Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

11415161820

Comments

  • holdenfiveholdenfive Member UncommonPosts: 170
    edited December 2017
    Cleffy said:
    I don't mind the censorship private companies engage in. I do mind when the federal government censors content.
    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.

    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 regards to the quote "Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign"...

    in before "but muh russia narrative" for hillary losing...pretty much nothing big or important came out of that lol. 


    So you think that if people only watched mainstream media instead of getting their news online from independent sources that wouldn't have had a serious impact on the election? Just lol.

    People rejecting the mainstream media narrative (which online news sources largely enabled them to do, since there was you know, a fucking alternative) was the single biggest factor in this past election. I wasn't talking about Russia, that wasn't really a thing until after the election had already taken place.

    So I'll repeat, Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign, because they were. (And just in case I didn't make it clear, thank god),
    Leiloni
  • TheScavengerTheScavenger Member EpicPosts: 3,321
    edited December 2017
    Cleffy said:
    I don't mind the censorship private companies engage in. I do mind when the federal government censors content.
    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.

    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 regards to the quote "Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign"...

    in before "but muh russia narrative" for hillary losing...pretty much nothing big or important came out of that lol. 


    So you think that if people only watched mainstream media instead of getting their news online from independent sources that wouldn't have had a serious impact on the election? Just lol.

    People rejecting the mainstream media narrative (which online news sources largely enabled them to do, since there was you know, a fucking alternative) was the single biggest factor in this past election. I wasn't talking about Russia, that wasn't really a thing until after the election had already taken place.

    So I'll repeat, Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign, because they were. (And just in case I didn't make it clear, thank god),
    nah, I was agreeing with you :) 

    Funny thing is, so much time and money has been wasted on the russia investigation, and all that has come out of it...a couple politicans met with some russian person and lied about it, but if they told the truth it wouldnt have been illegal or a big deal. That is it after so much time and money. And supposedly obama administration agreed with it anyway lol, though they deny it, there has been evidence of the contrary. Besides, obama met with russians as well

    Also, it has actually been proven the FBI investigators are heavily agenda'd against Trump. They are all heavily biased to get rid of Trump, that isn't a proper investigation. They have texts from the current investigators that said they need a plan in case trump got into office and how much they hate him.

    As for conspiring. Even the young turks, who were huge hillary supporters did this old video they havent removed yet



    obama conspires with russia right there in the video they show.  And its by The Young Turks, huge liberal channel
    Post edited by TheScavenger on
    LeiloniSal1

    My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB: 

    https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul



  • holdenfiveholdenfive Member UncommonPosts: 170
    Cleffy said:
    I don't mind the censorship private companies engage in. I do mind when the federal government censors content.
    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.

    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 regards to the quote "Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign"...

    in before "but muh russia narrative" for hillary losing...pretty much nothing big or important came out of that lol. 


    So you think that if people only watched mainstream media instead of getting their news online from independent sources that wouldn't have had a serious impact on the election? Just lol.

    People rejecting the mainstream media narrative (which online news sources largely enabled them to do, since there was you know, a fucking alternative) was the single biggest factor in this past election. I wasn't talking about Russia, that wasn't really a thing until after the election had already taken place.

    So I'll repeat, Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign, because they were. (And just in case I didn't make it clear, thank god),
    nah, I was agreeing with you :) But looks like a couple users above you sure got triggered.

    I can see that now, I had a feeling that was the case, but I just wanted to make it more clear overall. The Russia thing is a complete joke. If they wanted to prove that '15 intelligence agencies' had evidence that Russia interfered in the election by hacking the DNC, a good start would've been allowing just one of said agencies to look for forensic evidence on the supposedly hacked machines. Which they weren't allowed to do. The only agency allowed to examine the servers, later retracted their story that a hack had even taken place to begin with, and has since been discredited as a source due to other unrelated dodgy behaviour.

    If you read the official statement released by the Obama administration after the alleged hack had taken place, they never explicitly state that Russia was responsible for the hack, they say 'methods consistent with those used by Russia' were used in the hack, that they can't even prove took place because they weren't allowed to investigate the servers to look for aforementioned evidence.

