I am puzzled at your reaction. What Tim Wu is suggesting is not "interpretation of law" and thus as you state, making case law, it is literally forcing the FCC to enforce regulations they are planning on repealing.
Courts interpret current laws and can only rule on the legality and constitutionality of a law. They cannot force regulating bodies to enforce specific policies, just because people on the Internet signed a petition.
Except the FTC was legally barred from doing exactly that, and the FCC assigned the role of overseeing ISPs.
Yes, which is what the FCC is trying to reverse. The FCC is proposing going back to the previous model which they judge more apt at managing ISPs than the 2015 regulations. Anyone opposing this is hoping their supporters don't actually research the issues and the timeline, and it is why you see vague articles about "Net Neutrality" rather than comprehensive coverage of what is actually happenning and what is the context of it.
When regulatory bodies completely ignore the will of the public you have a much bigger problem. Courts seem like the perfect entity to deal with that, though it should be a treason case.
The will of the public is enforced through the ballot box. In this case, it was clear the Trump agenda was deregulation. It was a theme of his campaign that Government is too big and needs to be trimmed down.
He even addressed SPECIFICALLY the 2015 Act prior to its passing :
Over on Twitter, a frequently promoted Tweet is Comcast claiming that they're not going to block/throttle anything.
Of course they are, even the proposal by the FCC right now includes language that addresses this specifically:
142. Many of the largest ISPs have committed in this proceeding not to block or throttle legal content.507 These commitments can be enforced by the FTC under Section 5, protecting consumers without imposing public-utility regulation on ISPs.508 As discussed below, we believe that case-by-case, ex post regulation better serves a dynamic industry like the Internet and reduces the risk of overregulation.509 We also reject assertions that the FTC has insufficient authority, because, as Verizon argues, âoe[i]f broadband service providersâ(TM) conduct falls outside [the FTCâ(TM)s] grant of jurisdictionâ"that is, if their actions cannot be described as anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptiveâ"then the conduct should not be banned in the first place.â510 And the transparency rule that we announce today should allay any concerns about the ambiguity of ISP commitments,511 by requiring ISPs to disclose if the ISPs block or throttle legal content. Finally, we expect that any attempt by ISPs to undermine the openness of the Internet would be resisted by consumers and edge providers.512 We also observe that all states have laws proscribing deceptive trade practices.513
Basically, the FCC wants to reclass ISPs from Title II utilities to Information Services and let the FTC and market dictacte what is and isn't acceptable behavior. It's not like the FCC doesn't believe in Neutrality, they just don't think they are the body that should enforce it through heavy handed regulation.
For one : 2015 is not "Long standing rules". If anything, the "Long standing rules" apply more to the 1996 Telecommunications Act which labeled ISPs as Information Service Providers.
For two : Courts making laws and forcing regulatory bodies to enforce them is a path you don't want to go down. If a sitting judge can just decide whatever he wants, and make up new law and regulations on the spot, then they effectively become Legislative, Executive and Judicial all in one.
When a search engine proposes that phrase after having type only "How to have", it is quite disturbing. Dunno why you're brushing it off. Especially considering the many other "How to have" options :
"How to have a merry christmas" "How to have a good first date" "How to have a successful job interview" "How to have a great life" "How to have Baron_Yam arrested for Pedo apology"
Obviously, Youtube and Google have come to rely way too much on "The Algorythm", and as many have pointed out, they are doing such a great job demonitizing and banning conservative voices, maybe they should apply that same effort to their massive Youtube Kid's problem, and this latest string of barely disguised pedophilia.
So which was it ? Because it seems to be a DNC thing to me. Which makes sense considering the DNC internal leak and Podesta phishing, wouldn't want your voters to know you're colluding with CNN for debate questions and rigging your primary.
Oh look, this is all about changing back ISP classification from Utilities to Information services. Not so black and white now uh ? Too bad the media is banking on keeping people mad and uninformed.
Well, we have capitalism, and the mobile homes are unaffordable according to TFA. So where is the 20% cheaper model? Is your theory wrong? Sure seems like it.
"Oh hey, something happened yesterday and the markets didn't instantly react, must mean Capitalism failed!".
Late-stage capitalism is when you can't afford the rope to hang yourself, but your #MAGA hat is subsidized.
That's not Capitalism.
