the community. Local communities aren't exactly known for respecting freedoms and they pass statutes which run counter to protections in the Constitution all the time, many of which courts have upheld.
"I worry much more about a private corporation censoring my speech since it's not illegal for them to do it."
This is a false dichotomy. You don't have to support either being in a position to legally censor your speech.
Municipal broadband service might be well described as a 'lifeline'-like service, intended to be lowest cost, minimum necessary, to provide access to government services, universally required services such as job search, bill payment, enrollments, etc.
I actually think this should be part of every single municipality that cares about it's people in the modern world.
It doesn't need to be fast. There's actually ZERO reason for it to be fast. It just needs to be free so that basic services and information can be accessed by the greater populace. No need for video or nice fancy images. We could allow them, just cap the data transfer rate so a bunch of shmucks can't tie up the network for everyone else. Suspend/ban/limit abusers. None of this takes any R&D.
If the idea can take off, web developers will be forced to cater to this with more responsive websites and not blindly assume everyone's running on a fucking 20G network.
I tend to rant.
Well see you're only in the top 10%, therefore you're not 'The Rich', you have to be in the top 1%; they're the ones who are making out like bandits. Them and corporations. And probably Trump specifically.
To be sure no guns met the very specific legal "machine gun" category we now have. But for almost a hundred years "machine guns" has been being invented and used by the time the second amendment came out. They did not have great reload speeds, but 100 shots for a little over 10 minutes is not something to complain about, particularly considered the size the the ammunition which I am going to assume would probably have enough momentum to go through about ten people.
It is true that punt guns were invented about a decade or two after the second amendment passed, but they are hardly the only or first gigantic shotgun designed so that the user would never need a second shot, because everything in sight in a 10 degree arc in front of you is now dead. And we are for sure talking about within the lifetime of at least the majority of the people who signed the amendment into law.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
And I loved this quote I found in my research:
Puckle intended regular musket balls for use against Christians, while for fighting Muslims a different cylinder would be used to fire special cubical bullets, which he perceived as extra deadly.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
uh, USSR was considered PURE left wing. In fact, Communism is simply an extreme form of socialism.
USSR/China and NAZI Germany were 3 great examples (and china remains one) of what extremism looks like.
USSR/CHina were/are Communist and they absolutely controlled speech. Likewise, NAZI Germany was a fascist far right wing who also controlled free speech.
Both of these are considered definitions in Academia of extremists.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
NAZI Germany, like KKK and Neo-Nazis, was/are considered to be far right, and there was a lot more overt hate speech in all 3 of these groups.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If you agree in principle that a business has the right to refuse service, the justification for the refusal should be irrelevant. It could be financial, political, or religious - it shouldn't matter, so long as they're not running afoul of existing antitrust/anti-discrimination laws.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
I do agree; society apparently does not. Ergo I would like to - at the very least - see some consistency. If businesses aren't allowed to discriminate based on religious grounds then they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on any other ideology either.