I'd love to be a lawyer on that case. They are absolutely manipulating the data by messing with the bandwidth. Less data is coming across. If they're not altering the data, where is the rest of it? I see both arguments but it's clear they're acting in bad faith. They're advertising something that they can't deliver.
Neither extreme is good for the people. The answer is somewhere in between. But since politicians rarely serve the people, regulation doesn't tend to get us where we want to be. The question is how do we make politicians answer for what they do while in office? Guillotine might be too severe. Voting them out is too weak because you just get another one.
I'm not in any trouble since I don't support the extremists on either end. But it's curious how profiling is wrong when used against one group, but it's just fine if it's used against another group. This whole topic has double-standard overload.
It may be protected by law, but that doesn't mean those laws are right. It contradicts the fact that all men are created equal. No one group should have special protections over another. That's not the type of country we're supposed to have.
You do realize that BLM makes the exact same kind of statements and have done so since the beginning? The white power stuff is a distraction, they pop up every few years or so, get some headlines, and then go away again. No one supports their BS other than themselves. What antifa wants is a more socialist type of government which is very unfavorable to many Americans. That's a big part of how Trump managed to win. Antifa is really anti-Trump, anti-Brexit, anti-anything-nationalist. Now you're going to see non-liberals tarred and feathered by the actions of a bunch of racist dipshits that weren't part of any of this until now. That's why I think making some of these online services content-neutral is worth talking about. Even if it just dials back the rhetoric and witch hunt.
You're making a "chicken and egg" argument. The problem is that antifa was not in response to white supremacists. It was in response to our new President being elected and a rejection of conservative/libertarian values. If you're not a liberal, you're a fascist or a racist or a bigot. That's their mantra. This whole white supremacy thing is a circus side show that the left fell for. It has nothing to do with what's been taking place over the last few years. We've had BLM torching entire city blocks, assaulting people, inciting the murder of police officers, more recently we have antifa doing similar things.. but only now does the media really start talking about violence. It's absurd.
I never said it's okay. I'm curious why there wasn't such fervor over the antics of BLM and antifa. I don't agree with supremacists on either side, and I recognize there are such on both sides. Why is that difficult to understand? What I'm asking is why is it that BLM and antifa don't get the same type of response? One person hit by a car and the media is all over it. Five cops shot dead, dozens of businesses torched, people assaulted, the media gives it some slight coverage if at all and moves onto something else in a day or two. There's a huge bias and it needs to be called out. The President saying there were two parties involved even got blow-back, and he was absolutely right.
Right, but escorting people off your property because they farted might be considered a tad bit impolite. A small number of companies have very powerful control over the Internet right now and that concerns a lot of people, rightfully so. It's worth hearing both sides out. You can't turn off phone service to someone you don't agree with, you can't turn off their power.. should web hosts, payment processors, search engines and the like be treated similarly or are they more like a traditional business with a right of refusal? It's a fair question. Saying no and refusing to consider it under the guise of a "polite society" is crap.
They're not writing speeches, they giving opinions. I think people know what the first can and can't do, but they want the spirit of the first to be expressed in more places than just government. I'm on the fence. If every company on the Internet were to ban a type of speech, then the spirit of the free speech has been lost online. I don't like that. You can argue that other hosts and search engines and payment providers and so on would rise up and offer services, but some groups will be marginalized, you can argue rightly or wrongly. I've made the business vs government statement myself a number of times, but there's plenty of reason to be concerned and to hear out both sides of the argument. They both have valid points, pros and cons. Consider it an extension of net neutrality, instead it's content neutrality.
Did you miss the part where it said "we need to seriously have"? Most people know the 1st restricts the government. People are suggesting we extend it.
Slashdot Mirror
"What difference does it make now anyway?"
Considering the epic lengths her and her cronies went to lie about it, there needs to be punitive action.
Because they pay for it.
Leaders should own up to their mistakes. Hillary is not a leader.
How is that different than any other browser?
I'd love to be a lawyer on that case. They are absolutely manipulating the data by messing with the bandwidth. Less data is coming across. If they're not altering the data, where is the rest of it? I see both arguments but it's clear they're acting in bad faith. They're advertising something that they can't deliver.