    It's was pretty obvious then it was bullshit. Still waiting for that solid conclusive evidence tho.
    MadFrenchieLeiloni
  • MrMelGibsonMrMelGibson Member EpicPosts: 3,025
    Elsabolts said:
    It's It's like early spring, SnowFlaks are melting everywhere.
    Towing that party line even if it completely works against you.  Next thing you'll try to elect a pedophile....oh wait.
  • TheScavengerTheScavenger Member EpicPosts: 3,321
    Elsabolts said:
    It's It's like early spring, SnowFlaks are melting everywhere.
    Towing that party line even if it completely works against you.  Next thing you'll try to elect a pedophile....oh wait.
    while he could have been (assuming talking about the Alabama elections). But it was never actually proven, and his alleged assault, the signature (at least part of) it was forged. Any part of the signature being forged raises suspicions. I wouldn't have voted for him though if I lived in Alabama, he was a super crazy religious nutter. He was one of those hardcore bible thumpers that I'd never vote for. I'm fine with religious people, but not the crazy ones lol.

    However. I guess its the year of allegations make you automatically guilty (no matter the party line), and guilty because of it even if the allegations are false.

    I imagine a lot of these allegations against various actors, politicians (liberal/republican/democrat etc, doesn't matter) are false and being used to remove people of power. Republicans would be using this strategy against their enemies, along with democrats, liberals and everyone else. Which is sad, because probably a good portion of them are true and others are abusing it as a means to gain power. 

    That is why in the past, it was innocent until proven guilty.

    In any case. 10-20 years from now, there is gonna be a lot of old, single crazy cat ladies guys won't want to ever go near in fear of even being blamed of assault, true or not lol. 
    Leiloni

    My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB: 

    https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul



  • MrMelGibsonMrMelGibson Member EpicPosts: 3,025
    Cleffy said:
    I don't mind the censorship private companies engage in. I do mind when the federal government censors content.
    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.

    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 regards to the quote "Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign"...

    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.


    "Dunno what net neutrality or whatever its called even is. dont care either. "
    Read more at http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/469937/so-where-are-you-on-net-neutrality/p8#zkgtyLpzVoWLGluR.99

    You literally just said this on page 8 and now you're an expert on the topic?  I'm guessing you heard something "Obama or Hillary" and started foaming at the mouth.  Typical right winger.
  • TheScavengerTheScavenger Member EpicPosts: 3,321
    edited December 2017
    Cleffy said:
    I don't mind the censorship private companies engage in. I do mind when the federal government censors content.
    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.

    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 regards to the quote "Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign"...

    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.


    "Dunno what net neutrality or whatever its called even is. dont care either. "
    Read more at http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/469937/so-where-are-you-on-net-neutrality/p8#zkgtyLpzVoWLGluR.99

    You literally just said this on page 8 and now you're an expert on the topic?  I'm guessing you heard something "Obama or Hillary" and started foaming at the mouth.  Typical right winger.
    triggered. 

    Also, resulting to insults and unable to properly argue back. 
    MrMelGibson

    My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB: 

    https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul



  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Member RarePosts: 5,484
    Elsabolts said:
    It's It's like early spring, SnowFlaks are melting everywhere.
    Towing that party line even if it completely works against you.  Next thing you'll try to elect a pedophile....oh wait.

    You do know that with parental permission it would have been legal for Roy Moore to marry that girl right? Yeah, not enough faces and palms in the world for that but it's true. 

    "We have met the enemy and he is us." ~Pogo Possum. 

  • TheScavengerTheScavenger Member EpicPosts: 3,321
    edited December 2017
    Elsabolts said:
    It's It's like early spring, SnowFlaks are melting everywhere.
    Towing that party line even if it completely works against you.  Next thing you'll try to elect a pedophile....oh wait.

    You do know that with parental permission it would have been legal for Roy Moore to marry that girl right? Yeah, not enough faces and palms in the world for that but it's true. 
    was it actually proven he did something though? Or are they just allegations which could be true or not? Like I said above though, a lot of allegations going around for actors, politicians and all kinds of people...seems to be an effort (while a lot of it definitely could be true, a lot of it could also be false to) to remove people of power no matter the party line. Hence why in the past, its innocent before guilty until actually convicted of the crime.

