I'd be fine with that so long as you included all non-person organizations in that ban.
Most bans on corporate giving for example have not banned union giving. Which is really the same thing because it isn't the individual union members that are donating but rather their dues money being used for lobbying. I have no problem with unions lobbying by the way. That's fine.
But if corporations can't donate to politicians then neither should unions.
Depends on how long they torture you before they even ask you the password.
If they take off your eye lids and remove every other finger from your hands... Then ask you for the password... you might just give them the real password because you're too horrified not to...
Its crude... but psychopaths have found it effective for thousands of years.
These guys only come up in the press because they gave a lot of money to republicans. Its largely the reason George Soros comes up in the press as well... because he gives a lot of money to democrats.
But that's all this is about... different sides bitching about the billionaires giving to the other faction.
If the government just gives politicians money to run campaigns then that will mean that political insiders will have control over who gets money to run a campaign and who does not. The system will be more prone to corruption.
Its not about the power of money politics. It is specifically a whine from a left leaning newspaper about right leaning billionaires giving money to a right leaning political party.
If Fox news for example made a big stink about George Soros giving money to the democrats would that mean anything to you?
Of course not.
Well those two situations are equivalent and neither one is meaningful.
I'd agree with that, however I would point out that we don't have a flat taxation system either.
So the government does treat people differently depending on how much money they have...
Remember the old line "no taxation without representation"?
Well, what if I pay more taxes then you? What if you pay no taxes at all because you're poor?
Should you get the same influence over government as someone that actually pays taxes?
Look, I don't like billionaires giving loads of money to politicians either. But the system is unfair at both ends of the spectrum.
People that are on welfare for example probably shouldn't be voting on whether there is a medicare expansion because they won't be paying for it.
By the same token, the very wealthy probably shouldn't be giving millions of dollars to politicians to get loopholes put into laws.
The people that ultimately always get fucked here are the people in the middle. Those with enough for the government to take but not enough to bribe the government into accepting a deal.
Those people in the middle are you and me. We are the middle. This is how they fuck us.
Would you be okay with the unions being banned from giving money as well?
Not the individuals but the unions themselves? Because that has been an issue the democrats keep trying to sneak through these negociations.
They say "ban the corporations from giving"... but they put in loopholes to allow various special interest groups and unions to keep giving.
And that isn't a dig at the democrats because the republicans do the same thing in reverse. They screw with groups that give money to the democrats while trying to leave loopholes for their money.
The only way this is going to work is if BOTH get shut off at the same time by the same law with no loopholes, exceptions, ifs, or buts.
If you can accept that, then at least between you and me... we have a deal.
Because the stupid article wasn't bitching about both parties or the problem of billionaires giving money. They were bitching about a given billionaire giving money to a given political party. But do they complain about George Soros or other billionaires giving to the "other" party?
And that's my problem with articles like this... they're hack articles contrived to give a biased view of an issue. You see this all the time from BOTH sides. But why do I want to read those articles? They're predictable. "The other party is bad because they do things that if taken out of context look bad!"... Yawn... and the other party could respond with the exact same claim.
The truth is more complicated and difficult to deal with because you can't line up in preorganized factions, tell people what your side is complete with logo and website... and immediately feel affiliated with something.
There is no affiliation for the truth. The truth isn't a democracy. The truth doesn't care what you opinion is or how you feel. The truth is what "is".
Here's the reality, political campaigns cost money. You have to pay for a lot of stuff just to run a campaign and where is all that money coming from?
Some say the government should just give people money to run a campaign. Problem with that is then the government effectively decides who gets to be heard and who doesn't. If they're the ones giving people money to run for office then political insiders in government could cut off funding by one means or another to competitors.
Thus we raise the money from donations. And thus political donations become a kind of speech. We then run into two further problems. The first is that raising enough money to run a campaign from donations every four years is a very hard. The most efficient means of raising enough money is to get a lot of it from some rich people. Its just faster. The second problem is that if you're getting big block donations from rich people or big interest groups, or corporations, or big national unions then they're going to expect something in return for that money which means all those groups exert a much stronger influence on politicians then they would otherwise.
And here we are... with these problems.
Personally, I'd say forbid anyone that isn't an individual from donating to a political campaign.
As to the PACs and super PACs... I'd look for reasonable ways to get rid of them.
