POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
More like lining their CEOs and share holders with more money instead of investing it in creating jobs and increasing employee compensation.
lol. in your words what does net neutrality mean? and how will it be bad? are you worried about your half of netflix going up?
also, what is government involved in that they do better, more efficient then the private sector?
Not saying that I trust them, but this is possibly true if you don't trust ISP's to do the right thing. Besides, it's not like your Internet freedoms weren't already under attack and being censored.
Silicon Valley -- Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Google, GO Daddy etc... They're just as big of a threat to your Internet freedoms as an ISP, and it could easily be argued they're even a bigger threat because they've already dabbled in plenty of censorship. Their reign is up.
Sourced by whom? Perhaps sourced does not mean what you think it does.
Snopes has been caught many times and proven biased as well.
Nope. You are only spouting leftist talking points. Everything went up on a large scale under Obama care but you guys denied that and now you just say it will without proof.
Share holders? You mean people with 401ks and IRAs?
How come the left always whines about ceo salaries but not a word about the ridiculous salaries of athletes, musicians and movie stars?
You realize without having net neutrality, ISPs could significantly throttle or literally block Netflix so long as it was in the terms of agreements? They can charge you more for accessing different websites. Or force companies, like Netflix to use your example, to pay more to the ISP to not be throttled, and that cost will almost always be passed on to the consumer. The ISPs can basically do whatever they want in terms of controlling internet traffic. Comcast was notorious for throttling Netflix back in the day.
The whole world of sports is a scam, especially at the college level. It's just such a minor industry in terms of size relative to everything else though.
And with the NBA and NFL 80% black, why no affirmative action for short, slow, unathletic honkies?
There was no need for nn to begin with - never existed before 2015. FTC was already regulating isps. But no, Obama & Co wanted the Dem-controlled FCC to run the isp world like telephone line lines: to the benefit of their Silicon Valley boosters, Netflix, etc. I.e., Dems have never seen a control regulation they didn't like.
ISPs are thought of by big content providers like Netflix, Google, etc.as just a pipe to push their data thru. ISPs think of themselves as content providers too. W/o being that, there's not much/any reason for isps to improve service as the Nexflixes take all the profit.
So you are fine with ISPs being able to regulate what information and content you are able to receive, which is what they were doing before the net neutrality laws were passed? That's called censorship buddy.
No, I actually work in the business. I don't need "talking points" to tell me how the insurance industry works. But keep taking those stupid pills because they are working real well for you.
Probably more blacks voted for Jones than there are blacks in Alabama. Some how democrats can do this without any ramifications. In the 2016 presidential election in the heavy democrat city of Detroit there was more votes cast there than there are register voters. But the lying liberals will say, there's no voter fraud.
The Internet is already being censored, right now, as we speak, with net neutrality in place. Silicon Valley has run roughshod. It's time they've been knocked down a peg. You have absolutely no clue if ISP's do the right thing or not. I'd bet on the private sector any day over the government.
But it's your decision if you want to visit those websites or not. With net neutrality not existing, it's not always your decision anymore.
What if you are a conservative in a small rural town with one ISP (and for the record, over half of America only has access to one ISP) but your ISP was run by liberals. They could legally block or throttle sources of conservative news in favor of liberal news sites.
Now it's no longer your decision what information and content you would like to receive. Not saying that it will happen, but it legally could happen.
So you want to fight censorship with more opportunities for censorship? That makes literally zero sense. That's like trying to fight a forest fire by dumping gasoline on it.
Hillary Clinton crawled out from under her rock today to comment on the Alabama senate race. She basically claimed that the Jones victory was a referendum against Trump. Wow, she is definitely the worst presidential sore loser in the last 50 years. How can she even sit down with all that butt-hurt?
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...ry-in-ala-marks-a-turning-point-against-trump
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...ry-in-ala-marks-a-turning-point-against-trump
I just don't understand that. If someone wished me a happy Chanukah or even happy Ramadan, I would wish it back to them. Not offended at all. But lib/dims? They go nuts.
You work in the business? But I thought that you were a law professor- or, at the very least, a highly experienced criminal law trial attorney.
Again, you're fear mongering, automatically assuming ISP's are going to be greedy and corrupt. For you not to be a Democrat/liberal you sure in the hell think, misrepresent the facts and repeat every single talking point, word for word, exactly as they do. You're like a damn CNN infomercial.
Like Facebook, Twitter and Reddit does now?
She's a fool. Moore is so polarizing that he could barely win Alabama elections in the days when Trump was a businessman and not a politician. Now, add in the allegations against him, and he would be lucky to get 40 percent, if even that much. But for Trump's coattails, he wouldn't have.
The ISPs were already doing this greedy shit before the net neutrality laws were in place. What makes you so confident they won't again? Especially when you factor in most Americans live in areas where one ISP has monopoly control.
He's a liberal. Every single post is Hard Left. Every single one. Not a single post from him which is consistent with even a left-leaning Republican on any issue. Moreover, on other threads, there he is, clucking about "white privilege". Not even most Democrats talk like that; only the Hard Left SJW wing does it. Finally, he's from Boston. Case closed.
And like I said, you have the option to bypass that censorship by avoiding those websites. When the ISP is doing it, most Americans will no longer have the option to bypass the censorship.
I'm not from Boston and have never lived there. Bot good job on spreading more FAKE NEWS!
No. I'd rather the private sector have a chance than allow the douche bag liberals in Silicon Valley to continue to take over and get off on censoring anyone who doesn't conform with impunity. If ISP's don't do the right thing, they can get dealt with as well.
Fine, you're not from Boston. I'll take your word for it, and, in the future, will refrain from making such assumptions even though, well, your handle does have the word "Boston" in it. But, fine. I note that you didn't refute anything else. Can you cite one post of yours that is not leftist? Just one? (Note- claims to be Republican are not in and of themselves non-leftist posts, particularly when immediately belied by the substantive content of what comes next in the post).
They've only been in place since '15. My Internet was perfectly fine in '14. Matter of fact, and this probably doesn't have anything to do with net neutrality, but social media, especially Twitter, was way better before '15. I might just mislead and fear monger, blaming social media's downfall on net neutrality.
Can be dealt with? The repealing of the net neutrality laws means there is nothing to be dealt with. They can legally block or throttle anything they want without impunity so long as it is stated in the terms of service. ANd unfortunately there is a major lack of competition with ISPs as shown in the quote below. If the government isn't able to hold them accountable, and the market forces aren't able to hold them accountable, then who is?
So because you're internet was fine means companies like Comcast weren't throttling stuff like Netflix? Are you really going to just ignore what is a known fact because it didn't affect you?
You know that those salaries are being paid by some CEO/Team owner that is making much more than their employees. Hell, Roger Goodell makes more than any player in the NFL. It's estimated that Jerry Jones makes $500 million from the Cowboys which is about 4x the total salary of the entire roster. They just ask for a percentage of the revenues and negotiate their contracts. Musicians and movie stars don't work for salaries, they are paid based on how their product sells. They are in effect, CEOs of themselves.
Athletes, musicians and movie stars are the product. The CEO of Ford isn't the product, most didn't risk their livelihoods to build the companies they run.
But you'll have to show me where anyone said that they all don't make too much.
