U.S. Politics episode 4: A New Thread

1353638404143

Comments

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • tom_g said:
    Regarding the Net Neutrality changes - My home internet provider is Comcast - If they do not like my political posts on forums.baldmove.com, can they cut off m
    No they’re not. 

    How many forums have existed since the beginning of the internet? In fact the only political censorship on the internet has been imposed by ADVOCATES of net neutrality, not the other way around 
    Examples, please
    100% he's gonna talk about the white nationalist boards getting shut down on reddit and the white nationalist sites getting booted from hosting companies. 
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    asmallcat said:
    tom_g said:
    Regarding the Net Neutrality changes - My home internet provider is Comcast - If they do not like my political posts on forums.baldmove.com, can they cut off m
    No they’re not. 

    How many forums have existed since the beginning of the internet? In fact the only political censorship on the internet has been imposed by ADVOCATES of net neutrality, not the other way around 
    Examples, please
    100% he's gonna talk about the white nationalist boards getting shut down on reddit and the white nationalist sites getting booted from hosting companies. 
    Among other things, but they’re not the only example. YouTube for example has been demonetizing popular firearm related channels from getting ad revenue that other channels with similar viewership. PragerU (a online series of video lectures by conservative intellectuals organized by Dennis Prager) alleges it was subject to censorship 


  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • asmallcat said:
    tom_g said:
    Regarding the Net Neutrality changes - My home internet provider is Comcast - If they do not like my political posts on forums.baldmove.com, can they cut off m
    No they’re not. 

    How many forums have existed since the beginning of the internet? In fact the only political censorship on the internet has been imposed by ADVOCATES of net neutrality, not the other way around 
    Examples, please
    100% he's gonna talk about the white nationalist boards getting shut down on reddit and the white nationalist sites getting booted from hosting companies. 
    Among other things, but they’re not the only example. YouTube for example has been demonetizing popular firearm related channels from getting ad revenue that other channels with similar viewership. PragerU (a online series of video lectures by conservative intellectuals organized by Dennis Prager) alleges it was subject to censorship 


    Ah, notorious internet service provider Youtube. This is clearly related to net neutrality.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Yeah, i mean @emnofseattle you always seem to be trying to reframe this intoa censorship argument, but repealing net neutrality is only marginally a censorship issue. I suppose if the management at Comcast wanted to suppress speech about issues that affect them, they might under these new rules. But it's more about monetizing information streams and prioritizing corporate profits over the needs of consumers.
    yeah, this kinda started as a joke about Comcast, but, that is not the greatest risk
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • pavlovsbellpavlovsbell Brooklyn, NY
    edited December 2017
    If you want to talk censorship, how about this:

    Quoted from WaPo:

    Trump administration officials are forbidding officials at the nation’s top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases — including “fetus” and “transgender” — in any official documents being prepared for next year’s budget.

    Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden words at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden words are: “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”

    In some instances, the analysts were given alternative phrases. Instead of “science-based” or “evidence-based,” the suggested phrase is “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes,” the person said. In other cases, no replacement words were immediately offered.

    **********

    Hello, 1984.

    More here: "CDC gets list of forbidden words: fetus, transgender, diversity"


    Gan
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Oh, censorship is definitely a part of the Trump administration.  But the net neutrality thing is not just about or even primarily about censorship. 
    A possible irony is that right-wingers who support this - and there aren't many, 83% of all Americans are in favour of NN - might be the ones who suffer the most in terms of censorship.  If the corporate-practices policies of companies like Comcast, Time-Warner etc get applied to the internet it's the far-right websites that are most likely to be targeted.

    Brawn
  • aberry89aberry89 California
    edited December 2017
    I know everyone has seen this by now, probably already posted on this thread...but goooooooood damn. This is hilarious, and fucking depressing and amazing.   The stare....open mouthed blink...blink.   YOU'RE A GODDAMN COEN'S BROTHERS CHARACTER MAN!!!


    CretanBullFlukesJaimieTPhoebes89
  • CretanBullCretanBull Toronto
    edited December 2017
    I have a prediction about why Trump (now) supports getting rid of net neutrality....



