Messages

46

Off Topic / Re: [NEWS] Senate votes to save Net Neutrality

« on: May 16, 2018, 07:37:44 PM »

thank heavens

thank hells

47

Off Topic / Re: [NEWS] Senate votes to save Net Neutrality

« on: May 16, 2018, 07:32:53 PM »

do i need to support a position? are you that simple that i need to favor or oppose net neutrality here? i was citing something most people get wrong when they read this stuff. nothing else. i can see why people like you are being made fun of

Alright, fair point. Arguing for the sake of arguing usually comes off as trolling, that's all.

48

Off Topic / Re: [NEWS] Senate votes to save Net Neutrality

« on: May 16, 2018, 07:28:54 PM »

no. i haven't favored anything and i still don't favor anything and the post doesn't favor anything (because it literally claims to be an actual explanation against not on misinformation but on misdirections, i'd love to see where FJ has favored this stuff

So what's even the purpose of arguing if you don't actually support any positions?

yep, and arguably, you choose to get behind it or move on from it

The validity of a movement's goals has nothing to do with the member's characteristics. Even if 99% of pro-NN activists were completely incompetent, that would have no direct bearing on whether they're right or not. Of course, a movement of incompetent people are unlikely to pick competent policies to advocate, but sometimes it happens. Even if a lot of the pro-NN movement is caused by fearmongering, they're still right.

a free marketplace can't be monopolized in the first place

Um. Yes? They can be?

49

Off Topic / Re: [NEWS] Senate votes to save Net Neutrality

« on: May 16, 2018, 07:19:12 PM »

the first regulation in human history to actually do so

Are you serious? Have you ever heard of anti-monopoly legislation or trust-busting? Free and open markets require regulations to keep them free and open.

50

Off Topic / Re: [NEWS] Senate votes to save Net Neutrality

« on: May 16, 2018, 07:17:16 PM »

yes, exactly, and if you think i'm saying everyone does it solely for the sake of fearmongering, you're also clearly wrong, i don't know why you've assumed that from the start. i simply was citing that it's actually very different than the dumb fearmongering going on as i see not just on the forum but everywhere else

but on the side where people will have mental breakdowns and amplify this type of fearmongering, i see it very commonly (i surf more than the forums, what a surprise!)

not every person hates the repeal because their reasons come from fearmongering alone, but there are simpletons who will clearly dramatize such things like i've seen long ago when this subject started (despite any rightie trolls or leftie trolls btw)

Alright, so obviously some people have been fearmongered into opposing NN repeal, but that isn't really an argument in favor of repealing it. It just means that there are idiots out there. What a surprise! There are idiots everywhere. Also, you may have missed this edit:

EDIT: You, the FJ post, or pro-NN campaigners may also be conflating NN repeal with a different piece of legislation, which removed restrictions requiring that ISPs get your explicit permission before selling data. This is a privacy concern, as it can lead to an increase in targeted ads and aggregate data collection. However, the FJ post is correct in that selling individually identifiable data is still illegal.

Personally, I find targeted advertising to be distasteful and a violation of my privacy, though I recognize that at this point it's very common.

why do you people apply "conspiracy theory-style" or "conspiracy theory" to everything that sounds extremely odd to you?

Because it's exactly that - it starts accusing the mainstream media of intentionally twisting facts. It's a theory that posits a group of people (conspirators, in this case the "MSM") of secretly plotting against the public (a conspiracy of twisting the facts). It is, quite literally, a conspiracy theory.

51

Off Topic / Re: [NEWS] Senate votes to save Net Neutrality

« on: May 16, 2018, 07:06:21 PM »

this is like a body of text that's trying to lure you into one subject and the other, it's not some stuffty simple article you see on the news

but sure, keep on making fun of me for my reading pace

i so beg to differ from what i've seen

Alright, what are you trying to lure me into saying here? That NN repeal doesn't threaten your privacy? Because you're right, it doesn't. And people who oppose NN for that reason and that reason alone aren't informed about the issue. But that doesn't mean everyone opposed to NN repeal is just fearmongering, which seems to be what you're getting at, because they are much better reasons to oppose it.

EDIT: You, or the FJ post, may also be conflating NN repeal with a different piece of legislation, which removed restrictions requiring that ISPs get your explicit permission before selling data. This is a privacy concern, as it can lead to an increase in targeted ads and aggregate data collection. However, the FJ post is correct in that selling individually identifiable data is still illegal.

52

Off Topic / Re: [NEWS] Senate votes to save Net Neutrality

« on: May 16, 2018, 07:01:59 PM »

so something very similar to the subject of "privacy" and your internet privacy being sold by ISPs, gotcha

Uh... no? You're accusing me of being unable to read, but you seem to think that "consumer privacy" and "fair marketplaces" are the same thing.

i'm not going to continue this if you're going to blatantly dismiss the website and what it's talking about, especially if you're posting way too fast and not even reading the article thoroughly. construct an actual argument when you're done reading or i'm just going to go ahead and realize most of the people here are just unable to read before judging

I'm sorry that you have to read so slowly that it takes you more than a minute or so to read through a forum reply before responding to it. In any case, I did actually read the post you linked.

loving hell, talk about projection, by the way. "You aren't reading anything I posted or actually formulating a counterargument! I quit!" all while refusing to acknowledge my argument that the FJ post doesn't address the most commonly-cited problem with NN repeal. The FJ post isn't wrong when it says that repealing NN doesn't harm privacy, but that isn't why people oppose NN repeal.