Capitalism would be someone finding a way to make the ropes cheaper and selling them to you, and including a #MAGA hat for free in order to bolster the sale.
Just as with this mobile homes situation. Communism just means the state is stuck buying "His and Hers sinks" for everyone and thus overpaying, lining the pockets of some friend of the party. Capitalism means a business opportunity for someone to make a 20% cheaper model to serve the increased demand and thus carve himself a new niche.
Of course, it helps to put "Trump Derangement Syndrome" aside, since this has nothing to do with Trump.
Wow, there really has been a lot of groupthink here on Slashdot. As someone with anti-state, pro-market tendencies, I certainly oppose Net Neutrality both in the specifically proposed implementations and in principle. It surprises me that the tech crowd here can understand problems with something more subtle like Copyright Law (which also needs to be abolished) but completely fail to see the same in Net Neutrality.
I'm sure you still want the 3 founding principals of "No Blocking, No Throttling and No Paid prioritization", you just disagree on having them applied as a Government madanted policy.
You prefer the free market to force companies into it through competition and competitive advantage. There is more than a single path to Net Neutrality for sure.
There may actually be people that want Blocking, and Throttling and Paid prioritization, but I doubt they are Internet consumers or here on Slashdot. We can disagree on the How and I don't think it's even healthy not to.
My point was that the media is currently painting the 2015 Regulations as "The Only Way (tm)" and pretending that they are indeed simple rules, when they are in fact a convulted mess.
Since when does having a pronoun you identify with constitute being a "special snowflake?" I bet you'd be pretty upset if someone in your life persistently insisted on using the wrong pronoun to refer to you... like if you're a man and your boss insists on calling you a girl all the time.
If we're talking about He or She, fine. Biologically proven genders. But Jordan Petersen is talking about "made up" language like Xir, Xer, Zir, Zer, Ze, Xe, Ye, etc.. etc.. With C-16, if your preferred pronouns are Xe/whatever, and I call you He because you're obviously a guy, not a "demi-fluid-boi", you can technically drag me to the HRC to force your "gender expression" which is made up stuff. And since it's made up, it's nearly impossible to remember all the combinations and properly apply them.
Not to mention it's made up. Did I mention there's only 2 genders ? This is why Jordan Petersen talks about compelled speech. It's not about using the properly gendered He/She when referring to cis and trans people. It's about the 68 genders and their completely made up Z and X using pronouns.
If cosmetics didn't matter in any way, no-one would buy them.
I didn't say they don't matter. I said they don't change gameplay. You can kill Mythic Kil'jaeden without having your Tier 3 Naxx set and having it doesn't help with soaks and knockbacks. You can defeat the Leviathan raid without having your Shaders properly matched and your guns and armor won't be affected as far as outgoing and incoming damage.
Is it fun to play dress up barbie in video games ? Sure. Is it part of the gameplay ? Nope. Loot boxes that contain cosmetics only don't affect how the game is played and what content you have access to. If anything, DLC like actual maps and levels are pure evil, loot boxes with gold colored guns are fine.
who paid to win seem to enjoying kicking your arse
If you don't like P2W, don't play F2P from sketchy Asian game makers. The concept of Loot boxes in most games doesn't offer competitive advantages. Don't conflate issues, and lump all loot boxes into the same model.
EA is saying that in order to enjoy the full-experience
What rubbish. Loot boxes contain skins, emotes and badges. Cosmetic stuff that is not part of the Gameplay. Destiny 2, Overwatch, name the game, plays the exact same way with 0 loot boxes than with 2100$ worth of stuff.
If you don't want to play the game for 4500 hours to get all the cosmetics, then newsflash : Don't. Stop playing when you're not interested in playing it. That you don't have the Gold/Pink Stormtrooper Mk. 4 armor won't kill you and is not required.
He's defending net neutrality which I assume we all want, so maybe we should give him a break.
Sure, we all want Net Neutrality. However, I don't think Mr. Trudeau, a drama teacher, understands exactly what the FCC is rolling back.
Even the FCC Commissioner, Micheal Orielly, an Obama appointee, doesn't like the 2015 FCC regulations, as they are not the Net Neutrality we want. From his dissent :
The FCC âoefactâ sheet promised bright line rules, but the reality is that the bulk of this rulemaking will be conducted through case-by-case adjudication, mostly at the Bureau level and in the courts. To be sure, there are three bright line rules: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. But those are mere needles in a Title II haystack.
