Net neutrality shenanigins are happening.

Author Topic: Net neutrality shenanigins are happening.  (Read 37964 times)

i called congress today. homeboy on the line was surprisingly super chill and down to earth. we talked about the whole ordeal, i said what i wanted to say and he was totally supportive and understanding

his demeanor on the whole issue made me realize how much this neutrality thing is starting to look like jontrons race fiasco. remember that whole thing?

jontron explained his political views on a couple of livestream debates, and the internet (i will assume the predominant left side of the political part of the internet) went moc 5 ape stuff in an attempt to paint jon as this white supremacist, tribal, and bigoted warlord out to get america. i mean this narrative has really worked. a couple of people i know irl are still convinced jontron is a terrible person

anyone who as actually watched all 7 hours of those debates knows jontron is not that. i watched them, and after assessing the source of the controversy i still think jon is a cool dude and id totally hang out with him. but you know whats interesting? every person, and really do mean every single person ive asked who is truly convinced jon is a terrible person has never watched those debates. like any of them. and if they did, they never completely watched them in full. and they dont understand why they should. that means everything they know about the situation came from a source they deem trustworthy. not the actual source.

i understand net neutrality is no where near jontrons situation, but talking to homeboy made me wonder just how many people who think the internet is now over is actually taking into account both sides of this ordeal. and i mean actually understanding both sides from their sources. not from a twitter feed or a youtube channel YOU trust, but the actual public hearings that aren't cut up to show you what you want to hear, the actual legislation thats not being hosted on a site thats pushing the narrative you want to hear, how many of you are reading from the real source and formulating your own real opinions? not just copying or rewording what someone else has already told you?

i only ask because i told the guy on the phone id make sure people know theres two sides to this. he said it would help his soul if people understood this isnt just a one side ordeal, which makes me wonder just what kind of calls he was getting, because i didnt even have to finish my sentence when i started talking about the net. he knew exactly why i was calling and what i was calling from (battleforthenet.com) because hes been getting calls all day about this.

right now i dont have an opinion. i dont know enough about this situation to confidently tell you what i think about it. i told homeboy i wanted the internet to remain the way it was. i didnt ask to repeal or not. couldn't remember battleforthenets intensely worded narrative. i just said i want the internet to remain the open internet that it was, and he was really really cool about it. i feel kind of bad now because i didnt even ask for his name, but i heard you and i got you dawg

idk. i didnt really expect the call to go that way, but im happy it did. he was really nice and i felt for him cause he was obviously getting some stuff people calling him lol
« Last Edit: December 14, 2017, 06:27:26 PM by mod-man »


mod-man makes the thread wholesome even if stuff's gonna go down

g o v e r n m e n t  r e g u l a t i o n
government regulation? in MY republican government? not gonna happen bucko
mod-man makes the thread wholesome even if stuff's gonna go down
kudos to mod-man for being an all-around chill dude

Is this serious? Because I'm really sorry to say you got played real good. It happens to the best of us. Tell me if these talking points sound similar:

- "These “Title II” regulations, rammed through the FCC by the Obama White House, were based on a hypothetical fear of broadband providers blocking certain websites or putting competitors in slow lanes."
- "The FCC is wisely repealing the reckless decision of its predecessors to regulate competing Internet Service Providers under 1930s common-carrier regulations that were designed for a telephone monopoly."
- "In practice, these regulations have proven to be anti-consumer. The FCC has forbidden the practice of wireless providers offering featured video streaming to their customers that doesn’t count against their monthly data usage caps. How is it helpful to prevent consumers from accessing more online content for less money?"
- "The federal government should not treat high-tech communications networks as if they were 1930s public utilities."
- "After Title II regulations passed, investment in Internet service fell for the first time ever by 5.6%."
- "Repeal of Title II regulations will correctly return Internet Service Providers to the privacy oversight of the Federal Trade Commission."