    Phoebes89
  • Just a reminder that while maybe things don't change at the pace we'd like, things do change (although sometimes at a stunningly high price).  Also a reminder of how fucked up the alt right's thinking and some people's sympathy for it is--how important it is to some people poisoned with this pointless hateful rage.  This wasn't that long ago, not long before my older sister's birth, and not too far away:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/12/15/a-white-mother-went-to-alabama-to-fight-for-civil-rights-the-klan-killed-her-for-it/?utm_term=.3c8de03acad2
    Phoebes89
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    edited December 2017
    tom_g said:
    Yeah, i mean @emnofseattle you always seem to be trying to reframe this intoa censorship argument, but repealing net neutrality is only marginally a censorship issue. I suppose if the management at Comcast wanted to suppress speech about issues that affect them, they might under these new rules. But it's more about monetizing information streams and prioritizing corporate profits over the needs of consumers.
    yeah, this kinda started as a joke about Comcast, but, that is not the greatest risk
    He's been framing it as a discussion about censorship, and then dismissing it, since long before your joke, though.
    I haven't been framing it as a discussion about censorship, many proponents purposefully use language to frame net neutrality, in fact the very term net neutrality is using the language to frame it that way. It is part of the pitch. 

    like the argument that ISPs will "control what you see by throttling internet speed" 

    It took me literally less then 20 seconds to find a website advocating for net neutrality making that very argument

    https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now

    As far as your other argument, yes corporations prioritize profits, what's the problem? you need to make profits to get investment and keep your workers payed and services running. as well as funding future expansion. profits can only be made by keeping consumers buying your product, so if you're making profit then the needs of the consumers are being met. 

    I think there's a lot of people in this discussion (by discussion I mean the debate over net neutrality in general, not this specific thread) who's starting position is that companies do not deserve to make any profit and should just supply the services for free. probably while paying 90% taxes and paying the janitor 90 thousand a year because everyone deserves a living wage or something. No one wants to argue rights of the company that put forward the money to even supply the service to start with. It's like back in the 1870s to 1900 when there was a huge, and thankfully failed, push to socialize the railroad network over freight rates. I mean no one today is arguing for "railroad neutrality" where BNSF has to allow Amtrak and the Sounder Commuter train and Canada Pacific to use their tracks and BNSF can't schedule their trains with priority over a competitors train. 
  • tom_g said:
    Yeah, i mean @emnofseattle you always seem to be trying to reframe this intoa censorship argument, but repealing net neutrality is only marginally a censorship issue. I suppose if the management at Comcast wanted to suppress speech about issues that affect them, they might under these new rules. But it's more about monetizing information streams and prioritizing corporate profits over the needs of consumers.
    yeah, this kinda started as a joke about Comcast, but, that is not the greatest risk
    He's been framing it as a discussion about censorship, and then dismissing it, since long before your joke, though.

    I think there's a lot of people in this discussion (by discussion I mean the debate over net neutrality in general, not this specific thread) who's starting position is that companies do not deserve to make any profit and should just supply the services for free. probably while paying 90% taxes and paying the janitor 90 thousand a year because everyone deserves a living wage or something.
    I doubt that there's even one person here who thinks that.
    gguenotBrawnPhoebes89April_May_June
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    tom_g said:
    Yeah, i mean @emnofseattle you always seem to be trying to reframe this intoa censorship argument, but repealing net neutrality is only marginally a censorship issue. I suppose if the management at Comcast wanted to suppress speech about issues that affect them, they might under these new rules. But it's more about monetizing information streams and prioritizing corporate profits over the needs of consumers.
    yeah, this kinda started as a joke about Comcast, but, that is not the greatest risk
    He's been framing it as a discussion about censorship, and then dismissing it, since long before your joke, though.

    I think there's a lot of people in this discussion (by discussion I mean the debate over net neutrality in general, not this specific thread) who's starting position is that companies do not deserve to make any profit and should just supply the services for free. probably while paying 90% taxes and paying the janitor 90 thousand a year because everyone deserves a living wage or something.
    I doubt that there's even one person here who thinks that.
    It's hard to know what people truly think though, because most people who argue for regulation and taxation are so open ended and won't answer basic questions. "corporations should pay higher taxes" well how high? never get a straight answer. You know when people are most honest? is when they're on the spot. And I was watching local news coverage of a rally against the rollback of net neutrality, and the reporter put a microphone in some woman's face and asked her what she thought and her answer was "well the ISPs think they have the right to collect profit on me accessing a public good" I mean so is it that wrong to say that support for net neutrality comes from a position of companies don't inherently have a right to make money when a supporter outright said so on the news? Obviously that's not everybody's position, but I do think many people who are for government regulation have that attitude. I mean I've never convinced a liberal that a regulation shouldn't exist by arguing economics of the regulation. 