    Like I said though, he was definitely a very crazy religious nutter. A hardcore bible thumper who broke many laws in name of religion, I'd never vote for him. But people are treating allegations and some evidence (which may or may not be forged or fake or not having to do with it) as proof of them being guilty.

    Seems to be the strategy though of removing people of power is allegations, but a lot of them (thus far) don't even end up in court so no one really knows if its true or not. Which is sad, because there are people truly getting hurt, but I imagine a lot of these allegations are being used as a weapon.

    Like this is a fox news article about a democrat being removed from power

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/15/kansas-democrat-andrea-ramsey-drops-out-house-race-over-2005-harassment-suit.html

    And supposedly she sexually harassed an employee, and is pretty much guilty of it in the eyes of society. Even if she is innocent or not, and all we got really is he said she said. But because he was the one blaming her, she pretty much lost her job and career. Even if it wasn't true, it might have been, but that is why it should go through a court of law and the court system. If they find her (or anyone else) guilty, well then that is that. But that never happened in this particular case.
    Leiloni

    My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB: 

    https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul



  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Member RarePosts: 5,484
    Elsabolts said:
    It's It's like early spring, SnowFlaks are melting everywhere.
    Towing that party line even if it completely works against you.  Next thing you'll try to elect a pedophile....oh wait.

    You do know that with parental permission it would have been legal for Roy Moore to marry that girl right? Yeah, not enough faces and palms in the world for that but it's true. 
    was it actually proven he did something though? Or are they just allegations which could be true or not? Like I said above though, a lot of allegations going around for actors, politicians and all kinds of people...seems to be an effort (while a lot of it definitely could be true, a lot of it could also be false to) to remove people of power no matter the party line. Hence why in the past, its innocent before guilty until actually convicted of the crime.

    Like I said though, he was definitely a very crazy religious nutter. A hardcore bible thumper who broke many laws in name of religion, I'd never vote for him. But people are treating allegations and some evidence (which may or may not be forged or fake or not having to do with it) as proof of them being guilty.

    Seems to be the strategy though of removing people of power is allegations, but a lot of them (thus far) don't even end up in court so no one really knows if its true or not. Which is sad, because there are people truly getting hurt, but I imagine a lot of these allegations are being used as a weapon.

    Like this is a fox news article about a democrat being removed from power

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/15/kansas-democrat-andrea-ramsey-drops-out-house-race-over-2005-harassment-suit.html

    And supposedly she sexually harassed an employee, and is pretty much guilty of it in the eyes of society. Even if she is innocent or not, and all we got really is he said she said. But because he was the one blaming her, she pretty much lost her job and career. Even if it wasn't true, it might have been, but that is why it should go through a court of law and the court system. If they find her (or anyone else) guilty, well then that is that. But that never happened in this particular case.

    It happened in 1979 and there were no witnesses so you couldn't even get an arraignment. I do firmly believe he was a creeper back in the day. If the Democrats want to push that issue they're going to lose a lot more politicians that the Republicans. The press has always examined the Republicans a lot closer but there have still been some real bottom dwellers elected on both sides of the aisle. Currently the tally is running three Democrats for each Republican getting accused. Power corrupts and corrupt people are attracted to power anyway. 

    "We have met the enemy and he is us." ~Pogo Possum. 

  • MrMelGibsonMrMelGibson Member EpicPosts: 3,025
    Cleffy said:
    I don't mind the censorship private companies engage in. I do mind when the federal government censors content.
    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.

    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 regards to the quote "Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign"...

    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.


    "Dunno what net neutrality or whatever its called even is. dont care either. "
    Read more at http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/469937/so-where-are-you-on-net-neutrality/p8#zkgtyLpzVoWLGluR.99

    You literally just said this on page 8 and now you're an expert on the topic?  I'm guessing you heard something "Obama or Hillary" and started foaming at the mouth.  Typical right winger.
    triggered. 

