Restore internet freedom = Death of Net Neutrality

[MonsterBuster Skittychan]

all we need to do is threaten their pockets


the consumer have more power than they know and with a little will power the companies will start pricking their ears

[Mystic Onyx]

Valiant Corvus

I mean....this is definitely something that should not happen, as there's no damn good reason to do it other than to line the pockets of corporate America some more.

But it's kinda sad that THIS is what gets people energized.

Build an ineffective wall for racial reasons? Meh.
Ban refuges from countries that are chosen for suspiciously economic reasons? Meh.
Deport dreamers who are on a whole productive US citizens? Meh.
Ban transgender people from enlisting in the military? Some protests, but meh.



Get rid of net neutrality protections? GET THE ******** FIRE AND PITCHFORKS.

Some protests to each of those things, because each of those things affected certain people or interests.
Net neutrality affects all of the people and interests.

That said...

[Pink_Frosting5]

Ex FaviIla Surgo

Pink_Frosting5

LinkandLink

if net neutrality dies it be the end of freedom of speech sad & I'm worry websites might kick out free to play users out sad of their websites i not its not true but i get worried about net neutrality a lot . in a what if scenario that happen sad

That logic only follows if you think it''s impossible to have free speech without the internet. Which would also mean no one had free speech prior to the 1990s, pretty much.

Free speech means the freedom to say what you want. If you don't have that freedom on the most prevalent medium in current existence, you basically don't have free speech.

What you're saying is, it wouldn't be the death of free speech to require a license to own a printing press, because you can still talk. It's absurd.

During the period in which the printing press was the best way to disseminate words, you still had to have the money to have a printing press in order to have utterly free access to it (let's pretend censorship wasn't common for much of that period, for the sake of this argument). Today, we all rely on external entities, which enable us to use the internet, to disseminate speech. It's really not all that different. Just as a printing press could/can refuse to print something, why could an internet host not do the same?

Now, that doesn't mean I don't think it's a bad thing to limit the ability to have free speech on the internet. I think it would diminish the freedom greatly. But I also think it's a mistake to say that there would be no free speech if there internet was more difficult to access, or more tightly controlled. There were ways for people to rally before the internet (remember the Revolution?).

So yes, internet access is very important. But let's be accurate when we're talking about the consequences of changing the status quo.

[Ammo Amy]

Mystic Onyx

Always been curious what the point to it all was.
Why insist on trying to control everything? Especially when that's never gone well in the past.
Heck, 50-100 years from now, they'd probably be a vague memory.

Say they do get control over everything. What then?
It's obviously power for power's sake, so what's the end goal here?

What's the point of any dictator or monopoly in history?

[Mystic Onyx]

Ammo Amy

Mystic Onyx

Always been curious what the point to it all was.
Why insist on trying to control everything? Especially when that's never gone well in the past.
Heck, 50-100 years from now, they'd probably be a vague memory.

Say they do get control over everything. What then?
It's obviously power for power's sake, so what's the end goal here?

What's the point of any dictator or monopoly in history?

My point.

So you rule the world. What then? Your ambitions mean nothing anymore.
One day you'll die and lose it all. You're a smudge in history at best.

[Ammo Amy]

Mystic Onyx

Ammo Amy

Mystic Onyx

Always been curious what the point to it all was.
Why insist on trying to control everything? Especially when that's never gone well in the past.
Heck, 50-100 years from now, they'd probably be a vague memory.

Say they do get control over everything. What then?
It's obviously power for power's sake, so what's the end goal here?

What's the point of any dictator or monopoly in history?

My point.

So you rule the world. What then? Your ambitions mean nothing anymore.
One day you'll die and lose it all. You're a smudge in history at best.

Many are fairly short-sighted when it comes to that. Control it now, and let others figure it our when you're gone. You got yours.
If ISP's can absolutely control the content within their jurisdiction, all you will hear are the praises of that particular ISP, with all criticism simply silenced. You see what they want you to see, you read what they allow you to read. Each ISP a tiny feudalistic kingdom.

[Speedira Windira]

Uuugh,it seems like every damn year these assholes try this crap.

Getting real tired of your crap,you greedy sons of whores..>->

[Ghin - Aoiichi]

Speedira Windira

Uuugh,it seems like every damn year these assholes try this crap.

