micromanaging the internet

[Billy_Kinetta]

We didn't have net neutrality 2 years ago.

What did we fix with that act again? I don't recall any of this being an issue. More like a solution looking for a problem.

No Net Neutrality, no voice in politics.

Was there no voice in politics prior to NN?

Very little.
As an example, posting to sites on the issues of H1-Bs, Off-Shoring and Illegals was virtually impossible to do when entire anti-Corporate Threads were being deleted left and right.
Trump would never have won without NN as ISPs would have selectively killed the ability to post.

I've been posting to political forums such as this since 1998. Never had a bit of a problem.

And I bet you never posted anything to do with those topics.
I have been on numerous forums since 1998 and those topics were always deleted until a scant few years ago.

I have posted on an infinite variety of issues, including those. Nothing was deleted. Ever.

 

[Indeependent]

No Net Neutrality, no voice in politics.

Was there no voice in politics prior to NN?

Very little.
As an example, posting to sites on the issues of H1-Bs, Off-Shoring and Illegals was virtually impossible to do when entire anti-Corporate Threads were being deleted left and right.
Trump would never have won without NN as ISPs would have selectively killed the ability to post.

I've been posting to political forums such as this since 1998. Never had a bit of a problem.

And I bet you never posted anything to do with those topics.
I have been on numerous forums since 1998 and those topics were always deleted until a scant few years ago.

I have posted on an infinite variety of issues, including those. Nothing was deleted.

Name the forums so I have a basis upon which to judge the veracity of your claims.
I hate to say this but I don't believe you.
Dice was the only forum I found in the late 2000s to a few years ago that even had threads on those issues because
I used to search all the time
for those suffering from corporate government corruption.
Dice was eventually bought by an Indian firm and deleted any and all H1-B postings.

Please provide the names of those forums to give me some basis in your view of reality.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Was there no voice in politics prior to NN?

Very little.
As an example, posting to sites on the issues of H1-Bs, Off-Shoring and Illegals was virtually impossible to do when entire anti-Corporate Threads were being deleted left and right.
Trump would never have won without NN as ISPs would have selectively killed the ability to post.

I've been posting to political forums such as this since 1998. Never had a bit of a problem.

And I bet you never posted anything to do with those topics.
I have been on numerous forums since 1998 and those topics were always deleted until a scant few years ago.

I have posted on an infinite variety of issues, including those. Nothing was deleted.

Name the forums so I have a basis upon which to judge the veracity of your claims.
I hate to say this but I don't believe you.
Dice was the only forum I found in the late 2000s to a few years ago that even had threads on those issues because
I used to search all the time
for those suffering from corporate government corruption.
Dice was eventually bought by an Indian firm and deleted any and all H1-B postings.

Please provide the names of those forums to give me some basis in your view of reality.

They are all defunct. That's why I'm here.

One was the old Yahoo "Presidential Election 2000" board. There are some former members here.

Whether you believe me or not is of no consequence.

 

[Indeependent]

Very little.
As an example, posting to sites on the issues of H1-Bs, Off-Shoring and Illegals was virtually impossible to do when entire anti-Corporate Threads were being deleted left and right.
Trump would never have won without NN as ISPs would have selectively killed the ability to post.

I've been posting to political forums such as this since 1998. Never had a bit of a problem.

And I bet you never posted anything to do with those topics.
I have been on numerous forums since 1998 and those topics were always deleted until a scant few years ago.

I have posted on an infinite variety of issues, including those. Nothing was deleted.

Name the forums so I have a basis upon which to judge the veracity of your claims.
I hate to say this but I don't believe you.
Dice was the only forum I found in the late 2000s to a few years ago that even had threads on those issues because
I used to search all the time
for those suffering from corporate government corruption.
Dice was eventually bought by an Indian firm and deleted any and all H1-B postings.

Please provide the names of those forums to give me some basis in your view of reality.

They are all defunct. That's why I'm here.

One was the old Yahoo "Presidential Election 2000" board. There are many former members here.

Whether you believe me or not is of no consequence.

It is of great consequence when all the search engines in the world could find not one thread concerning H1-Bs, Off-Shoring and Illegals.
I don't have a knee jerk ideology; I deal with reality.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I've been posting to political forums such as this since 1998. Never had a bit of a problem.

And I bet you never posted anything to do with those topics.
I have been on numerous forums since 1998 and those topics were always deleted until a scant few years ago.

I have posted on an infinite variety of issues, including those. Nothing was deleted.

Name the forums so I have a basis upon which to judge the veracity of your claims.
I hate to say this but I don't believe you.
Dice was the only forum I found in the late 2000s to a few years ago that even had threads on those issues because
I used to search all the time
for those suffering from corporate government corruption.
Dice was eventually bought by an Indian firm and deleted any and all H1-B postings.

Please provide the names of those forums to give me some basis in your view of reality.

They are all defunct. That's why I'm here.

One was the old Yahoo "Presidential Election 2000" board. There are many former members here.

Whether you believe me or not is of no consequence.

It is of great consequence when all the search engines in the world could find not one thread concerning H1-Bs, Off-Shoring and Illegals.
I don't have a knee jerk ideology; I deal with reality.