    Also, resulting to insults and unable to properly argue back. 
    Calling you out is not being triggered.  Also calling a spade a spade is not name calling.  Nice try though.  I'm sure "snowflake" is the next buzz word you'll reply with.


    This is you. "I'm completely ignorant to the topic, but I'll give my expert advice because Hillary's emails" lol.

  • TheScavengerTheScavenger Member EpicPosts: 3,321
    Cleffy said:
    I don't mind the censorship private companies engage in. I do mind when the federal government censors content.
    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.

    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 regards to the quote "Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign"...

    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.


    "Dunno what net neutrality or whatever its called even is. dont care either. "
    Read more at http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/469937/so-where-are-you-on-net-neutrality/p8#zkgtyLpzVoWLGluR.99

    You literally just said this on page 8 and now you're an expert on the topic?  I'm guessing you heard something "Obama or Hillary" and started foaming at the mouth.  Typical right winger.
    triggered. 

    Also, resulting to insults and unable to properly argue back. 
    Calling you out is not being triggered.  Also calling a spade a spade is not name calling.  Nice try though.  I'm sure "snowflake" is the next buzz word you'll reply with.


    This is you. "I'm completely ignorant to the topic, but I'll give my expert advice because Hillary's emails" lol.

    still haven't seen an argument, just insults. Keep trying though. Maybe give me another LOL? Or a WTF? Thanks for that :) Waiting to get that next MMORPG.com rank.

    My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB: 

    https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul



  • MrMelGibsonMrMelGibson Member EpicPosts: 3,025
    Cleffy said:
    I don't mind the censorship private companies engage in. I do mind when the federal government censors content.
    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.

    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 regards to the quote "Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign"...

    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.


    "Dunno what net neutrality or whatever its called even is. dont care either. "
    Read more at http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/469937/so-where-are-you-on-net-neutrality/p8#zkgtyLpzVoWLGluR.99

    You literally just said this on page 8 and now you're an expert on the topic?  I'm guessing you heard something "Obama or Hillary" and started foaming at the mouth.  Typical right winger.
    triggered. 

    Also, resulting to insults and unable to properly argue back. 
    Calling you out is not being triggered.  Also calling a spade a spade is not name calling.  Nice try though.  I'm sure "snowflake" is the next buzz word you'll reply with.


    This is you. "I'm completely ignorant to the topic, but I'll give my expert advice because Hillary's emails" lol.

    still haven't seen an argument, just insults. Keep trying though. Maybe give me another LOL? Or a WTF? Thanks for that :) Waiting to get that next MMORPG.com rank.
    How am I supposed argue a point you clearly are ignorant of? There is no point in discussion if you don't even grasp what we are talking about.  Which I pointed out by just copy/pasting your admittance from page 8. 

    As far as what you said about Hillary losing.  I agree, she is terrible and Bernie should of ran instead. Not that that has anything to do with the topic at hand.  Just typical whataboutism used to deflect.
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Member EpicPosts: 3,967
    edited December 2017
    Cleffy said:
    I don't mind the censorship private companies engage in. I do mind when the federal government censors content.
    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.

    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 regards to the quote "Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign"...

    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.


    "Dunno what net neutrality or whatever its called even is. dont care either. "
    Read more at http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/469937/so-where-are-you-on-net-neutrality/p8#zkgtyLpzVoWLGluR.99

    You literally just said this on page 8 and now you're an expert on the topic?  I'm guessing you heard something "Obama or Hillary" and started foaming at the mouth.  Typical right winger.
    triggered. 

    Also, resulting to insults and unable to properly argue back. 
    Calling you out is not being triggered.  Also calling a spade a spade is not name calling.  Nice try though.  I'm sure "snowflake" is the next buzz word you'll reply with.


    This is you. "I'm completely ignorant to the topic, but I'll give my expert advice because Hillary's emails" lol.

    still haven't seen an argument, just insults. Keep trying though. Maybe give me another LOL? Or a WTF? Thanks for that :) Waiting to get that next MMORPG.com rank.
    I'm not sure if you're in character or not but whatever it is you're trying to present is pretty dimwitted and daft. You've said some pretty grade A embarrassingly silly s#!% in this thread and were too slow or distracted to realize when someone is replying to the foolishness sarcastically.