And to deal with billionaires... limit max donations to 5 thousand dollars or something. That's a lot more then the average person is going to give but a lot less then the billionaire would otherwise give. It shifts the focus a good deal back to the voter rather then the guy with the deep pockets.
I am not attacking either party here. They're both guilty but they're also both victims of circumstance.
Do the above and political campaigns will probably have a lot less money. But so what... they all will. So it will be fair.
Its very important for this to work that there be no loopholes. Put a loophole in and it ruins it.
What you're not getting is that if you did that the corporate structure wouldn't work. Your reasons to the contrary ignore that NET you are taking more out of the system then is being taken out now.
Think of a business like an organism and the business environment like an ecosystem. You take resources out of either and they will be missed. Your attempt to say its okay because of some classification or word game you're playing is irrelevant.
FACT you are taking more out of the system then is being taken out now. FACT it will have LESS money after tax day. FACT you are talking about a huge increase in taxes for businesses and a big difference in the regulatory environment.
To suggest that after such a big change nothing alters in the business landscape to compensate is MORONIC.
You want to say I'm being unreasonable for not agreeing with you? Fine. Continue to be wrong.
Everywhere I go its the democrats whining about the evil billionaires giving money to the republicans and republicans whining about the evil billionaires giving money to the Democrats.
Shut the fuck up.
You're both getting big donations from billionaires... stop pretending like they don't have their own interests and axes to grind.
The heart of the game industry is the PC. It has been since the Xbox decided to build itself around that industry.
You want to say all our games are flappy bird? The best graphics are on the PC... not the console.
As to big picture mode... why do I have to play it on my big screen tv for it count? What if I have a console and I use a small tv? Does that suddenly not count in your system?
I play roughly 2.5 feet from my screen. It doesn't need to be big.
Additionally, I'd point out that there are a lot of indi games coming out that are launched by ONE guy. As such, you could do that anywhere in the world. They're published by steam... so its not like you need to work real hard to get a publisher.
It should also be noted that there is a chicken and egg situation with industries that cluster around some cities. Many of those businesses set up in those towns because there were existing businesses of that type and they thought they'd have easier access to labor.
Travel around a bit... you'll find there is a significant amount of diversity in the businesses around the country.
Most people don't work in the video game industry.
If that's your dream, then by all means go after it.
I am not suggesting that everyone can get away from them.
But most people have a more flexible careers that allow them to work in more then a handful of cities on the planet.
If you can... why stay? For the Opera you don't go to? For the theater that is mostly for tourists? For the sports games with $20,000 a year season tickets?
Most people that live in such cities rarely leave more then a small portion of the city. It isn't practical to travel far in the cities because the traffic is so bad. So you live and try to work in a 5 square mile area in what could be a 200 square mile city.
Opportunities? Sure. There's also competition.
In most smaller communities you can find all the same industries writ small and there won't be as many people nipping after your job there. You also get the community... you know who people are and they know you.
You also get other things like a backyard... a garden... your dog isn't cramped in some tiny apartment... and nature is something you can enjoy without having to deal with throngs of homeless people scurrying out of bushes which is what you'll find in an urban park anywhere in the US.
For the record, the reason for that is that we closed the insane asylums some time ago and the result has been that our crazy people just became homeless people. There's not a lot you can do for them. Most of them are addicted to one substance or another and are generally pretty hopeless. The best we could do is put them in institutions... but as I said that was made illegal. Long story short, you go to the park and its full of bag ladies talking to themselves. Not exactly fun.
Oil and gas don't get more in tax breaks then most large businesses. Its nothing special to them. If you ran a paper mill or a made ladies shoes you'd get tax breaks. Most of them are put in place to counter/pay for other stupid regulations.
Its a quid pro quo feature in the legislative process... put burdensome law X on company type Y; company type Y gets tax cut/credit/loophole R estimated to be roughly the cost of burdensome law X.
Its somewhat unfair in that the breaks tend to only exist for large businesses but then most of the really stupid laws only apply to big businesses anyway.
Look at it this way, most of the laws you like would not get through congress if it were not understood that a loophole or a tax break would be put in to counter it.
So this way you feel like you've accomplished something and gotten something over on the evil people that want to *gasp* have fuel in their cars.
Stick it to them, comrade. What has been the result of your last attack on the O&G industry? Oh that's right... it caused the fraking boom. Shut off access to other sources and we'll find other ways to do it. The pressure to provide the supply is overwhelming. It MUST HAPPEN. And so anything you put in its way will be blown away like tissue paper before a nuclear blast.