Getting real tired of your crap,you greedy sons of whores..>->

Please don't do that . You insult whores everywhere when you mention them in the same sentence.

[Silly Ewe]

If Net Neutrality goes away, my job's gonna get rekt...

[Mystic Onyx]

Ammo Amy

Mystic Onyx

Ammo Amy

Mystic Onyx

Always been curious what the point to it all was.
Why insist on trying to control everything? Especially when that's never gone well in the past.
Heck, 50-100 years from now, they'd probably be a vague memory.

Say they do get control over everything. What then?
It's obviously power for power's sake, so what's the end goal here?

What's the point of any dictator or monopoly in history?

My point.

So you rule the world. What then? Your ambitions mean nothing anymore.
One day you'll die and lose it all. You're a smudge in history at best.

Many are fairly short-sighted when it comes to that. Control it now, and let others figure it our when you're gone. You got yours.
If ISP's can absolutely control the content within their jurisdiction, all you will hear are the praises of that particular ISP, with all criticism simply silenced. You see what they want you to see, you read what they allow you to read. Each ISP a tiny feudalistic kingdom.

In short: North Korea.
China, in some instances.

[Ammo Amy]

Mystic Onyx

Ammo Amy

Mystic Onyx

Ammo Amy

Mystic Onyx

Always been curious what the point to it all was.
Why insist on trying to control everything? Especially when that's never gone well in the past.
Heck, 50-100 years from now, they'd probably be a vague memory.

Say they do get control over everything. What then?
It's obviously power for power's sake, so what's the end goal here?

What's the point of any dictator or monopoly in history?

My point.

So you rule the world. What then? Your ambitions mean nothing anymore.
One day you'll die and lose it all. You're a smudge in history at best.

Many are fairly short-sighted when it comes to that. Control it now, and let others figure it our when you're gone. You got yours.
If ISP's can absolutely control the content within their jurisdiction, all you will hear are the praises of that particular ISP, with all criticism simply silenced. You see what they want you to see, you read what they allow you to read. Each ISP a tiny feudalistic kingdom.

In short: North Korea.
China, in some instances.

Pretty much. China has a great Internet infrastructure, but the people aren't allowed to go to a lot of places outside of what the government allows. That's where ultrasurf comes in. It was originally created to get around Chinese government censors.

[Slutty_Eddie]

Pink_Frosting5

Ex FaviIla Surgo

Pink_Frosting5

LinkandLink

if net neutrality dies it be the end of freedom of speech sad & I'm worry websites might kick out free to play users out sad of their websites i not its not true but i get worried about net neutrality a lot . in a what if scenario that happen sad

That logic only follows if you think it''s impossible to have free speech without the internet. Which would also mean no one had free speech prior to the 1990s, pretty much.

Free speech means the freedom to say what you want. If you don't have that freedom on the most prevalent medium in current existence, you basically don't have free speech.

What you're saying is, it wouldn't be the death of free speech to require a license to own a printing press, because you can still talk. It's absurd.

During the period in which the printing press was the best way to disseminate words, you still had to have the money to have a printing press in order to have utterly free access to it (let's pretend censorship wasn't common for much of that period, for the sake of this argument).

Censorship wasn't very effective during that time period, because it was easy to find a printer who would take just about anyone's money. Europe printed 300,000 copies of Luther's tracts from 1518 to 1520.

Quote:

Just as a printing press could/can refuse to print something, why could an internet host not do the same?

The biggest difference is that you can find another printer, but not everyone has a choice on which internet host to use. Paper is universal, but Internet access isn't.

[zf78cxjdjhxgckebmnx389]

We all been doing this since I already know Ajit Pai gonna double cross.

http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/chatterbox/help-fight-for-net-neutrality/t.102765891/?_gaia_t_=3934

[zf78cxjdjhxgckebmnx389]

2 month ago assjit creampai lying to people and evade one question that he gonna get expose soon. Second of all, he a former Verizon worker since he been taking money from Verizon to repeal net neutrality.

https://youtu.be/0OydO9GyhVg

[Ghin - Aoiichi]

Dr_DarkReaperEvilstein

We all been doing this since I already know Ajit Pai gonna double cross.

http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/chatterbox/help-fight-for-net-neutrality/t.102765891/?_gaia_t_=3934

Can i add this to the OP ?