    Outside of you specifically, I pretty much begged everybody to not invoke people who aren't in office or Covfefe for that matter and focus more on Ajit Pai who is directly responsible.

    Typical fashion some red hat yahoo enters the thread invoking Obama and Hillary, then shouts "triggered" or starts playing victim when they rightfully get clowned.

    Idealogues aren't salvageable, they rightfully get slapped in the face and chased back to their corners. This isn't possible on a forum so how about we all stay on how Comcast/Verizon/AT&T and other ISPs are going to self police themselves with the help of a former Verizon attorney running the FCC.
    TheScavengerholdenfive
    "As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*" 

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • TheScavengerTheScavenger Member EpicPosts: 3,321
    Well as FlyByKnight said, to get back on topic...its really seeming to go in a circle at this point

    I'll just repeat what I said before. Government control of any kind, no matter how minor it starts off, leads to censorship as seen in the UK, Europe and a great example (again) is Venezuala. Maybe it starts off as something small like the former President did, without censorship. But eventually, slowly and slowly, the government controls more and more.

    People here are talking about data and ISPs...but today it starts off regulating what ISPs can do. In the future, another freedom is taken away in the name of regulation and people in the future will say its minor and not a big deal. Eventually in a 10 maybe 20 year period, lots more control is taken but it happens very slowly.

    Hence why government having any say in the internet is bad. Just gotta look at other countries to see that.

    However, again, as I said before (hence going in a circle)...ISPs controlling the internet is just as bad. No company should have a monopoly. Amazon, Google, ISPs and many other big things are in a monopoly. The ISPs controlling things only will benefit them...and occasionally, like EA and Blizzard give an illusion of doing something good but they will always have something to gain from it.

    Dunno the solution, but if removing regulations all it does is go back before 2015 regulations...then nothing will change at all. But its neither worse or better.

    My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB: 

    https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul



  • holdenfiveholdenfive Member UncommonPosts: 170
    edited December 2017
    Cleffy said:
    I don't mind the censorship private companies engage in. I do mind when the federal government censors content.
    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.

    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 regards to the quote "Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign"...

    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.


    "Dunno what net neutrality or whatever its called even is. dont care either. "
    Read more at http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/469937/so-where-are-you-on-net-neutrality/p8#zkgtyLpzVoWLGluR.99

    You literally just said this on page 8 and now you're an expert on the topic?  I'm guessing you heard something "Obama or Hillary" and started foaming at the mouth.  Typical right winger.
    triggered. 

    Also, resulting to insults and unable to properly argue back. 
    Calling you out is not being triggered.  Also calling a spade a spade is not name calling.  Nice try though.  I'm sure "snowflake" is the next buzz word you'll reply with.


    This is you. "I'm completely ignorant to the topic, but I'll give my expert advice because Hillary's emails" lol.

    still haven't seen an argument, just insults. Keep trying though. Maybe give me another LOL? Or a WTF? Thanks for that :) Waiting to get that next MMORPG.com rank.
    I'm not sure if you're in character or not but whatever it is you're trying to present is pretty dimwitted and daft. You've said some pretty grade A embarrassingly silly s#!% in this thread and were too slow or distracted to realize when someone is replying to the foolishness sarcastically.

    Outside of you specifically, I pretty much begged everybody to not invoke people who aren't in office or Covfefe for that matter and focus more on Ajit Pai who is directly responsible.

    Typical fashion some red hat yahoo enters the thread invoking Obama and Hillary, then shouts "triggered" or starts playing victim when they rightfully get clowned.

    Idealogues aren't salvageable, they rightfully get slapped in the face and chased back to their corners. This isn't possible on a forum so how about we all stay on how Comcast/Verizon/AT&T and other ISPs are going to self police themselves with the help of a former Verizon attorney running the FCC.
    Starting a thread doesn't mean you get to dictate the terms of it lad, if you think so you're welcome to fuck off back to your safe space. If you're ignoring the fact that the current presidential administration is the cause of this and also the reasons why they're doing it, and also the vastly more awful things that could've happened to freedom of speech on the internet had your demented cackling hag been somehow elected to office, then you've really missed the whole context and you're just peddling in conspiracy theories that carry no real weight.