Not true. Some of the best job prospects these days are in Texas and North Dakota.
Its places like Los Angeles and NYC that are showing a continuing contraction of the job market.
What is more, if you do the same job in Dallas that you do in Los Angeles, you'll often find you get paid about the same which means the cost of living difference is pure profit.
As to what economic prospects exists outside of the urban centers along the coast of the US, you'll find that you have most of the same businesses in the middle of country that exist on the edge. This is especially true of tech firms that are increasingly setting up in places friendlier to start ups.
As to raping the earth, you're on the internet using a machine mass produced in Asia, transshipped to your country by container, powered by an electrical grid that is something like 60 percent coal fueled... etc etc.
Moronic hypocrisy is not something I find especially respectable. And if you're in a major urban center along the coast it doesn't mean you're not raping the environment just because you're not personally doing it. Your life style depends upon someone somewhere else doing it for you. And you pay them to do it every time you pay your electrical bill or buy a gallon of gas.
In other words... you can either go hungry and cold... or shut up and enjoy the cheeseburger. Trying to have it both ways is at best naive and at worst dishonest.
Who is going to pay for all this crap? Remember, LA Unified school district just shelled out something like a billion dollars for ipads. So there is big money to be made here.
The danger for the public is that it might not accomplish anything.
If all the promises of the technology pan out then its money well spent. If not, then its an unforgivable waste of finite public resources.
I offer as much for the sake of argument as anything. I'm not one of his cultists.
Neither am I cultist for Ayn Rand or any of the other supposed economic messiahs.
I don't think anyone has ever had all the answers which is not a cop out to suggest that answers cannot be had but rather an admission of our own humble capabilities. Just as no scientist has ever had a perfect understanding of the universe, neither has any economist had a perfect understanding of the mathematical and evolving game theory that is economics.
I don't care to be drawn into a defense of Marx of all people. Whatever the man's initial theories and suggestions, they were ultimately championed by genocidal barbarians tainting any discussion about the man with their crimes.
In the past, the logistics of renting your car out or your apartment out was not practical. How and where to list? The mechanism simply didn't exist unless you were offering it to a friend of a friend and then actually getting paid might be an issue.
Now people have the option. that is what changed.
if the economy improves radically tomorrow you'll still see this stuff.
Well, that's not unreasonable if you're making a loan. That is the nature of loans.
However, people should not be encouraged to go into debt and neither should we be subsidizing the loan industry.
Traditionally, Americans put upwards of 40 percent of the value of a home as a down payment. That is a good figure. It means you're unlikely to walk away from the debt and lose the principle. It also means you have some means because you had enough to put 40 percent down.
That should be the standard. If you can't afford a home at that rate then maybe you're living in the wrong part of the country. There are parts of the US that have VERY cheap real estate and they're not terrible places to live either. They're just not hyper fashionable. If the economics in those areas are squeezing you out... then just leave. Don't compound your problem by going into debt to buy a house that could have its value collapse at any moment.
Over production of what? I swear, people say things without actually engaging their brains. They just repeat things like walking tape recorders or human/parrot hybrids.
The economic downturn was largely a result of corruption in our banking and political system that lead to the rapid issuing of credit for things people couldn't really afford especially to people that really shouldn't be in the market. This lead to a price inflation which caused people that normally wouldn't have a hard time affording things to go into greater debt simply to keep up. And when the whole thing collapsed, the value of all the homes went down but the debt stayed right where it was... this caused a contraction of spending... etc etc etc.
Nothing what so ever to do with over production unless you mean an over production of morons and corrupt assholes.
Marx doubtless said a lot of things that made sense... but economics is more complicated then any one man and the scope of human history is not going to be summed up by das capital.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're unwilling to consider anything that isn't a console part of the gaming landscape then you're ignoring about 80 percent of the market.
which renders your whole position laughable.
Try again.
I'd be fine with that so long as you included all non-person organizations in that ban.
Most bans on corporate giving for example have not banned union giving. Which is really the same thing because it isn't the individual union members that are donating but rather their dues money being used for lobbying. I have no problem with unions lobbying by the way. That's fine.
But if corporations can't donate to politicians then neither should unions.
Depends on how long they torture you before they even ask you the password.