So basically, what we want, ie, no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization, are not the things the regulations really cover. Feel free to go through the PDF I linked, it contains both the Legislation and Micheal's dissent to it. This is a much more complicated matter than simply Net Neutrality vs Not Net Neutrality. The Media is simply not doing a proper job of reporting what is actually going on, and instead simply trying to paint a binary black and white picture of the situation to foster emotional backlash against the administration.
dear little boy: you have AM radio for all your right wing 'discussions'. and churches, lets not forget how big religion and right wing go hand in hand, these days.
And you have your Mosque for your left wing agenda. *roll eyes*.
Not all conservative positions are borne of religious beliefs. There is way more to the "right wing" than the Westboro Baptist church.
Your contempt for the "right wing" and your choice to support only Net Neutrality where it suits you, and promote Censorship of voices counter to your own is why I cannot stand behind this attempt at regulation by the FCC. It is simply not the Net Neutrality I believe in.
And remember we're not allowed to call them idiots (even if they are) because presumably (/ironically?) that'd be "right-think" too.
Oh look, the tolerant left that screams discrimination and "protected classes!" wanting to discriminate an entire set of individual based on politics.
How about you stick to calling people idiots based on their individual idiocy, instead of lumping everyone into some "basket of deplorables" based on who they voted for. There were legitimate reasons to vote for Donald Trump, one of them being deregulation, and moving power from the Federal government back to states, which he is doing. It was not an "idiotic" choice in and of itself.
And this screeching you're doing is one of the reasons he was elected. This contempt for "the masses of uneducated idiots" you're showing. That very arrogance of a few journalists and politicans on the left and yes, some of their militants too. You guys need to prop up your tolerant and reasonable voices, instead of constantly shoving your hysterics in the media.
How 'bout this for a 2020 slogan : Make Liberalism Great Again.
We're living in a post-truth society,
Yes, and the push towards it is coming from the Left wing and Academia. Trump is a push back against it.
Have you read the regulations ? They aren't even about Net Neutrality per se. They simply reclassified ISPs from Title I to Title II, instead of writing actual Net Neutrality legislation.
And frankly, with the current state of Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and other big platform politicisation, where "wrong think" is censored (but hey, it's ok because the 1st amendment only applies to government right!), while these same players are the ones screaming the loudest for their content to not be submitted to discrimination on network providers, is just massive hypocrisy.
If you want to make a left-leaning blog, go right ahead. If you make a neutral content hosting platform for 3rd parties to host content, as long as laws aren't being broken, then you should also be non-discriminatory. That means no censoring of conservative view points on Youtube, Facebook or Twitter. Either Youtube renames as Lefttube and is transparent about being a video platform for "only Left and Marxist idealogy content", or they stop playing favorites.
Net Neutrality should apply equally to all spectrums of content hosting and distribution. Content creation should be about the only sphere allowed to promote single idealogies (and yes, from both sides!).
You're just now realising that the Republicans and conservative idealogy in general is about reducing the state's control and power over the Governed ? The whole of Trump's campaign and his accomplishments as a President have been about reducing the amount of regulation and the power of the Federal apparatus, in favor of more local control.
The reasoning being : the people of New York shouldn't get to interfere and meddle in the affairs of the people in Arizona. You're not paying attention or understanding the policies if you've just now realised that "Big Government" is what Trump wants to tear down.
Net Neutrality, in the form of the FCC using Title II status for Internet Service Providers, is a blatant example. What we wanted :
- No blocking - No Throttling - No Paid Prioritization
Close to 600 paragraphs of rules and regulations, and shoving ISPs into Title II FCC regulations. If you check the last few pages of the PDF, it is a dissent from the Commissioner of the FCC, Michael Orielly. This commissionner is an Obama appointee, so not some GOP or Trump crony, and yet he states very clear that the current legislation is massive overreach and goes counter to what Net Neutrality should be.
I for one support Net Neutrality, but I don't support massive government regulation gone wild. Try to even find a single article about Net Neutrality that offers a balanced viewpoint about what is really going on. You won't. The MSM is using you as pawns to keep Big Government going.
The third-world goat-herder who is now the head of the FCC
Wow, brazen racism and elitism. Of course, it's ok because it's targetted at someone who disagrees with your "right-think" ? This is part of the reason Trump got elected in the first place.