Well, you may live in a separate reality.

 

[Indeependent]

And I bet you never posted anything to do with those topics.
I have been on numerous forums since 1998 and those topics were always deleted until a scant few years ago.

I have posted on an infinite variety of issues, including those. Nothing was deleted.

Name the forums so I have a basis upon which to judge the veracity of your claims.
I hate to say this but I don't believe you.
Dice was the only forum I found in the late 2000s to a few years ago that even had threads on those issues because
I used to search all the time
for those suffering from corporate government corruption.
Dice was eventually bought by an Indian firm and deleted any and all H1-B postings.

Please provide the names of those forums to give me some basis in your view of reality.

They are all defunct. That's why I'm here.

One was the old Yahoo "Presidential Election 2000" board. There are many former members here.

Whether you believe me or not is of no consequence.

It is of great consequence when all the search engines in the world could find not one thread concerning H1-Bs, Off-Shoring and Illegals.
I don't have a knee jerk ideology; I deal with reality.

Well, you may live in a separate reality.

I don't; I was bringing these issues up as early as post 9/11 and it took the 2008 crash for people to stop ridiculing me.
Everybody was making money in the market and so lived in their own reality.

 

[jillian]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

I don't know, to be honest both options sound like they suck.

But given that the protesters of the law look like this:

I take my bet on the new law being at least better. The leftists will be made to look like fools when none of the disasters will come to pass, which is always a nice bonus.

why would it suck to have the speed of information be the same regardless of content?

 

[Indeependent]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

I don't know, to be honest both options sound like they suck.

But given that the protesters of the law look like this:

I take my bet on the new law being at least better. The leftists will be made to look like fools when none of the disasters will come to pass, which is always a nice bonus.

why would it suck to have the speed of information be the same regardless of content?

Just invest in those corps you think will make money and everything will be fine.
Presuming you have enough money to invest.

 

[jillian]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

I don't know, to be honest both options sound like they suck.

But given that the protesters of the law look like this:

I take my bet on the new law being at least better. The leftists will be made to look like fools when none of the disasters will come to pass, which is always a nice bonus.

why would it suck to have the speed of information be the same regardless of content?

Just invest in those corps you think will make money and everything will be fine.
Presuming you have enough money to invest.

why would you think I wouldn't have enough money to invest? I just care about more than my bank book.

but that isn't the point, is it? it's about allowing this orange loon in the White House to control our information flow.

I'm pretty sure that's dangerous.

 

[Norman]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

I don't know, to be honest both options sound like they suck.

But given that the protesters of the law look like this:

I take my bet on the new law being at least better. The leftists will be made to look like fools when none of the disasters will come to pass, which is always a nice bonus.

why would it suck to have the speed of information be the same regardless of content?

Just invest in those corps you think will make money and everything will be fine.
Presuming you have enough money to invest.

why would you think I wouldn't have enough money to invest?

but that isn't the point, is it? it's about allowing this orange loon in the White House to control our information flow.

I'm pretty sure that's dangerous.

Yeah because the leftist media isn't at all trying to control information flow. Even if the information is completely false.

"Orange loon", where did you learn that racist slur? CNN?

 

[eddiew37]

Was there no voice in politics prior to NN?

Very little.
As an example, posting to sites on the issues of H1-Bs, Off-Shoring and Illegals was virtually impossible to do when entire anti-Corporate Threads were being deleted left and right.
Trump would never have won without NN as ISPs would have selectively killed the ability to post.

I've been posting to political forums such as this since 1998. Never had a bit of a problem.

And I bet you never posted anything to do with those topics.
I have been on numerous forums since 1998 and those topics were always deleted until a scant few years ago.

I have posted on an infinite variety of issues, including those. Nothing was deleted.

Name the forums so I have a basis upon which to judge the veracity of your claims.
I hate to say this but I don't believe you.
Dice was the only forum I found in the late 2000s to a few years ago that even had threads on those issues because
I used to search all the time
for those suffering from corporate government corruption.
Dice was eventually bought by an Indian firm and deleted any and all H1-B postings.

Please provide the names of those forums to give me some basis in your view of reality.

I posted with Billy and others here for many years maybe 14 or 15 on the presidential board 2000 which btw is sill in use by a small group We were and still are on opposite sides

 

[jillian]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

I don't know, to be honest both options sound like they suck.

But given that the protesters of the law look like this:

I take my bet on the new law being at least better. The leftists will be made to look like fools when none of the disasters will come to pass, which is always a nice bonus.

why would it suck to have the speed of information be the same regardless of content?

Just invest in those corps you think will make money and everything will be fine.
Presuming you have enough money to invest.

why would you think I wouldn't have enough money to invest?

but that isn't the point, is it? it's about allowing this orange loon in the White House to control our information flow.

I'm pretty sure that's dangerous.

Yeah because the leftist media isn't at all trying to control information flow. Even if the information is completely false.

"Orange loon", where did you learn that racist slur? CNN?

that's why you need net nutrality, dum dum.... so no one controls the flow of information.

I find it bizarre that this simple concept confuses you.

 

[Indeependent]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

I don't know, to be honest both options sound like they suck.

