The world will return to what is always was prior to Obama's rule. FREE.OPEN. UNFETTERED BY POLITICIANS AND TECHNOCRATS DECIDING WHO IS NAUGHTY AND WHO IS NICE.
Ya, now we can be ruled by the cable companies. But dont worry kid, 2018-2020, The GOP will pay a HUGE price for Trumps antics. If Virginia and Alabama didnt open your eyes, the midterms in 2018 most certainly will...shortly thereafter Trump will prove to be a one term nobody and the dems will get back control of the FCC. Until then, we will all take our lumps from the rich corporations that people like you worship. enjoy your time, its SHORT.
Keep on dreamin' don't stop no...
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Let's back up a bit and explain what the debate is at a high level. Everyone agrees that ISPs should have to do what they promised to do. Regardless of which side wins the debate, an ISP that blocks or otherwise cripples access to a site after promising not do will be in big trouble if they get caught.
There are a lot of obnoxious things that ISPs theoretically could do, but might not want to do. Gratuitously making your customers hate you isn't good for profitability, after all. The question is, what should we do about this?
Those who favor Title II regulation ("net neutrality") propose that we should figure out how ISPs should and should not behave and write a ton of regulations that they must do this and cannot do that. Those who prefer the traditional approach of Title I regulation propose instead giving ISPs a freer hand on deciding what to do provided that they inform their customers, then only intervening later to prohibit them from continuing to do whatever bad things they actually do.
There are pros and cons to both approaches here, and anyone who denies that is a charlatan who hasn't seriously engaged the issue. The advantage of heavier regulation is that a lot of bad behavior from ISPs gets stopped sooner or prevented outright.
The advantage of lighter regulation is that you don't waste a bunch of money forcing ISPs to verify and demonstrate that they're complying with regulations by doing what they would have done without those regulations. Compliance costs will inevitably be passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices or inferior service as to what would have happened without the unnecessary regulations.
Yes, under the new regulatory regime, an ISP informing their customers of what they're going to do could readily consist of warnings in the fine print. But if an ISP does decide to warn in the fine print that they're going to block or otherwise cripple a wide array of sites, that would turn into a national scandal very, very quickly. It only takes one person to read the fine print and notice--perhaps after noticing that some site that used to work well no longer does.
So what sort of bad behavior from ISPs are we talking about stopping? Let's leave behind fevered imaginations and instead consider the highest profile example that Title II regulation did prohibit. A few years ago, cell phone carrier T-Mobile announced a plan to "zero-rate" some popular web sites. That is, if you signed up for the appropriate plan with them, using certain sites would not count at all against your monthly data cap. Other sites not on their list (i.e., most of the Internet) would still work, but would count against your data cap.
The FCC sued to stop them from doing this, as it meant that they were treating some sites differently from others. Under Title I regulation, such a plan would be completely legal provided that customers were informed. And in this case, the zero-rating practice was advertised in headlines, not just some fine print buried in a contract. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if T-Mobile resurrects it or other ISPs that impose data caps do something similar if they expect Title I regulation to stick.
Another thing that wouldn't be all that surprising to see is if some ISPs offer a discounted plan that disables video streaming but allows everything else to work. For example, optionally get exactly the same service as before for $20/month cheaper, except that sites like Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, and so forth are disabled entirely and video streaming protocols from other sites are also disabled. Or maybe they'll offer you your choice of a 30 Mbps connection with video streaming or 100 Mbps without video streaming for exactly the same price.
This is not going to turn into ten separate charges for a bunch of different types of sites. They're not going to charge extra for gaming or shopping, much less texting. Unusually high bandwidth usage is the thing that ISPs don't like, as that's what clogs their networks and costs them money. Today, that means video streaming. A decade ago, it meant peer to peer networking. A decade hence, it might mean something that isn't even on our radar yet.
One could argue that the behaviors that we're talking about banning aren't necessarily even bad things. And that's kind of the point. Title I regulations offer ISPs far more opportunities to innovate on their business model. Maybe they'll come up with something clever that most customers think is better than what they would have been forced to do under Title II. Or maybe they'll come up with an ISP equivalent of computer game loot boxes that is highly profitable for a while until the country finally bans it.
And let's also be clear that it's very unlikely to come to ISP censorship. We've had a string of scandals of Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and other popular sites blocking or not blocking various users and making decisions that most of the country would disagree with. They would surely prefer that users behave and they never have to block anyone, ever. But as content hosts, they have some responsibility for the content that they host, and various governments around the world have retaliated against them for not blocking various types of content that is offensive to some.
ISPs generally want no part of that game. As carriers who don't host content, they can readily argue that censorship is not their responsibility and they don't have to do it, at least apart from things like trying to stop DDOS attacks that pretty much everyone all across the political spectrum would like to see them block.
The net neutrality hysteria is what happens when a few corporations exploit the ignorance of users who know absolutely nothing about government, law, and regulation. Most people don't even know how the FCC functions, and what their legal powers (and therefore, limitations) are.
Even under Obama, the FCC hasn't exactly had a good record in the courts against these ISPs/Cable Companies. A clue, perhaps?
