It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Please stop spewing that ignorance. The American intelligence community has repeatedly confirmed the Russian meddling into the election. They targeted Facebook ads, for one, and paid trolls, for another.TheScavenger said:in regards to the quote "Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign"...holdenfive said:Well that's exactly what the Obama administration would have liked to have done towards the latter part of this past election cycle. Hillary even hinted at it, wanting to shut down Breitbart 4Chan and others. Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign. Had she been elected it would've went in the opposite direction and existing policy expanded on to enable the government to make it as difficult as possible for people who operate sites like these. Trump takes the position to do away with as much big government regulations as he can get away with, across the board. He isn't targeting net neutrality specifically.Cleffy said:I don't mind the censorship private companies engage in. I do mind when the federal government censors content.
This whole manufactured outrage about what ISP's can theoretically do now is just pissing in the wind. The vast majority of Americans are against the theoretical evil ISP's 'might' do if they aren't governed. And since their main concern is offering a palatable product that is deterrent enough against doing it. There is nothing to deter big government from infringing on your rights though, any time they take a step back, it's a step in the right direction.
in before "but muh russia narrative" for hillary losing...pretty much nothing big or important came out of that lol.
In california, I saw TONS of bernie bumper stickers and over the election period saw a total of 3 hillary bumper stickers. That had nothing to do with Russia lol, people just didn't like hillary. Bernie would have had a much higher chance of winning as he had much higher support
I guess people forgot what the internet was like before obama's regulations. Making a big nothing burger out of removing regulations.
Don't you know that facts are just the mechanisms by which socialists (aka Democrats) repress the ideals of truth, justice, and the American way???DMKano said:cameltosis said:I think you misunderstood Frenchie. The link he posted stated 83% of Americans are in favour of net neutrality, not opposed to it.Eldurian said:To be fair that's because the American voter is grossly uninformed about everything including net neutrality.
Half the time I hear people talk about net neutrality they are talking about "More government regulation" and "The FCC putting their greasy fingers on our internet."
They don't realize that "Net Neutrality" is a series of regulations enforced by the FCC, and the repeal of it means less government regulation, and less FCC involvement in our internet.
Of course many get this and it's the corporations they demonize, but many seem to feed into this ignorance with intentionally deceitful wording intended to use anti-FCC sentiment to get people to support NN.
I think the numbers would be very different if the American voter knew what they were talking about for once.
This is the reason we have a republic and not a democracy. It really is best we have people actually researched on these issues representing our interests rather than the common man voting on every single issue. Our founding fathers shunned direct democracy because of issues like this. It's the system that put Socrates to death after all.
You are likely right in that most Americans are tragically uninformed when it comes to making decisions (much like the rest of the world really) but at least in this instance, the public are on the right side of things. It's just a shame the FCC ignored them.
FCC was paid to ignore them.
this post on reddit explains HOW this really works
Nobody pays the FCC or its commissioners directly while they're on the commission. But it's an age old practice government-industrial complexes to do as follows.
Specially-interested corporation (To be hypothetical, let's call it... I don't know... Berizon) takes one of their lawyers (Again, to be hypothetical, let's call him Pajit Ai) and grooms him to become a commissioner of the FCC, pulling strings with allies in congress whom they donate too (Like, let's say, Titch McTonnel) to get a recommondation for his appointment.
Pajit Ai works in the FCC for years, raking in a steady high-ranking government salary, and pretends to be independent of his past life as a lawyer for Berizon. Ultimately, though, he votes in the stated interest of Berizon and companies like Berizon, claiming that it's in the best interest of the public and everyone wants it (even though nobody in the public really does and demonstrates it through millions of "fake" public FCC comments).
After his work is done, and his term is up, Pajit Ai is "coincidentally" snatched back up by his old employer Berizon, now in a much higher position with a much higher salary and bigger benefits/bonus package than he had before, as his meaningful experience as Chairman of the FCC surely makes him very valuable to Berizon (but surely not because of anything he did to favor Berizon while employed there... Surely).
Edit: For people who want to learn more about this phenomenon, it's called the Revolving Door (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)), and it's a very well-documented phenomenon in the United States and around the world. The premise of the Revolving Door is that the government frequently hires industry professionals as regulators of that same industry, who then eventually go on to be hired again as industry professionals due to their experience as government regulators. When you add in the influence industries have over appointments of government regulators for their industry, a clear pattern of how companies like... ahem... Berizon influence the regulation of their own industry via the FCC.
Truf! Somehow, we surpassed the income inequality levels of ancient Rome and the Plebs hardly noticed..TimEisen said:Don't stop fighting or you might notice we're all losing! Power lies in the hands that divide.
Lol, no.Yes, because corporate entities have excellent track records in honest, up front dealings with the public. Why in the world were governments ever created in the first place???zymurgeist said:The government hate bandwagon has been the longest running hate bandwagon in the world.SedrynTyros said:Exactly. I'm continually amazed by such ridiculous rhetoric.Tiller said:So I'm guessing you will be the first to speak with your wallet, go off grid, throw out your cell phone, put up hippy solar panels for power and go down to the nice clean river and dredge up some unprotected water for drinking?Asm0deus said:Your "corporate will save us from govment" kool aid must taste even better.SedrynTyros said:It's remarkable that any human being could have such a narrow view of a situation like this. "Government is bad" is just some stupid trope that's been pushed on you relentlessly for decades. There are some things that government is good for. It's too bad that so many folks like you don't realize that yet.All the doomsayers here clutching to government's boots is funny. The government can not run or regulate anything successfully. You all can have faith in them I will not. Less government the better.
Your government Kool-Aid must taste great.
Corporations and governments only serve one thing and that is themselves. If either can get away with it they will screw you for money and power. It is the people that actually have to do something about it. Media, if we had one that worked, to get information out. People to actually speak with their wallets.
The world works the way it does not the way people wish it would, and the way it works is government officials are elected, corporate executives are not.
With good reason. When was the last time a bakery killed 20 million of it's own customers?
To rule over people and control resources for the betterment of those incharge of the governments. It is a modern day myth that governments are really for the people and by the people.
Show me a release.Erillion said:>> here you can move around inside your spaceship >>>Failed?
Elite Dangerous is still working on expanding the planetary landing system, plus more (including multi-crew ships). Why would you say it's failed to provide that feature?
Show me how i can move around my ship in E:D please.
And i do not mean that captain mannekin that is nailed to the captains seat.
In EVE i can at least walk around my captains quarter in the station.
Also show me please how i can exit my rover on planetary surfaces and walk around on foot.
And while you are at it ... do that on something else than a barren moon without an atmosphere. Thank you very much.