If they take off your eye lids and remove every other finger from your hands... Then ask you for the password... you might just give them the real password because you're too horrified not to...
Its crude... but psychopaths have found it effective for thousands of years.
These guys only come up in the press because they gave a lot of money to republicans. Its largely the reason George Soros comes up in the press as well... because he gives a lot of money to democrats.
But that's all this is about... different sides bitching about the billionaires giving to the other faction.
Nothing more or less.
This article is as meaningless as it is pathetic.
Then how do you fund a campaign?
If the government just gives politicians money to run campaigns then that will mean that political insiders will have control over who gets money to run a campaign and who does not. The system will be more prone to corruption.
Its not about the power of money politics. It is specifically a whine from a left leaning newspaper about right leaning billionaires giving money to a right leaning political party.
If Fox news for example made a big stink about George Soros giving money to the democrats would that mean anything to you?
Of course not.
Well those two situations are equivalent and neither one is meaningful.
I'd agree with that, however I would point out that we don't have a flat taxation system either.
So the government does treat people differently depending on how much money they have...
Remember the old line "no taxation without representation"?
Well, what if I pay more taxes then you? What if you pay no taxes at all because you're poor?
Should you get the same influence over government as someone that actually pays taxes?
Look, I don't like billionaires giving loads of money to politicians either. But the system is unfair at both ends of the spectrum.
People that are on welfare for example probably shouldn't be voting on whether there is a medicare expansion because they won't be paying for it.
By the same token, the very wealthy probably shouldn't be giving millions of dollars to politicians to get loopholes put into laws.
The people that ultimately always get fucked here are the people in the middle. Those with enough for the government to take but not enough to bribe the government into accepting a deal.
Those people in the middle are you and me. We are the middle. This is how they fuck us.
Would you be okay with the unions being banned from giving money as well?
Not the individuals but the unions themselves? Because that has been an issue the democrats keep trying to sneak through these negociations.
They say "ban the corporations from giving"... but they put in loopholes to allow various special interest groups and unions to keep giving.
And that isn't a dig at the democrats because the republicans do the same thing in reverse. They screw with groups that give money to the democrats while trying to leave loopholes for their money.
The only way this is going to work is if BOTH get shut off at the same time by the same law with no loopholes, exceptions, ifs, or buts.
If you can accept that, then at least between you and me... we have a deal.
Because the stupid article wasn't bitching about both parties or the problem of billionaires giving money. They were bitching about a given billionaire giving money to a given political party. But do they complain about George Soros or other billionaires giving to the "other" party?
And that's my problem with articles like this... they're hack articles contrived to give a biased view of an issue. You see this all the time from BOTH sides. But why do I want to read those articles? They're predictable. "The other party is bad because they do things that if taken out of context look bad!"... Yawn... and the other party could respond with the exact same claim.
The truth is more complicated and difficult to deal with because you can't line up in preorganized factions, tell people what your side is complete with logo and website... and immediately feel affiliated with something.
There is no affiliation for the truth. The truth isn't a democracy. The truth doesn't care what you opinion is or how you feel. The truth is what "is".
Here's the reality, political campaigns cost money. You have to pay for a lot of stuff just to run a campaign and where is all that money coming from?
Some say the government should just give people money to run a campaign. Problem with that is then the government effectively decides who gets to be heard and who doesn't. If they're the ones giving people money to run for office then political insiders in government could cut off funding by one means or another to competitors.
Thus we raise the money from donations. And thus political donations become a kind of speech. We then run into two further problems. The first is that raising enough money to run a campaign from donations every four years is a very hard. The most efficient means of raising enough money is to get a lot of it from some rich people. Its just faster. The second problem is that if you're getting big block donations from rich people or big interest groups, or corporations, or big national unions then they're going to expect something in return for that money which means all those groups exert a much stronger influence on politicians then they would otherwise.
And here we are... with these problems.
Personally, I'd say forbid anyone that isn't an individual from donating to a political campaign.
As to the PACs and super PACs... I'd look for reasonable ways to get rid of them.
And to deal with billionaires... limit max donations to 5 thousand dollars or something. That's a lot more then the average person is going to give but a lot less then the billionaire would otherwise give. It shifts the focus a good deal back to the voter rather then the guy with the deep pockets.
I am not attacking either party here. They're both guilty but they're also both victims of circumstance.