I for one will enjoy the civil suit that follows. Of course we know this is just a bunch of kids throwing a tantrum. Nevermind the fact that they are of adult age.
You're defending a guy who bragged about sexually assaulting women,
See, this is EXACTLY the kind of stuff that the MSM is pushing. The guy bragged about gold diggers, MSM : "Literally sexual assault! Find the victims!!!!".
aided by a Republican controlled Congress
LMAO. You are not paying attention. The Republican Senate is the only thing impeding him. He's done what he's able to do with Executive Powers. He doesn't control the legislative branch. He's not the one to blame for the GOP's failure in the Senate.
One pro-Trump Facebook ad called for the "removal of Hillary Clinton from the presidential ballot" while another blamed Black Lives Matter for a "gruesome attack on police". Meanwhile, a fake gay rightsâ(TM) account praised Bernie Sanders as a "hero", and an anti-Trump profile advertised a "not my president" rally after the election, which attracted interest from nearly 50,000 people on Facebook and said: "Racism won, Ignorance won, Sexual assault won ⦠STOP TRUMP!"
People still aren't getting it. Or are being purposefully obtuse to try and keep the "Russia!" panic alive and try to paint Trump in a bad light. If he's such a bad president and bad person, why do you people even need to make stuff up to defame him ?
The only thing creating division in the U.S. right now is not the President, it's all the #RESIST BS that keeps shoving "Russia!" hysteria and spinning everything the President does as negative. It's gotten so bad that if the man cured Cancer tomorrow, he'd be accused of putting Oncologists out of a job.
They used to call "baiting" articles like TFA here "Yellow Journalism". I'm not sure where the "Yellow" came from; but the definition is "Something published as 'News' that is actually nothing more than the author's Opinion, and generally published to further the author's agenda".
So basically any article you read online these days. Journalism died a few years back. Everything is Opinion pieces these days, light on facts, heavy on "This is why this is bad/good!".
Slashdot Mirror
Sigh...
I am puzzled at your reaction. What Tim Wu is suggesting is not "interpretation of law" and thus as you state, making case law, it is literally forcing the FCC to enforce regulations they are planning on repealing.
Courts interpret current laws and can only rule on the legality and constitutionality of a law. They cannot force regulating bodies to enforce specific policies, just because people on the Internet signed a petition.
Except the FTC was legally barred from doing exactly that, and the FCC assigned the role of overseeing ISPs.
Yes, which is what the FCC is trying to reverse. The FCC is proposing going back to the previous model which they judge more apt at managing ISPs than the 2015 regulations. Anyone opposing this is hoping their supporters don't actually research the issues and the timeline, and it is why you see vague articles about "Net Neutrality" rather than comprehensive coverage of what is actually happenning and what is the context of it.
The previous rules in place worked for 19 years.
When regulatory bodies completely ignore the will of the public you have a much bigger problem. Courts seem like the perfect entity to deal with that, though it should be a treason case.
The will of the public is enforced through the ballot box. In this case, it was clear the Trump agenda was deregulation. It was a theme of his campaign that Government is too big and needs to be trimmed down.
He even addressed SPECIFICALLY the 2015 Act prior to its passing :
https://twitter.com/realdonald...
And he was elected. You can't argue "Will of the people" in this case.
Over on Twitter, a frequently promoted Tweet is Comcast claiming that they're not going to block/throttle anything.
Of course they are, even the proposal by the FCC right now includes language that addresses this specifically :
142. Many of the largest ISPs have committed in this proceeding not to block or throttle legal
content.507 These commitments can be enforced by the FTC under Section 5, protecting consumers
without imposing public-utility regulation on ISPs.508 As discussed below, we believe that case-by-case,
ex post regulation better serves a dynamic industry like the Internet and reduces the risk of overregulation.509
We also reject assertions that the FTC has insufficient authority, because, as Verizon
argues, âoe[i]f broadband service providersâ(TM) conduct falls outside [the FTCâ(TM)s] grant of jurisdictionâ"that is, if their actions cannot be described as anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptiveâ"then the conduct should not
be banned in the first place.â510 And the transparency rule that we announce today should allay any
concerns about the ambiguity of ISP commitments,511 by requiring ISPs to disclose if the ISPs block or
throttle legal content. Finally, we expect that any attempt by ISPs to undermine the openness of the
Internet would be resisted by consumers and edge providers.512 We also observe that all states have laws
proscribing deceptive trade practices.513
From page 83 of the proposal : http://transition.fcc.gov/Dail...
