WaGuns.org

Guns4Liberty wrote:So, similar to Col_Temp's comment, what about consumers who want their data prioritized? Are they supposed to just accept that their data is to be treated the same as everyone else's, even if they're willing to pay a premium to have it prioritized?

Yes.

The point is that the internet should be something completely devoid of favoritism.

This thread is hilarious in the high amount of arguments devoid of any actual knowledge.

root wrote:

Guns4Liberty wrote:So, similar to Col_Temp's comment, what about consumers who want their data prioritized? Are they supposed to just accept that their data is to be treated the same as everyone else's, even if they're willing to pay a premium to have it prioritized?

Yes.

The point is that the internet should be something completely devoid of favoritism.

This thread is hilarious in the high amount of arguments devoid of any actual knowledge.

I was going more for an argument devoid of actual argument. But chock full of triggers.

root wrote:The point is that the internet should be something completely devoid of favoritism.

That's a romantic notion, but a bit idealistic, don't you think?

Guns4Liberty wrote:

root wrote:The point is that the internet should be something completely devoid of favoritism.

That's a romantic notion, but a bit idealistic, don't you think?

Idealistic isn't impossible.

It is how it works now. There is no reason that it can't be.

root wrote:

Guns4Liberty wrote:

root wrote:The point is that the internet should be something completely devoid of favoritism.

That's a romantic notion, but a bit idealistic, don't you think?

Idealistic isn't impossible.

It is how it works now. There is no reason that it can't be.

EXACTLY! We currently have an amazing system, and have had it for decades. It works GREAT! It's a utopia. Unfortunately there are groups hell-bent on destroying it. I'll call them Satan. Satan is pissed at this Utopia we have, or Heaven. He wants to control it for his own purposes.

Without Net Neutrality and these protections, you end up with the Great Firewall of China, where the government censors sites it doesn't like. We already have a problem with the Liberal Media. You want to make it worse, and destroy the Internet, the last refuge of conservative thought?

Without these protections, you end up with Russia, and their website blocking. Government censorship of ideas. You end up with the UK. Did you know the UK has a Porn Filter? You have to contact your ISP, and ask them to turn off the Porn Filter so you can surf porn. Is this what you want? http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-25430582

Soon they will block "violence" websites. Guess what WaGuns is? Guess what they will consider all conservative opinions? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_block ... m#Overview

Do you want a Utopia, like we have now? That works great? Or do you want to be more like China, North Korea, Russia, and the UK?

It absolutely blows my mind that ANYBODY besides the ISP's could be again Net Neutrality. I seriously thought BadKarma was being obtuse and trying to piss me off, trolling me, before I realized he was serious.

Snozz, with all due respect, your hyperbole-filled posts are not helping you make your case.

root wrote:

Guns4Liberty wrote:

root wrote:The point is that the internet should be something completely devoid of favoritism.

That's a romantic notion, but a bit idealistic, don't you think?

Idealistic isn't impossible.

It is how it works now. There is no reason that it can't be.

Yes, but a lot of things don't work the same way forever. I think it's a bit naive to think that the Internet will, especially given the fact that ISPs are for-profit entities. If they see an opportunity to change the business model to improve profitability and ROI for shareholders, they will (and generally should).

Personally, I loathe every ISP I've ever had the misfortune of giving my business. They're all expensive, have crappy customer service, and my options are so limited. The lack of competition is the real problem here. But I also think that there seems to be a sense of entitlement coming from the loudest advocates of net neutrality, as though they're entitled to the high speeds they currently enjoy, and how dare anyone reduce them or alter the service in any way.

I don't know what the Internet would look like without net neutrality, so I don't have a strong opinion one way or another right now. But I do believe that, as is often the case, the truth is probably somewhere in between the loudest advocates and opponents of it. It's a shame it's so difficult to have a discussion about it that isn't so emotionally-charged.

Big money wants a piece. They want a piece of everything that sells well.

OhShoot! wrote:Big money wants a piece. They want a piece of everything that sells well.

You're right. But Big Money is just Little Money that did things right and made it big. I don't see that as a legitimate reason to despise big corporations or the wealthy. It seems a rather anti-capitalist mindset.

I don't want a tax solution. To me now, "net neutrality" has just become a buzz phrase.

Guns4Liberty wrote:But I also think that there seems to be a sense of entitlement coming from the loudest advocates of net neutrality, as though they're entitled to the high speeds they currently enjoy, and how dare anyone reduce them or alter the service in any way.

It's not about an entitlement to high speeds. It's about the power of a corporation to throttle speeds of sites that they don't like. I'm a little flabbergasted that this issue, which seems to black and white to me, is being brushed off as "bah, kids and their entitlement".

Snozz may be speaking in hyperbole, but he's far from wrong. Do you really think sites like this one will be allowed to continue, once the ISPs have the ability to choke it to death?

A Null wrote:http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2017/07/a-net-neutrality-parable.html

I can't decide if this is written by somebody that is ignorant, or are they willfully misleading people about the facts.

Either way it's a load of horseshit and no way reflects the truth of the situation.

I dunno...I think I'd rather have a company screw me more so than the government screw me. Seems that letting an unelected body who is beholden to nobody, the FCC, call the shots isn't a very good idea.

At least with a company, there is the chance of having a choice in the matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

edogg wrote:I dunno...I think I'd rather have a company screw me more so than the government screw me. Seems that letting an unelected body who is beholden to nobody, the FCC, call the shots isn't a very good idea.

At least with a company, there is the chance of having a choice in the matter.

And with the gov you are butthumped for life.

No thanks.

Pablo wrote:

edogg wrote:I dunno...I think I'd rather have a company screw me more so than the government screw me. Seems that letting an unelected body who is beholden to nobody, the FCC, call the shots isn't a very good idea.

At least with a company, there is the chance of having a choice in the matter.

And with the gov you are butthumped for life.

No thanks.

Yeah fuck the government and their laws. The 1st, 2nd, 4th amendments are all horrible things. The last thing we want to do is include Net Neutrality in there.

I put Net Neutrality on the same level as the 2nd Amendment. It's not a bad law, it's a good law that protects us. The fact ANYBODY is against it blows my mind.