The only reason this is being pushed through is that these ISP / cable providers want a new revenue stream as a last ditch effort to save themselves from becoming irrelevant.

oh my god his whole post was about looking across the aisle and not assuming people are manipulative you idiots


you know somethings wrong with your policy when 17 states are suing the feds over it

Is this serious? Because I'm really sorry to say you got played real good. It happens to the best of us. Tell me if these talking points sound similar:

- "These “Title II” regulations, rammed through the FCC by the Obama White House, were based on a hypothetical fear of broadband providers blocking certain websites or putting competitors in slow lanes."
- "The FCC is wisely repealing the reckless decision of its predecessors to regulate competing Internet Service Providers under 1930s common-carrier regulations that were designed for a telephone monopoly."
- "In practice, these regulations have proven to be anti-consumer. The FCC has forbidden the practice of wireless providers offering featured video streaming to their customers that doesn’t count against their monthly data usage caps. How is it helpful to prevent consumers from accessing more online content for less money?"
- "The federal government should not treat high-tech communications networks as if they were 1930s public utilities."
- "After Title II regulations passed, investment in Internet service fell for the first time ever by 5.6%."
- "Repeal of Title II regulations will correctly return Internet Service Providers to the privacy oversight of the Federal Trade Commission."
he literally did not talk about any of this. i was on the phone for maybe 5-10 minutes. it sounded like i was talking to a friend, not a politician. i mean dont get it twisted, the dude had a professional demeanor about him, but he didnt talk like this or bring up any of this. it sounded like he just genuinely wanted people to look at both sides. which people should, if they arent

mod-man makes the thread wholesome even if stuff's gonna go down
kudos to mod-man for being an all-around chill dude


thanks bro :))
« Last Edit: December 14, 2017, 06:42:52 PM by mod-man »

he literally did not talk about any of this. i was on the phone for maybe 5-10 minutes. it sounded like i was talking to a friend, not a politician. i mean dont get it twisted, the dude had a professional demeanor about him, but he didnt talk like this or bring up any of this. it sounded like he just genuinely wanted people to look at both sides. which people should, if they arent
Okay, I think I misunderstood the situation. I thought he was trying to convince you that opposing net neutrality was a reasonable position, not just to say that "both sides should be looked at" and being supportive of net neutrality at the same time. That seemed strange to me.

edit: a word
« Last Edit: December 14, 2017, 06:53:11 PM by Ipquarx »

he literally did not talk about any of this. i was on the phone for maybe 5-10 minutes. it sounded like i was talking to a friend, not a politician. i mean dont get it twisted, the dude had a professional demeanor about him, but he didnt talk like this or bring up any of this. it sounded like he just genuinely wanted people to look at both sides. which people should, if they arent

thanks bro :))
out of curiosity, what were the counter-points he brought up

people really blow this stuff up tbh. it aint that forgetin bad. it'd be better for it to NOT be repealed, sure, but it aint "the end of the internet as we know it"
in all likelihood nothing is gonna change. we didn't have these laws before, and that was only a couple years ago so it's not like the state of ISPs have significantly changed. in particular, the bits where people have supposed that companies could pay for people to have better connections to their websites than to competitors, is obviously antitrust. the FTC would take care of that, net neutrality or not

as for everything else, like I've said at some point in the past anyway, that "barely title II" thing is just a half measure anyway. it hypothetically could solve like 2 possible problems with internet service. it did forget all for people who don't have access in the first place

out of curiosity, what were the counter-points he brought up
he mentioned that, while he respected and was happy with battleforthenet because they are doing their best to express their opinion as anyone with a strong opinion on something should, he isn't happy with how they aren't explaining both sides of the issue. he said they're pushing a heavy left narrative. he said he wants people to understand that its not just republicans who have voted to appeal but its democrats voting to appeal too. he thinks battleforthenet has created an aura of fear with their design:

black background, big red and white parapraphs talking about how the FCC is "gutting net rules for new fees, throttling, and censorship". and also asking people to spread images like:


as a graphic designer, i can understand how hard wording like this could lead someone to believe its intimidating. especially with the large amount of red color being used to write words that could negatively paint the FCC and republicans in general, seeing as red is their representative color (the psychological impact that imagery, color, and wording has on someone, especially someone of weak mind, can make or break their opinion on anything)

now i dont know the statistics and didnt have time to have an actual conversation with him about it because i was breaking from work, but these qualms with battleforthenet were the only things he had to say about the issue that i would consider a counter-point

as a graphic designer, i can understand how hard wording like this could lead someone to believe its intimidating. especially with the large amount of red color being used to write words that could negatively paint the FCC and republicans in general, seeing as red is their representative color (the psychological impact that imagery, color, and wording has on someone, especially someone of weak mind, can make or break their opinion on anything)
bih........ red is used for negative things nearly universally. it's republicans' faults for choosing the damn color, not everyone else for using it