Basically, the FCC wants to reclass ISPs from Title II utilities to Information Services and let the FTC and market dictacte what is and isn't acceptable behavior. It's not like the FCC doesn't believe in Neutrality, they just don't think they are the body that should enforce it through heavy handed regulation.
For one : 2015 is not "Long standing rules". If anything, the "Long standing rules" apply more to the 1996 Telecommunications Act which labeled ISPs as Information Service Providers.
For two : Courts making laws and forcing regulatory bodies to enforce them is a path you don't want to go down. If a sitting judge can just decide whatever he wants, and make up new law and regulations on the spot, then they effectively become Legislative, Executive and Judicial all in one.
When a search engine proposes that phrase after having type only "How to have", it is quite disturbing. Dunno why you're brushing it off. Especially considering the many other "How to have" options :
"How to have a merry christmas"
"How to have a good first date"
"How to have a successful job interview"
"How to have a great life"
"How to have Baron_Yam arrested for Pedo apology"
Obviously, Youtube and Google have come to rely way too much on "The Algorythm", and as many have pointed out, they are doing such a great job demonitizing and banning conservative voices, maybe they should apply that same effort to their massive Youtube Kid's problem, and this latest string of barely disguised pedophilia.
So which was it ? Because it seems to be a DNC thing to me. Which makes sense considering the DNC internal leak and Podesta phishing, wouldn't want your voters to know you're colluding with CNN for debate questions and rigging your primary.
.. the actual proposed changes :
http://transition.fcc.gov/Dail...
Oh look, this is all about changing back ISP classification from Utilities to Information services. Not so black and white now uh ? Too bad the media is banking on keeping people mad and uninformed.
Well, we have capitalism, and the mobile homes are unaffordable according to TFA. So where is the 20% cheaper model? Is your theory wrong? Sure seems like it.
"Oh hey, something happened yesterday and the markets didn't instantly react, must mean Capitalism failed!".
Is my theory wrong ? Too soon to tell.
Late-stage capitalism is when you can't afford the rope to hang yourself, but your #MAGA hat is subsidized.
That's not Capitalism.
Capitalism would be someone finding a way to make the ropes cheaper and selling them to you, and including a #MAGA hat for free in order to bolster the sale.
Just as with this mobile homes situation. Communism just means the state is stuck buying "His and Hers sinks" for everyone and thus overpaying, lining the pockets of some friend of the party. Capitalism means a business opportunity for someone to make a 20% cheaper model to serve the increased demand and thus carve himself a new niche.
Of course, it helps to put "Trump Derangement Syndrome" aside, since this has nothing to do with Trump.
Wow, there really has been a lot of groupthink here on Slashdot. As someone with anti-state, pro-market tendencies, I certainly oppose Net Neutrality both in the specifically proposed implementations and in principle. It surprises me that the tech crowd here can understand problems with something more subtle like Copyright Law (which also needs to be abolished) but completely fail to see the same in Net Neutrality.
I'm sure you still want the 3 founding principals of "No Blocking, No Throttling and No Paid prioritization", you just disagree on having them applied as a Government madanted policy.
You prefer the free market to force companies into it through competition and competitive advantage. There is more than a single path to Net Neutrality for sure.
There may actually be people that want Blocking, and Throttling and Paid prioritization, but I doubt they are Internet consumers or here on Slashdot. We can disagree on the How and I don't think it's even healthy not to.
My point was that the media is currently painting the 2015 Regulations as "The Only Way (tm)" and pretending that they are indeed simple rules, when they are in fact a convulted mess.
Since when does having a pronoun you identify with constitute being a "special snowflake?" I bet you'd be pretty upset if someone in your life persistently insisted on using the wrong pronoun to refer to you ... like if you're a man and your boss insists on calling you a girl all the time.
If we're talking about He or She, fine. Biologically proven genders. But Jordan Petersen is talking about "made up" language like Xir, Xer, Zir, Zer, Ze, Xe, Ye, etc.. etc.. With C-16, if your preferred pronouns are Xe/whatever, and I call you He because you're obviously a guy, not a "demi-fluid-boi", you can technically drag me to the HRC to force your "gender expression" which is made up stuff. And since it's made up, it's nearly impossible to remember all the combinations and properly apply them.