Obama shouldn't have made promises he couldn't keep.
The average savings per family that was promised didn't pan out either. Not even close.
Neither extreme is good for the people. The answer is somewhere in between. But since politicians rarely serve the people, regulation doesn't tend to get us where we want to be. The question is how do we make politicians answer for what they do while in office? Guillotine might be too severe. Voting them out is too weak because you just get another one.
Verizon advertised that they wouldn't molest video streams. It's not a customer's fault that they expect to use the service they were sold.
If you like your plan you can keep it. Period.
Your approach would only work if the government was for the people. It isn't. Good luck getting the feds to enforce the type of laws you seek.
It's profiling based on actions in both cases, the only difference is that you can't easily opt out of the group in the first case.
No one is allowed to comment on the almighty government!
I'm not in any trouble since I don't support the extremists on either end. But it's curious how profiling is wrong when used against one group, but it's just fine if it's used against another group. This whole topic has double-standard overload.
It may be protected by law, but that doesn't mean those laws are right. It contradicts the fact that all men are created equal. No one group should have special protections over another. That's not the type of country we're supposed to have.
By that standard, Comcast should sever connections with its entire customer base.
Ahh, you support "stop and frisk" then.
You do realize that BLM makes the exact same kind of statements and have done so since the beginning? The white power stuff is a distraction, they pop up every few years or so, get some headlines, and then go away again. No one supports their BS other than themselves. What antifa wants is a more socialist type of government which is very unfavorable to many Americans. That's a big part of how Trump managed to win. Antifa is really anti-Trump, anti-Brexit, anti-anything-nationalist. Now you're going to see non-liberals tarred and feathered by the actions of a bunch of racist dipshits that weren't part of any of this until now. That's why I think making some of these online services content-neutral is worth talking about. Even if it just dials back the rhetoric and witch hunt.
You do know that in some cases, it was the migrants themselves lighting the fires? They want better digs than they've been provided with.
You're making a "chicken and egg" argument. The problem is that antifa was not in response to white supremacists. It was in response to our new President being elected and a rejection of conservative/libertarian values. If you're not a liberal, you're a fascist or a racist or a bigot. That's their mantra. This whole white supremacy thing is a circus side show that the left fell for. It has nothing to do with what's been taking place over the last few years. We've had BLM torching entire city blocks, assaulting people, inciting the murder of police officers, more recently we have antifa doing similar things.. but only now does the media really start talking about violence. It's absurd.
I never said it's okay. I'm curious why there wasn't such fervor over the antics of BLM and antifa. I don't agree with supremacists on either side, and I recognize there are such on both sides. Why is that difficult to understand? What I'm asking is why is it that BLM and antifa don't get the same type of response? One person hit by a car and the media is all over it. Five cops shot dead, dozens of businesses torched, people assaulted, the media gives it some slight coverage if at all and moves onto something else in a day or two. There's a huge bias and it needs to be called out. The President saying there were two parties involved even got blow-back, and he was absolutely right.
Right, but escorting people off your property because they farted might be considered a tad bit impolite. A small number of companies have very powerful control over the Internet right now and that concerns a lot of people, rightfully so. It's worth hearing both sides out. You can't turn off phone service to someone you don't agree with, you can't turn off their power.. should web hosts, payment processors, search engines and the like be treated similarly or are they more like a traditional business with a right of refusal? It's a fair question. Saying no and refusing to consider it under the guise of a "polite society" is crap.
They're not writing speeches, they giving opinions. I think people know what the first can and can't do, but they want the spirit of the first to be expressed in more places than just government. I'm on the fence. If every company on the Internet were to ban a type of speech, then the spirit of the free speech has been lost online. I don't like that. You can argue that other hosts and search engines and payment providers and so on would rise up and offer services, but some groups will be marginalized, you can argue rightly or wrongly. I've made the business vs government statement myself a number of times, but there's plenty of reason to be concerned and to hear out both sides of the argument. They both have valid points, pros and cons. Consider it an extension of net neutrality, instead it's content neutrality.
Due process?
Did you miss the part where it said "we need to seriously have"? Most people know the 1st restricts the government. People are suggesting we extend it.
That's the opposite of a polite society.