But given that the protesters of the law look like this:

I take my bet on the new law being at least better. The leftists will be made to look like fools when none of the disasters will come to pass, which is always a nice bonus.

why would it suck to have the speed of information be the same regardless of content?

Just invest in those corps you think will make money and everything will be fine.
Presuming you have enough money to invest.

why would you think I wouldn't have enough money to invest? I just care about more than my bank book.

but that isn't the point, is it? it's about allowing this orange loon in the White House to control our information flow.

I'm pretty sure that's dangerous.

This is a bad move; the only time corporations lie is when they say something.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

I don't know, to be honest both options sound like they suck.

But given that the protesters of the law look like this:

I take my bet on the new law being at least better. The leftists will be made to look like fools when none of the disasters will come to pass, which is always a nice bonus.

why would it suck to have the speed of information be the same regardless of content?

Just invest in those corps you think will make money and everything will be fine.
Presuming you have enough money to invest.

If you don't, tough. That is the way of the world.

 

[jillian]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

I don't know, to be honest both options sound like they suck.

But given that the protesters of the law look like this:

I take my bet on the new law being at least better. The leftists will be made to look like fools when none of the disasters will come to pass, which is always a nice bonus.

why would it suck to have the speed of information be the same regardless of content?

Just invest in those corps you think will make money and everything will be fine.
Presuming you have enough money to invest.

why would you think I wouldn't have enough money to invest? I just care about more than my bank book.

but that isn't the point, is it? it's about allowing this orange loon in the White House to control our information flow.

I'm pretty sure that's dangerous.

This is a bad move; the only time corporations lie is when they say something.

it is. the good news is we can change it when the loons in power are ditched.

 

[Indeependent]

Very little.
As an example, posting to sites on the issues of H1-Bs, Off-Shoring and Illegals was virtually impossible to do when entire anti-Corporate Threads were being deleted left and right.
Trump would never have won without NN as ISPs would have selectively killed the ability to post.

I've been posting to political forums such as this since 1998. Never had a bit of a problem.

And I bet you never posted anything to do with those topics.
I have been on numerous forums since 1998 and those topics were always deleted until a scant few years ago.

I have posted on an infinite variety of issues, including those. Nothing was deleted.

Name the forums so I have a basis upon which to judge the veracity of your claims.
I hate to say this but I don't believe you.
Dice was the only forum I found in the late 2000s to a few years ago that even had threads on those issues because
I used to search all the time
for those suffering from corporate government corruption.
Dice was eventually bought by an Indian firm and deleted any and all H1-B postings.

Please provide the names of those forums to give me some basis in your view of reality.

I posted with Billy and others here for many years maybe 14 or 15 on the presidential board 2000 which btw is sill in use by a small group We were and still are on opposite sides

The issue is whether or not all 3 of these issues were discussed.
It took me years to find an H1-B thread.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

We didn't have net neutrality 2 years ago.

What did we fix with that act again? I don't recall any of this being an issue. More like a solution looking for a problem.

No Net Neutrality, no voice in politics.

Was there no voice in politics prior to NN?

Very little.
As an example, posting to sites on the issues of H1-Bs, Off-Shoring and Illegals was virtually impossible to do when entire anti-Corporate Threads were being deleted left and right.
Trump would never have won without NN as ISPs would have selectively killed the ability to post.

I've been posting to political forums such as this since 1997. Never had even an inkling of a problem.

We go 'way back, eh ed?

 

[jillian]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

I don't know, to be honest both options sound like they suck.

But given that the protesters of the law look like this:

I take my bet on the new law being at least better. The leftists will be made to look like fools when none of the disasters will come to pass, which is always a nice bonus.

why would it suck to have the speed of information be the same regardless of content?

Just invest in those corps you think will make money and everything will be fine.
Presuming you have enough money to invest.

If you don't, tough. That is the way of the world.

right... screw everyone except kleptocrats

 

[Norman]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

I don't know, to be honest both options sound like they suck.

But given that the protesters of the law look like this:

I take my bet on the new law being at least better. The leftists will be made to look like fools when none of the disasters will come to pass, which is always a nice bonus.

why would it suck to have the speed of information be the same regardless of content?

Just invest in those corps you think will make money and everything will be fine.
Presuming you have enough money to invest.

If you don't, tough. That is the way of the world.

right... screw everyone except kleptocrats

Yes, because for the average guy, it's beyond possible to save some money on one of the richest nations on this world.

Yet he seems to have enough money to get very fat...

 

[Indeependent]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

I don't know, to be honest both options sound like they suck.

But given that the protesters of the law look like this:

I take my bet on the new law being at least better. The leftists will be made to look like fools when none of the disasters will come to pass, which is always a nice bonus.

why would it suck to have the speed of information be the same regardless of content?

Just invest in those corps you think will make money and everything will be fine.
Presuming you have enough money to invest.

If you don't, tough. That is the way of the world.

You mean like when Reagan passed legislation allowing Chinese and Japanese business visas to replace Blacks on Wall Street in the early 80s?
You know, eliminating quotas.
That worked out well since now Blacks want "handouts" because they can't get jobs.