Not to mention it's made up. Did I mention there's only 2 genders ? This is why Jordan Petersen talks about compelled speech. It's not about using the properly gendered He/She when referring to cis and trans people. It's about the 68 genders and their completely made up Z and X using pronouns.
If cosmetics didn't matter in any way, no-one would buy them.
I didn't say they don't matter. I said they don't change gameplay. You can kill Mythic Kil'jaeden without having your Tier 3 Naxx set and having it doesn't help with soaks and knockbacks. You can defeat the Leviathan raid without having your Shaders properly matched and your guns and armor won't be affected as far as outgoing and incoming damage.
Is it fun to play dress up barbie in video games ? Sure. Is it part of the gameplay ? Nope. Loot boxes that contain cosmetics only don't affect how the game is played and what content you have access to. If anything, DLC like actual maps and levels are pure evil, loot boxes with gold colored guns are fine.
who paid to win seem to enjoying kicking your arse
If you don't like P2W, don't play F2P from sketchy Asian game makers. The concept of Loot boxes in most games doesn't offer competitive advantages. Don't conflate issues, and lump all loot boxes into the same model.
EA is saying that in order to enjoy the full-experience
What rubbish. Loot boxes contain skins, emotes and badges. Cosmetic stuff that is not part of the Gameplay. Destiny 2, Overwatch, name the game, plays the exact same way with 0 loot boxes than with 2100$ worth of stuff.
If you don't want to play the game for 4500 hours to get all the cosmetics, then newsflash : Don't. Stop playing when you're not interested in playing it. That you don't have the Gold/Pink Stormtrooper Mk. 4 armor won't kill you and is not required.
He's defending net neutrality which I assume we all want, so maybe we should give him a break.
Sure, we all want Net Neutrality. However, I don't think Mr. Trudeau, a drama teacher, understands exactly what the FCC is rolling back.
Even the FCC Commissioner, Micheal Orielly, an Obama appointee, doesn't like the 2015 FCC regulations, as they are not the Net Neutrality we want. From his dissent :
(page 399)
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...
The FCC âoefactâ sheet promised bright line rules, but the reality is that the bulk of this rulemaking
will be conducted through case-by-case adjudication, mostly at the Bureau level and in the courts. To be
sure, there are three bright line rules: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. But those are
mere needles in a Title II haystack.
So basically, what we want, ie, no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization, are not the things the regulations really cover. Feel free to go through the PDF I linked, it contains both the Legislation and Micheal's dissent to it. This is a much more complicated matter than simply Net Neutrality vs Not Net Neutrality. The Media is simply not doing a proper job of reporting what is actually going on, and instead simply trying to paint a binary black and white picture of the situation to foster emotional backlash against the administration.
dear little boy: you have AM radio for all your right wing 'discussions'. and churches, lets not forget how big religion and right wing go hand in hand, these days.
And you have your Mosque for your left wing agenda. *roll eyes*.
Not all conservative positions are borne of religious beliefs. There is way more to the "right wing" than the Westboro Baptist church.
Your contempt for the "right wing" and your choice to support only Net Neutrality where it suits you, and promote Censorship of voices counter to your own is why I cannot stand behind this attempt at regulation by the FCC. It is simply not the Net Neutrality I believe in.
And remember we're not allowed to call them idiots (even if they are) because presumably (/ironically?) that'd be "right-think" too.
Oh look, the tolerant left that screams discrimination and "protected classes!" wanting to discriminate an entire set of individual based on politics.
How about you stick to calling people idiots based on their individual idiocy, instead of lumping everyone into some "basket of deplorables" based on who they voted for. There were legitimate reasons to vote for Donald Trump, one of them being deregulation, and moving power from the Federal government back to states, which he is doing. It was not an "idiotic" choice in and of itself.
And this screeching you're doing is one of the reasons he was elected. This contempt for "the masses of uneducated idiots" you're showing. That very arrogance of a few journalists and politicans on the left and yes, some of their militants too. You guys need to prop up your tolerant and reasonable voices, instead of constantly shoving your hysterics in the media.
How 'bout this for a 2020 slogan : Make Liberalism Great Again.
We're living in a post-truth society,
Yes, and the push towards it is coming from the Left wing and Academia. Trump is a push back against it.