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    I actually do believe that things like telephone and internet service would be better suited as a non-profit public utility than a profit-making venture for a corporation. Call me crazy. 
    What, like a PUD or an actual non profit private corporation? 


  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • DeeDee Adelaide
    I actually do believe that things like telephone and internet service would be better suited as a non-profit public utility than a profit-making venture for a corporation. Call me crazy. 
    Yes, me too. I don’t know about US, but utilities used to be government owned here and then in the 80s there was a big sell off to privatise them. We have been paying through the nose ever since. I don’t have an issue with paying for them, but I do have an issue with them being for profit. Guess I’m crazy too! 
    NoobieDooz
  • tom_g said:
    Yeah, i mean @emnofseattle you always seem to be trying to reframe this intoa censorship argument, but repealing net neutrality is only marginally a censorship issue. I suppose if the management at Comcast wanted to suppress speech about issues that affect them, they might under these new rules. But it's more about monetizing information streams and prioritizing corporate profits over the needs of consumers.
    yeah, this kinda started as a joke about Comcast, but, that is not the greatest risk
    He's been framing it as a discussion about censorship, and then dismissing it, since long before your joke, though.

    I think there's a lot of people in this discussion (by discussion I mean the debate over net neutrality in general, not this specific thread) who's starting position is that companies do not deserve to make any profit and should just supply the services for free. probably while paying 90% taxes and paying the janitor 90 thousand a year because everyone deserves a living wage or something.
    I doubt that there's even one person here who thinks that.
    It's hard to know what people truly think though, because most people who argue for regulation and taxation are so open ended and won't answer basic questions. "corporations should pay higher taxes" well how high? never get a straight answer. You know when people are most honest? is when they're on the spot. And I was watching local news coverage of a rally against the rollback of net neutrality, and the reporter put a microphone in some woman's face and asked her what she thought and her answer was "well the ISPs think they have the right to collect profit on me accessing a public good" I mean so is it that wrong to say that support for net neutrality comes from a position of companies don't inherently have a right to make money when a supporter outright said so on the news? Obviously that's not everybody's position, but I do think many people who are for government regulation have that attitude. I mean I've never convinced a liberal that a regulation shouldn't exist by arguing economics of the regulation. 

    I actually misread your original post.  Having said that, a few nuts don't dictate the general will of the people.  Net Neutrality was polling at 83%, it's not a partisan issue and there are a whole host of reasons for wanting it.

    This is an impossible question to answer, but I think that "most" people are ok with these companies making profits...what they object to is their never-ending quest to gouge their clients.  Most people are willing to pay for a service...they also get fed up when they feel like they're getting taken advantage of.  The inevitable conclusion to eliminating net neutrality higher bills or lesser service for internet users.
    NoobieDoozBrawn
  • Dee said:
    I actually do believe that things like telephone and internet service would be better suited as a non-profit public utility than a profit-making venture for a corporation. Call me crazy. 
    Yes, me too. I don’t know about US, but utilities used to be government owned here and then in the 80s there was a big sell off to privatise them. We have been paying through the nose ever since. I don’t have an issue with paying for them, but I do have an issue with them being for profit. Guess I’m crazy too! 
    We've gone through that in some sectors, and are still going through it now in others - electric power being the #1 sell-off right now.  We used to have all kinds of Crown corporations (government/publicly owned) but many of them have been dismantled and privatized over the last 30 years or so.
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    edited December 2017
    I actually do believe that things like telephone and internet service would be better suited as a non-profit public utility than a profit-making venture for a corporation. Call me crazy. 
    What, like a PUD or an actual non profit private corporation? 
    Either one, I suppose. 
    I'm on a PUD for my power, Mason PUD 3, and I would far rather just have PSE take over our power and disband the PUD. the PUD really isn't a great deal. first off all of the consumer protection regulations don't apply to PUDs. and they're not really cheaper. 

    example, our private utility in the NW, Puget Sound Energy has an average rate of $00.107 per KwH, the average household in Washington state uses 1037 KwH per month. that's 103 dollars abouts. 

    Mason PUD 3 charges $0.07 per KwH which is 74.66 dollars per month, plus a 10 a month green energy charge so 84.66 a month. Now according to the Mason County Assessors office my property parcel is assessed 248 dollars a year in property taxes to Mason PUD 3. divide by 12, is 20.66+84.66 equals 105.32

    So actually pure mathematics, government utilities do not actually protect the consumer or give them a better deal that I can see. 