53

Off Topic / Re: [NEWS] Senate votes to save Net Neutrality

« on: May 16, 2018, 06:56:08 PM »

you mean to tell me that every twitter and facebook post or a HUGE, HUGE chunk of the social media isn't crying and killing themselves not because of the mere threat of repealing NN? ok

Dude, how is this so hard to understand? They're making a big deal about NN because it matters and it promotes a free and open Internet marketplace, where services can't bribe carriers to get themselves preferential treatment, and carriers can't extort services to prevent them from being throttled. The FunnyJunk (by the way, seriously? FunnyJunk? whatever) post addresses something else entirely - privacy. The thing that NN isn't about. The FunnyJunk post doesn't even mention the actual problems with NN repeal.

54

Off Topic / Re: [NEWS] Senate votes to save Net Neutrality

« on: May 16, 2018, 06:52:04 PM »

good job, you didn't read

what "right thing" is there about this entire topic of net neutrality? the post simply deconstructs the stuffty fearmongering i see especially in this forum. it surely isn't looking like every petty paraphrased argument you built up just now

It's arguing against the "fearmongering" of Net Neutrality repeal being a threat to your privacy. That literally isn't the issue, because NN repeal isn't a threat to privacy, it's a threat to a fair and equal market on the Internet. It's like arguing for universal healthcare because it wouldn't kill the bees - it's completely irrelevant.

That article's argument:
"X is a threat to Y"
"You're fearmongering, X isn't a threat to Z"

55

Off Topic / Re: [NEWS] Senate votes to save Net Neutrality

« on: May 16, 2018, 06:45:59 PM »

i don't think either side is testifying this except for actual idiots (regardless of any side, republican or democrat) who know nothing about the internet, as well as the opposite side hugging net neutrality, because here:


https://funnyjunk.com/channel/politics/Lets+talk+internet/slipLfy/ i suggest you people read this

here are the links in order because you need to make an account to view any sources given on the post

-

i'm not going to butt in and argue with any of you about this because i know how all of you behave, but i can say my opinion is mostly built out of reading (and admittedly skimming) all of these sources

Your "source" isn't arguing about the right thing. No, net neutrality doesn't mean that ISPs can sell your personal data, but that isn't the problem with it! Your argument looks like this:
"Net Neutrality is a problem because it will reduce consumer choice, create anti-consumer business plans, and the Internet ecosystem will be less competitive."
"Pfft, it's overhyped. Net Neutrality isn't a threat to your privacy."
What?

That's part 1 of your "source." It then proceeds to go into an conspiracy theory-style rant about how the MSM is twisting the facts, while misstating what Title II actually does and why it's important that the Internet is considered a common carrier, like mail. If you think Title II is about "playing favorites," you're just straight up wrong.

56

Off Topic / Re: avengers infinity war spoilers thread (uncensored, so)

« on: May 16, 2018, 06:41:50 PM »

keyword "wish"

I mean, I would qualify that as a wish.

57

Off Topic / Re: avengers infinity war spoilers thread (uncensored, so)

« on: May 16, 2018, 06:38:23 PM »

you're confusing the infinity stones with the dragon balls

The Infinity Stones are capable of basically making you a god. He could have granted every civilization a source of infinite energy and food if he wanted.

ALSO, wtf are the chances of all six stones being in the milky way? honestly. do you have any idea how many galaxies there are in the universe. I mean the obvious answer is that it's a damn comic book series and they really just can't be forgeted with that sort of realism but jesus

I tried thinking of a defense for this, but... yeah. You're right.

58

Forum Games / Re: itt: Talk without that symbol 'E'.

« on: May 16, 2018, 06:22:52 PM »

It's not that hard. A 260pg book, Gadsby, avoids that symbol. A fraction of individuals claim that it fails in its mission, though, for containing that symbol in a handful of occasions.

59

Off Topic / Re: avengers infinity war spoilers thread (uncensored, so)

« on: May 16, 2018, 06:12:54 PM »

It's a pretty basic principle to follow I thought. He's against overpopulation due to what happened on Titan, so he wants to cull half the universe. What's not to get?

The fact that it wouldn't work.
Halving every intelligent population in the Universe wouldn't halve the carrying capacity of the planet*, so the population would immediately start exponentially growing again back to its former value. For example, the doubling time for the human population is about 40 years. So Thanos hasn't solved anything - just delayed the problem by a few decades and murdered half the Universe in the process.

Overpopulation is an exaggerated issue. The UN expects the human population to level off at around 12 billion as time continues, as death rates and birth rates come into alignment and developing countries catch up to developed ones. We don't need a Thanos-style event to stop exponential growth, because (in addition to not working), there's already a limit to population growth called the carrying capacity.

* If it did, his plan would be even more pointless, because the population would be just as big of a fraction of carrying capacity, and no problems would be solved.

60

Off Topic / Re: [NEWS] Senate votes to save Net Neutrality

« on: May 16, 2018, 06:09:48 PM »

why do Republicans still oppose net neutrality when it has overwhelming public support and is objectively better for the consumer
oh, right, money