    Also lol at the leftist scum posturing. The only people getting clowned here are tryhards like yourself who don't have an actual response to the reasoning so have to plead (oh you said beg) for others not to take the conversation down a path that is damning to your position because you don't have a response nor skin thick enough to handle it. Do sit down lightweight before you hurt yourself.

    The only thing not salvageable here is your self respect after I just shit all over your mewling punchless rhetoric so hard. Do fuck off you sawed off little cunt.
    FlyByKnight
  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread Member EpicPosts: 7,148
    No one is surprised that the scavenger is a trump supporter. Can we move on to more important things?

    MrMelGibsonAsm0deusAvarix
  • holdenfiveholdenfive Member UncommonPosts: 170
    Cleffy said:
    I don't mind the censorship private companies engage in. I do mind when the federal government censors content.
    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.

    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 regards to the quote "Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign"...

    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.


    "Dunno what net neutrality or whatever its called even is. dont care either. "
    Read more at http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/469937/so-where-are-you-on-net-neutrality/p8#zkgtyLpzVoWLGluR.99

    You literally just said this on page 8 and now you're an expert on the topic?  I'm guessing you heard something "Obama or Hillary" and started foaming at the mouth.  Typical right winger.
    triggered. 

    Also, resulting to insults and unable to properly argue back. 
    Calling you out is not being triggered.  Also calling a spade a spade is not name calling.  Nice try though.  I'm sure "snowflake" is the next buzz word you'll reply with.


    This is you. "I'm completely ignorant to the topic, but I'll give my expert advice because Hillary's emails" lol.

    still haven't seen an argument, just insults. Keep trying though. Maybe give me another LOL? Or a WTF? Thanks for that :) Waiting to get that next MMORPG.com rank.
    I'm not sure if you're in character or not but whatever it is you're trying to present is pretty dimwitted and daft. You've said some pretty grade A embarrassingly silly s#!% in this thread and were too slow or distracted to realize when someone is replying to the foolishness sarcastically.

    Outside of you specifically, I pretty much begged everybody to not invoke people who aren't in office or Covfefe for that matter and focus more on Ajit Pai who is directly responsible.

    Typical fashion some red hat yahoo enters the thread invoking Obama and Hillary, then shouts "triggered" or starts playing victim when they rightfully get clowned.

    Idealogues aren't salvageable, they rightfully get slapped in the face and chased back to their corners. This isn't possible on a forum so how about we all stay on how Comcast/Verizon/AT&T and other ISPs are going to self police themselves with the help of a former Verizon attorney running the FCC.
    Starting a thread doesn't mean you get to dictate the terms of it lad, if you think so you're welcome to fuck off back to your safe space. If you're ignoring the fact that the current presidential administration is the cause of this and also the reasons why they're doing it, and also the vastly more awful things that could've happened to freedom of speech on the internet had your demented cackling hag been somehow elected to office, then you've really missed the whole context and you're just peddling in conspiracy theories that carry no real weight.

    Also lol at the leftist scum posturing. The only people getting clowned here are tryhards like yourself who don't have an actual response to the reasoning so have to plead (oh you said beg) for others not to take the conversation down a path that is damning to your position because you don't have a response nor skin thick enough to handle it. Do sit down lightweight before you hurt yourself.

    The only thing not salvageable here is your self respect after I just shit all over your mewling punchless rhetoric so hard. Do fuck off you sawed off little cunt.
    And yet rather than address his very good point
    There are no good points there. It's just 'wahhhh the discussion isn't proceeding like I wanted /wrists'. I addressed what needed to be addressed. If you don't want actual discussion then don't start threads then whine like a little bitch about it when people discuss.