The big issue with this isn't the fact that it kills Net Neutrality, but the fact that people are pissed at this, but ignoring the elephant in the room... Probably half or more of the people in this country have no choice one cable provider because monopolies are allowed to rule the country region by region.
That IS the whole entire problem. People with a choice of ISPs can change carriers and the free market will do its job. It's the people with no choice net neutrality affects.
Being a common carrier means everyone has to be treated equally. No tiered pricing / services. You cannot pay more to get electricity before your neighbours, my water is not better because I pay more than you. Now, with net neutrality, you cannot pay more to get priority access to the internet. All electricity is treated equally. All water and gas is treated equally. Now, all internet traffic is treated equally.
That's not at all what the whole debate is about. I don't know about you, but my electricity, water, and gas are metered. For electricity, I pay a fixed fee per month just to be connected, plus an additional charge per kWh of electricity actually used. With water and gas, it's similar. I don't get to choose my electric utility, and have to pay for electricity even if I don't want it and didn't use it.
For Internet access, even under Title II regulations, I pay a fixed amount per month. I don't pay a fee per GB of data used. Furthermore, I can pay more or less to get higher or lower bandwidth caps. If I don't like my ISP, I can switch to a different one. I could disconnect from the Internet entirely if I so chose.
Not all electricity is treated equal. Not all sewage is treated equal. Not all gas is treated equal. So that part of your argument isn't accurate. For example, I pay twice as much for electricity if it's from noon to 6pm, as I do from Midnight to 8am. Common Carrier, in this use, mostly refers to Telecom, and is defined by Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, not local electricity, water, gas, etc.
I realise that you might pay different rates at different times, but the actual electricity itself gets treated equally.
I mean, you don't get your electricity before your neighbour right? In the event of an electrical shortage, there is no possible way for you to pay to get electricity before someone else does?
Thats why I compare it to net neutrality - its not about what you're paying or who you're paying, or data caps or anything like that. It's about prioritisation of internet traffic. With neutrality, everything is treated equally during transmission, just like gas, water and electric.
Being a common carrier means everyone has to be treated equally. No tiered pricing / services. You cannot pay more to get electricity before your neighbours, my water is not better because I pay more than you. Now, with net neutrality, you cannot pay more to get priority access to the internet. All electricity is treated equally. All water and gas is treated equally. Now, all internet traffic is treated equally.
That's not at all what the whole debate is about. I don't know about you, but my electricity, water, and gas are metered. For electricity, I pay a fixed fee per month just to be connected, plus an additional charge per kWh of electricity actually used. With water and gas, it's similar. I don't get to choose my electric utility, and have to pay for electricity even if I don't want it and didn't use it.
For Internet access, even under Title II regulations, I pay a fixed amount per month. I don't pay a fee per GB of data used. Furthermore, I can pay more or less to get higher or lower bandwidth caps. If I don't like my ISP, I can switch to a different one. I could disconnect from the Internet entirely if I so chose.
Not all electricity is treated equal. Not all sewage is treated equal. Not all gas is treated equal. So that part of your argument isn't accurate. For example, I pay twice as much for electricity if it's from noon to 6pm, as I do from Midnight to 8am. Common Carrier, in this use, mostly refers to Telecom, and is defined by Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, not local electricity, water, gas, etc.
I realise that you might pay different rates at different times, but the actual electricity itself gets treated equally.
I mean, you don't get your electricity before your neighbour right? In the event of an electrical shortage, there is no possible way for you to pay to get electricity before someone else does?
Thats why I compare it to net neutrality - its not about what you're paying or who you're paying, or data caps or anything like that. It's about prioritisation of internet traffic. With neutrality, everything is treated equally during transmission, just like gas, water and electric.
depends. you could pay to have your power run off the main lines instead of the subsidiary lines that way in an outage the main lines have to be restored first.
Well, if ISPs can prove the internet is in fact a utility and not simply a luxury, than it will pass through the courts and the internet will become another giant monopoly like all the other utilities.
It's already a pretty big monopoly. I've lived in countless areas that require you to use Comcast as they pushed out any other competition from that area.
Which sounds exactly like gas, water and every other utility. How many gas companies do you have in your area? electric? water? Are those utilities gouging you of your hard earned money? Maybe. Except no one is in an uproar over them like they are with ISP and the internet. I think people are viewing this like some Y2K only to realize they made a mountain out of a molehill.
Except, the internet isn't a public utility in same sense as electric or natural gas are, which here in Florida is under the oversight of the Public Utility Commission who has to approve all rate changes.
Water is provided by local government and basic phone service also has heavy gov't oversight even though provided privately.
But cable TV, and corresponding internet service, not quite as much. While local gov't negotiate a standard rate for basic access and hook up which they must approve any changes to, they have little control on the prices charged for "extra" services like premium channels or internet access rates.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Net neutrality never stopped my ISP from throttling Netflix. The whole thing was a facade to add more regulations giving established isps an even greater stranglehold. At least now we will have less govt intervention telling new isps what they can and cannot offer and how much they have to charge. If they can overcome the gauntlet of frivolous lawsuits the big companies throw up for upstarts, we might actually see our internet subscriptions go down in price for a change.