Do the above and political campaigns will probably have a lot less money. But so what... they all will. So it will be fair.
Its very important for this to work that there be no loopholes. Put a loophole in and it ruins it.
No. It is you that refuses to listen.
What you're not getting is that if you did that the corporate structure wouldn't work. Your reasons to the contrary ignore that NET you are taking more out of the system then is being taken out now.
Think of a business like an organism and the business environment like an ecosystem. You take resources out of either and they will be missed. Your attempt to say its okay because of some classification or word game you're playing is irrelevant.
FACT you are taking more out of the system then is being taken out now. FACT it will have LESS money after tax day. FACT you are talking about a huge increase in taxes for businesses and a big difference in the regulatory environment.
To suggest that after such a big change nothing alters in the business landscape to compensate is MORONIC.
You want to say I'm being unreasonable for not agreeing with you? Fine. Continue to be wrong.
Everywhere I go its the democrats whining about the evil billionaires giving money to the republicans and republicans whining about the evil billionaires giving money to the Democrats.
Shut the fuck up.
You're both getting big donations from billionaires... stop pretending like they don't have their own interests and axes to grind.
The heart of the game industry is the PC. It has been since the Xbox decided to build itself around that industry.
You want to say all our games are flappy bird? The best graphics are on the PC... not the console.
As to big picture mode... why do I have to play it on my big screen tv for it count? What if I have a console and I use a small tv? Does that suddenly not count in your system?
I play roughly 2.5 feet from my screen. It doesn't need to be big.
Private property is no more a fiction then personal rights.
If its wrong for me to peel your skin off, look into your eyes, and eat you... then why is it okay to take the things I've worked for without paying?
If I built a house with my own money... worked hard to pay for it... protected it... maintained it.
What right do you have to take it?
Why am I not justified in shooting you in the face should you try?
Additionally, I'd point out that there are a lot of indi games coming out that are launched by ONE guy. As such, you could do that anywhere in the world. They're published by steam... so its not like you need to work real hard to get a publisher.
It should also be noted that there is a chicken and egg situation with industries that cluster around some cities. Many of those businesses set up in those towns because there were existing businesses of that type and they thought they'd have easier access to labor.
Travel around a bit... you'll find there is a significant amount of diversity in the businesses around the country.
Most people don't work in the video game industry.
If that's your dream, then by all means go after it.
I am not suggesting that everyone can get away from them.
But most people have a more flexible careers that allow them to work in more then a handful of cities on the planet.
If you can... why stay? For the Opera you don't go to? For the theater that is mostly for tourists? For the sports games with $20,000 a year season tickets?
Most people that live in such cities rarely leave more then a small portion of the city. It isn't practical to travel far in the cities because the traffic is so bad. So you live and try to work in a 5 square mile area in what could be a 200 square mile city.
Opportunities? Sure. There's also competition.
In most smaller communities you can find all the same industries writ small and there won't be as many people nipping after your job there. You also get the community... you know who people are and they know you.
You also get other things like a backyard... a garden... your dog isn't cramped in some tiny apartment... and nature is something you can enjoy without having to deal with throngs of homeless people scurrying out of bushes which is what you'll find in an urban park anywhere in the US.
For the record, the reason for that is that we closed the insane asylums some time ago and the result has been that our crazy people just became homeless people. There's not a lot you can do for them. Most of them are addicted to one substance or another and are generally pretty hopeless. The best we could do is put them in institutions... but as I said that was made illegal. Long story short, you go to the park and its full of bag ladies talking to themselves. Not exactly fun.
Oil and gas don't get more in tax breaks then most large businesses. Its nothing special to them. If you ran a paper mill or a made ladies shoes you'd get tax breaks. Most of them are put in place to counter/pay for other stupid regulations.
Its a quid pro quo feature in the legislative process... put burdensome law X on company type Y; company type Y gets tax cut/credit/loophole R estimated to be roughly the cost of burdensome law X.
Its somewhat unfair in that the breaks tend to only exist for large businesses but then most of the really stupid laws only apply to big businesses anyway.
Look at it this way, most of the laws you like would not get through congress if it were not understood that a loophole or a tax break would be put in to counter it.
So this way you feel like you've accomplished something and gotten something over on the evil people that want to *gasp* have fuel in their cars.