    In particular when you're going to use it as an opportunity to be a smug snide cunt about it when you have the intellectual capacity of a chicken mcnugget. You'll generally get called out on that, welcome to the internet scrub.
    FlyByKnight
  • holdenfiveholdenfive Member UncommonPosts: 170
    It doesn't look like you've quite figured it out yet so I'll give you a little heads up here, the internet is where your castrated shit pushed in leftist ideology goes to die, unless you're on facebook or twitter or some lame shit like that. Get used to it babygirl.
    Okay, so I guess you don't want to contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion.  Noted.
    I already won the thread. No idea what you're on about son.
    You've won nothing, and until you address the actual issue that's what's your opinions are worth: nothing.
    Oh this suddenly turned into 'I know you are but what am I' that's about as far as I figured a CNN slurp junkie cringe hole would be able to get into the discussion. Won the thread 1+ pages ago, deal with it swine.
    FlyByKnight
  • holdenfiveholdenfive Member UncommonPosts: 170
    It doesn't look like you've quite figured it out yet so I'll give you a little heads up here, the internet is where your castrated shit pushed in leftist ideology goes to die, unless you're on facebook or twitter or some lame shit like that. Get used to it babygirl.
    Okay, so I guess you don't want to contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion.  Noted.
    I already won the thread. No idea what you're on about son.
    You've won nothing, and until you address the actual issue that's what's your opinions are worth: nothing.
    Oh this suddenly turned into 'I know you are but what am I' that's about as far as I figured a CNN slurp junkie cringe hole would be able to get into the discussion. Won the thread 1+ pages ago, deal with it swine.
    Like I said, nothing worthwhile to say so far.  But I'll keep reading.  You might surprise me.
    I know you'll keep reading because you're the kinda slut that needs to slither up next to a winner.
    FlyByKnight
  • MrMelGibsonMrMelGibson Member EpicPosts: 3,025
    It doesn't look like you've quite figured it out yet so I'll give you a little heads up here, the internet is where your castrated shit pushed in leftist ideology goes to die, unless you're on facebook or twitter or some lame shit like that. Get used to it babygirl.
    Okay, so I guess you don't want to contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion.  Noted.
    I already won the thread. No idea what you're on about son.
    You've won nothing, and until you address the actual issue that's what's your opinions are worth: nothing.
    Oh this suddenly turned into 'I know you are but what am I' that's about as far as I figured a CNN slurp junkie cringe hole would be able to get into the discussion. Won the thread 1+ pages ago, deal with it swine.
    The only thing you've won is the douche bag of the thread award.  Gratz.
    holdenfiveMadFrenchie
  • holdenfiveholdenfive Member UncommonPosts: 170
    It doesn't look like you've quite figured it out yet so I'll give you a little heads up here, the internet is where your castrated shit pushed in leftist ideology goes to die, unless you're on facebook or twitter or some lame shit like that. Get used to it babygirl.
    Okay, so I guess you don't want to contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion.  Noted.
    I already won the thread. No idea what you're on about son.
    You've won nothing, and until you address the actual issue that's what's your opinions are worth: nothing.
    Oh this suddenly turned into 'I know you are but what am I' that's about as far as I figured a CNN slurp junkie cringe hole would be able to get into the discussion. Won the thread 1+ pages ago, deal with it swine.
    The only thing you've won is the douche bag of the thread award.  Gratz.
    douchebag*

    Gratz on the 4th grade reading level spunk junkey.

    FlyByKnight
  • MrMelGibsonMrMelGibson Member EpicPosts: 3,025
    edited December 2017
    It doesn't look like you've quite figured it out yet so I'll give you a little heads up here, the internet is where your castrated shit pushed in leftist ideology goes to die, unless you're on facebook or twitter or some lame shit like that. Get used to it babygirl.
    Okay, so I guess you don't want to contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion.  Noted.
    I already won the thread. No idea what you're on about son.
    You've won nothing, and until you address the actual issue that's what's your opinions are worth: nothing.
    Oh this suddenly turned into 'I know you are but what am I' that's about as far as I figured a CNN slurp junkie cringe hole would be able to get into the discussion. Won the thread 1+ pages ago, deal with it swine.