    And I know we're not discussing electricity per se, but electricity is the best example because in our area we have a private supplier that borders public suppliers and it's easy to compare rates. I see no reason having the state or a utility district or whatever assume control of internet utilities will result in a better deal. 

    And the reason for public utilities was not to protect the consumer or to offer lower rates. the original purpose of the PUD (at least here in Washington) was to use taxes to raise capital to construct power infrastructure in markets that would not otherwise be profitable to wire by a private company and they continue to exist on inertia, not because they genuinely offer a better deal. 
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    edited December 2017
    tom_g said:
    Yeah, i mean @emnofseattle you always seem to be trying to reframe this intoa censorship argument, but repealing net neutrality is only marginally a censorship issue. I suppose if the management at Comcast wanted to suppress speech about issues that affect them, they might under these new rules. But it's more about monetizing information streams and prioritizing corporate profits over the needs of consumers.
    yeah, this kinda started as a joke about Comcast, but, that is not the greatest risk
    He's been framing it as a discussion about censorship, and then dismissing it, since long before your joke, though.

    I think there's a lot of people in this discussion (by discussion I mean the debate over net neutrality in general, not this specific thread) who's starting position is that companies do not deserve to make any profit and should just supply the services for free. probably while paying 90% taxes and paying the janitor 90 thousand a year because everyone deserves a living wage or something.
    I doubt that there's even one person here who thinks that.
    It's hard to know what people truly think though, because most people who argue for regulation and taxation are so open ended and won't answer basic questions. "corporations should pay higher taxes" well how high? never get a straight answer. You know when people are most honest? is when they're on the spot. And I was watching local news coverage of a rally against the rollback of net neutrality, and the reporter put a microphone in some woman's face and asked her what she thought and her answer was "well the ISPs think they have the right to collect profit on me accessing a public good" I mean so is it that wrong to say that support for net neutrality comes from a position of companies don't inherently have a right to make money when a supporter outright said so on the news? Obviously that's not everybody's position, but I do think many people who are for government regulation have that attitude. I mean I've never convinced a liberal that a regulation shouldn't exist by arguing economics of the regulation. 

    I actually misread your original post.  Having said that, a few nuts don't dictate the general will of the people.  Net Neutrality was polling at 83%, it's not a partisan issue and there are a whole host of reasons for wanting it.

    This is an impossible question to answer, but I think that "most" people are ok with these companies making profits...what they object to is their never-ending quest to gouge their clients.  Most people are willing to pay for a service...they also get fed up when they feel like they're getting taken advantage of.  The inevitable conclusion to eliminating net neutrality higher bills or lesser service for internet users.
    Well then that becomes a matter of opinion what is "gouging" I don't consider gouging to be possible in a free economy, if you charge too much for a service people won't buy it and you won't make money selling it. I don't have an issue with ISPs who have high labor and regulatory costs selling me access to the infrastructure they maintain. 

    Remember the 1970s? when there was the gas shocks the government instituted price controls and there were some pushing for fuel to be regulated like utilities. what occured was fuel shortages and long lines. 

    so the price controls were eliminated. lets go back to 2012, we had a massive shortage on the West Coast of the US because frickin' California requires a special blend of gasoline and so all of the west coast refineries make only the Cali gas and we have seperate market. well there was a massive oil refinery fire in California and prices shot up, I mean like I was paying 4.35 a gallon ($1.15/liter) and my friend attending college in Idaho was paying 2.95 per gallon (78¢ per 
    liter) but it was always available on demand when I wanted it. versus empty stations and long lines. 

    In the case of net neutrality (which is a form of price fixing), the inability to charge the market rate for internet service will result in long term declines in investment in infrastructure. and people claim that "well that hasn't happened" these construction projects often take over a year just to get permits for, so yes two years of net neutrality didn't decrease investment, look out 5-10 years of NN and that would be a different story. 
  • I’m sure you’ve got loads of statistics and legal explanations to tell me why I’m wrong, but saying price gouging can’t exist in a free market sounds ridiculous to me. There are lots of services that are necessary to modern life and getting ahead in the world that people feel compelled to pay even if they can’t afford it. And the privatization of these servers, especially when there’s little to no competition severely impacts the quality of peoples’ lives. And they don’t have a choice or a platform to demand lower prices and they can’t just stop using these services either. I’m not saying they should be free. I just don’t buy your “price-gouging” doesn’t exist premise.
    Brawn
  • Go back and look at the conversations around the time of the 2017 hurricanes. If I remember correctly, according to some here, price gouging (water in particular ) was the fault of the buyers.
This discussion has been closed.