Stick it to them, comrade. What has been the result of your last attack on the O&G industry? Oh that's right... it caused the fraking boom. Shut off access to other sources and we'll find other ways to do it. The pressure to provide the supply is overwhelming. It MUST HAPPEN. And so anything you put in its way will be blown away like tissue paper before a nuclear blast.
Not true. Some of the best job prospects these days are in Texas and North Dakota.
Its places like Los Angeles and NYC that are showing a continuing contraction of the job market.
What is more, if you do the same job in Dallas that you do in Los Angeles, you'll often find you get paid about the same which means the cost of living difference is pure profit.
As to what economic prospects exists outside of the urban centers along the coast of the US, you'll find that you have most of the same businesses in the middle of country that exist on the edge. This is especially true of tech firms that are increasingly setting up in places friendlier to start ups.
As to raping the earth, you're on the internet using a machine mass produced in Asia, transshipped to your country by container, powered by an electrical grid that is something like 60 percent coal fueled... etc etc.
Moronic hypocrisy is not something I find especially respectable. And if you're in a major urban center along the coast it doesn't mean you're not raping the environment just because you're not personally doing it. Your life style depends upon someone somewhere else doing it for you. And you pay them to do it every time you pay your electrical bill or buy a gallon of gas.
In other words... you can either go hungry and cold... or shut up and enjoy the cheeseburger. Trying to have it both ways is at best naive and at worst dishonest.
... It pays to protect yourself like a criminal.
Lock your tech down so that when they come they have to say pretty please to get access.
Who is going to pay for all this crap? Remember, LA Unified school district just shelled out something like a billion dollars for ipads. So there is big money to be made here.
The danger for the public is that it might not accomplish anything.
If all the promises of the technology pan out then its money well spent. If not, then its an unforgivable waste of finite public resources.
I offer as much for the sake of argument as anything. I'm not one of his cultists.
Neither am I cultist for Ayn Rand or any of the other supposed economic messiahs.
I don't think anyone has ever had all the answers which is not a cop out to suggest that answers cannot be had but rather an admission of our own humble capabilities. Just as no scientist has ever had a perfect understanding of the universe, neither has any economist had a perfect understanding of the mathematical and evolving game theory that is economics.
I don't care to be drawn into a defense of Marx of all people. Whatever the man's initial theories and suggestions, they were ultimately championed by genocidal barbarians tainting any discussion about the man with their crimes.
In the past, the logistics of renting your car out or your apartment out was not practical. How and where to list? The mechanism simply didn't exist unless you were offering it to a friend of a friend and then actually getting paid might be an issue.
Now people have the option. that is what changed.
if the economy improves radically tomorrow you'll still see this stuff.
Well, that's not unreasonable if you're making a loan. That is the nature of loans.
However, people should not be encouraged to go into debt and neither should we be subsidizing the loan industry.
Traditionally, Americans put upwards of 40 percent of the value of a home as a down payment. That is a good figure. It means you're unlikely to walk away from the debt and lose the principle. It also means you have some means because you had enough to put 40 percent down.
That should be the standard. If you can't afford a home at that rate then maybe you're living in the wrong part of the country. There are parts of the US that have VERY cheap real estate and they're not terrible places to live either. They're just not hyper fashionable. If the economics in those areas are squeezing you out... then just leave. Don't compound your problem by going into debt to buy a house that could have its value collapse at any moment.
over production?
Over production of what? I swear, people say things without actually engaging their brains. They just repeat things like walking tape recorders or human/parrot hybrids.
The economic downturn was largely a result of corruption in our banking and political system that lead to the rapid issuing of credit for things people couldn't really afford especially to people that really shouldn't be in the market. This lead to a price inflation which caused people that normally wouldn't have a hard time affording things to go into greater debt simply to keep up. And when the whole thing collapsed, the value of all the homes went down but the debt stayed right where it was... this caused a contraction of spending... etc etc etc.
Nothing what so ever to do with over production unless you mean an over production of morons and corrupt assholes.
Marx doubtless said a lot of things that made sense... but economics is more complicated then any one man and the scope of human history is not going to be summed up by das capital.
nor was it in the advertising that they would intentionally slow given types of content down to extort payments from various companies.
For example, if youtube paying comcast? Because there's probably more youtube video flowing through the pipes then netflix.
Perhaps I'm ignorant here, but it looks like comcast is running an extortion racket.
It needs to be stated in the advertising.