    [Deleted User]holdenfive
  • MrMelGibsonMrMelGibson Member EpicPosts: 3,025
    It doesn't look like you've quite figured it out yet so I'll give you a little heads up here, the internet is where your castrated shit pushed in leftist ideology goes to die, unless you're on facebook or twitter or some lame shit like that. Get used to it babygirl.
    Okay, so I guess you don't want to contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion.  Noted.
    I already won the thread. No idea what you're on about son.
    You've won nothing, and until you address the actual issue that's what's your opinions are worth: nothing.
    Oh this suddenly turned into 'I know you are but what am I' that's about as far as I figured a CNN slurp junkie cringe hole would be able to get into the discussion. Won the thread 1+ pages ago, deal with it swine.
    Like I said, nothing worthwhile to say so far.  But I'll keep reading.  You might surprise me.
    I know you'll keep reading because you're the kinda slut that needs to slither up next to a winner.
    Hey @TheScavenger .  This is what triggered looks like.  Just fyi.
    [Deleted User]holdenfiveFlyByKnightAsm0deusMadFrenchie
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Member EpicPosts: 3,967
    Cleffy said:
    I don't mind the censorship private companies engage in. I do mind when the federal government censors content.
    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.

    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 regards to the quote "Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign"...

    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.


    "Dunno what net neutrality or whatever its called even is. dont care either. "
    Read more at http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/469937/so-where-are-you-on-net-neutrality/p8#zkgtyLpzVoWLGluR.99

    You literally just said this on page 8 and now you're an expert on the topic?  I'm guessing you heard something "Obama or Hillary" and started foaming at the mouth.  Typical right winger.
    triggered. 

    Also, resulting to insults and unable to properly argue back. 
    Calling you out is not being triggered.  Also calling a spade a spade is not name calling.  Nice try though.  I'm sure "snowflake" is the next buzz word you'll reply with.


    This is you. "I'm completely ignorant to the topic, but I'll give my expert advice because Hillary's emails" lol.

    still haven't seen an argument, just insults. Keep trying though. Maybe give me another LOL? Or a WTF? Thanks for that :) Waiting to get that next MMORPG.com rank.
    I'm not sure if you're in character or not but whatever it is you're trying to present is pretty dimwitted and daft. You've said some pretty grade A embarrassingly silly s#!% in this thread and were too slow or distracted to realize when someone is replying to the foolishness sarcastically.

    Outside of you specifically, I pretty much begged everybody to not invoke people who aren't in office or Covfefe for that matter and focus more on Ajit Pai who is directly responsible.

    Typical fashion some red hat yahoo enters the thread invoking Obama and Hillary, then shouts "triggered" or starts playing victim when they rightfully get clowned.

    Idealogues aren't salvageable, they rightfully get slapped in the face and chased back to their corners. This isn't possible on a forum so how about we all stay on how Comcast/Verizon/AT&T and other ISPs are going to self police themselves with the help of a former Verizon attorney running the FCC.
    Starting a thread doesn't mean you get to dictate the terms of it lad, if you think so you're welcome to fuck off back to your safe space. If you're ignoring the fact that the current presidential administration is the cause of this and also the reasons why they're doing it, and also the vastly more awful things that could've happened to freedom of speech on the internet had your demented cackling hag been somehow elected to office, then you've really missed the whole context and you're just peddling in conspiracy theories that carry no real weight.

    Also lol at the leftist scum posturing. The only people getting clowned here are tryhards like yourself who don't have an actual response to the reasoning so have to plead (oh you said beg) for others not to take the conversation down a path that is damning to your position because you don't have a response nor skin thick enough to handle it. Do sit down lightweight before you hurt yourself.

    The only thing not salvageable here is your self respect after I just shit all over your mewling punchless rhetoric so hard. Do fuck off you sawed off little cunt.


    I'm not affiliated with any political party. All you did was rant like a mentally disturbed ninny who lives in a plywood shack.

    The discussion is Net Neutrality not the blithering of simpletons who can't survive or think beyond the bubble of Hazzard County.

    I'm willing to take bets this person cries about his liberty and freedoms being taken away by the tyrannical mods when they come to clean up this mess.  :D
    MrMelGibson[Deleted User]holdenfiveAsm0deus
    "As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*" 

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This discussion has been closed.