Have you read the regulations ? They aren't even about Net Neutrality per se. They simply reclassified ISPs from Title I to Title II, instead of writing actual Net Neutrality legislation.
And frankly, with the current state of Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and other big platform politicisation, where "wrong think" is censored (but hey, it's ok because the 1st amendment only applies to government right!), while these same players are the ones screaming the loudest for their content to not be submitted to discrimination on network providers, is just massive hypocrisy.
If you want to make a left-leaning blog, go right ahead. If you make a neutral content hosting platform for 3rd parties to host content, as long as laws aren't being broken, then you should also be non-discriminatory. That means no censoring of conservative view points on Youtube, Facebook or Twitter. Either Youtube renames as Lefttube and is transparent about being a video platform for "only Left and Marxist idealogy content", or they stop playing favorites.
Net Neutrality should apply equally to all spectrums of content hosting and distribution. Content creation should be about the only sphere allowed to promote single idealogies (and yes, from both sides!).
You're just now realising that the Republicans and conservative idealogy in general is about reducing the state's control and power over the Governed ? The whole of Trump's campaign and his accomplishments as a President have been about reducing the amount of regulation and the power of the Federal apparatus, in favor of more local control.
The reasoning being : the people of New York shouldn't get to interfere and meddle in the affairs of the people in Arizona. You're not paying attention or understanding the policies if you've just now realised that "Big Government" is what Trump wants to tear down.
Net Neutrality, in the form of the FCC using Title II status for Internet Service Providers, is a blatant example. What we wanted :
- No blocking
- No Throttling
- No Paid Prioritization
What we got :
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...
Close to 600 paragraphs of rules and regulations, and shoving ISPs into Title II FCC regulations. If you check the last few pages of the PDF, it is a dissent from the Commissioner of the FCC, Michael Orielly. This commissionner is an Obama appointee, so not some GOP or Trump crony, and yet he states very clear that the current legislation is massive overreach and goes counter to what Net Neutrality should be.
I for one support Net Neutrality, but I don't support massive government regulation gone wild. Try to even find a single article about Net Neutrality that offers a balanced viewpoint about what is really going on. You won't. The MSM is using you as pawns to keep Big Government going.
The third-world goat-herder who is now the head of the FCC
Wow, brazen racism and elitism. Of course, it's ok because it's targetted at someone who disagrees with your "right-think" ? This is part of the reason Trump got elected in the first place.
I for one will enjoy the civil suit that follows. Of course we know this is just a bunch of kids throwing a tantrum. Nevermind the fact that they are of adult age.
You're defending a guy who bragged about sexually assaulting women,
See, this is EXACTLY the kind of stuff that the MSM is pushing. The guy bragged about gold diggers, MSM : "Literally sexual assault! Find the victims!!!!".
aided by a Republican controlled Congress
LMAO. You are not paying attention. The Republican Senate is the only thing impeding him. He's done what he's able to do with Executive Powers. He doesn't control the legislative branch. He's not the one to blame for the GOP's failure in the Senate.
Except :
One pro-Trump Facebook ad called for the "removal of Hillary Clinton from the presidential ballot" while another blamed Black Lives Matter for a "gruesome attack on police". Meanwhile, a fake gay rightsâ(TM) account praised Bernie Sanders as a "hero", and an anti-Trump profile advertised a "not my president" rally after the election, which attracted interest from nearly 50,000 people on Facebook and said: "Racism won, Ignorance won, Sexual assault won ⦠STOP TRUMP!"
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
People still aren't getting it. Or are being purposefully obtuse to try and keep the "Russia!" panic alive and try to paint Trump in a bad light. If he's such a bad president and bad person, why do you people even need to make stuff up to defame him ?
The only thing creating division in the U.S. right now is not the President, it's all the #RESIST BS that keeps shoving "Russia!" hysteria and spinning everything the President does as negative. It's gotten so bad that if the man cured Cancer tomorrow, he'd be accused of putting Oncologists out of a job.
They used to call "baiting" articles like TFA here "Yellow Journalism". I'm not sure where the "Yellow" came from; but the definition is "Something published as 'News' that is actually nothing more than the author's Opinion, and generally published to further the author's agenda".
So basically any article you read online these days. Journalism died a few years back. Everything is Opinion pieces these days, light on facts, heavy on "This is why this is bad/good!".