Well, if ISPs can prove the internet is in fact a utility and not simply a luxury, than it will pass through the courts and the internet will become another giant monopoly like all the other utilities.
The FCC classified ISPs as a utility under the previous administration in order to regulate them. This is what the ISPs were fighting to undo.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
2nd when the rest of us start doing way better at lots a stuff ...the cry babies will really pick up and thats when thin gs might get perma changed for you all.....
Like with health care? Last I checked the US was dead last in terms of general health care among industrialized countries while simultaneously being, by far, the most expensive.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
Net neutrality never stopped my ISP from throttling Netflix. The whole thing was a facade to add more regulations giving established isps an even greater stranglehold. At least now we will have less govt intervention telling new isps what they can and cannot offer and how much they have to charge. If they can overcome the gauntlet of frivolous lawsuits the big companies throw up for upstarts, we might actually see our internet subscriptions go down in price for a change.
sorry to ask but how do you know your ISP throttled Netflix?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Net neutrality never stopped my ISP from throttling Netflix. The whole thing was a facade to add more regulations giving established isps an even greater stranglehold. At least now we will have less govt intervention telling new isps what they can and cannot offer and how much they have to charge. If they can overcome the gauntlet of frivolous lawsuits the big companies throw up for upstarts, we might actually see our internet subscriptions go down in price for a change.
Not a chance with the way it's currently going.
Too many Americans are under misconception that removing a regulation that's same for everyone and replacing it with about 100 different business practices and agreements will somehow magically decrease the court cases.
Means nothing. I played FFXI and WoW all I wanted before 2015.
Do they have net neutrality before 2015? I don't know much about the topic.
Before 2015, in the United States, the Internet was regulated under "Title I" regulations of some law, possibly the Communications Act of 1934, though hopefully with some modifications since 1934. In 2015, the FCC arbitrarily decided to switch to Title II regulation to allow them to regulate some things more heavily, but arbitrarily decided that some parts of Title II shouldn't be enforced on ISPs because it would just break everything. The FCC now decided to switch back to Title I, so basically, the way things were until 2015.
You can reasonably argue that reverting to the way things were until 2015 is a good thing or a bad thing. I'd argue that switching back and forth on a whim rather than having a stable system is a bad thing. But the people claiming that reverting to the way things were until 2015 will be the end of the Internet have long since left the domain of reasonable argument.
The FCC never had the authority to regulate ISPs, given their classification, so Net Neutrality wasn't really legal anyways.
In order to regulate ISPs in this way, the law needs to be changed to classify Internet Service Providers the same as Telephone Companies. If that is done, then the FCC can regulate them in this way.
This used to be the case, but lobbyists have power.
I don't have a problem with this decision, because the FCC never had the jurisdiction to do this. Just because something benefits us doesn't mean we should allows laws to be warped to allow it to happen. If you make exceptions in this case, in your favor, then you can't complain about exceptions that harm you being made later on.
The big issue with this isn't the fact that it kills Net Neutrality, but the fact that people are pissed at this, but ignoring the elephant in the room... Probably half or more of the people in this country have no choice one cable provider because monopolies are allowed to rule the country region by region.
When there is more competition, this will become a non-issue.
If Verizon wants to charge Netflix more, then Netflix can say no and the users on Netflix who want good 4K streaming will simply move to the ISP that allows it without destroying their user experience.
Right now, this is impossible for a lot of people. If you have Comcast, yo often have no choice other than Satellite Internet... and that's unusable for things like gaming, VoIP, etc. due to ridiculous PINGs.
This is why AT&T was easily able to be pressured off their stance of blocking FaceTime back in 2012. They have competitors in the same market who told their users "it works here, and we'll save you some money in the process. Come on over!"
This hits it on the nailhead. The super ultra "pro" net neutrality people are ignoring the market forces that are at play, and the super ultra "against" net neutrality people are ignoring the fact that thousands of city councils across the country have granted monopoly access to cable lines and such to single companies.
It's not nearly as clear cut as everyone likes to make it.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Means nothing. I played FFXI and WoW all I wanted before 2015.
Do they have net neutrality before 2015? I don't know much about the topic.
https://is.gd/tWz4hd get's a little confusing reading it, but that is what people do on the left to confuse the masses. You know us stupid people. Obama put these rules into effect in 2015. What they could have done is take any talking point they didn't like and wipe it off the net (this is the basic reason rules were put in) and then ban that person or site. Sort of like what the IRS did to conservative sites for Trump.
Was best to have it dismantled and go back to way it was before 2015. There is already laws in books that take control of illegal acts on the net.
“The reason I talk to myself is because I’m the only one whose answers I accept.”
―
George Carlin
The FCC never had the authority to regulate ISPs, given their classification, so Net Neutrality wasn't really legal anyways.
In order to regulate ISPs in this way, the law needs to be changed to classify Internet Service Providers the same as Telephone Companies. If that is done, then the FCC can regulate them in this way.
This used to be the case, but lobbyists have power.
I don't have a problem with this decision, because the FCC never had the jurisdiction to do this. Just because something benefits us doesn't mean we should allows laws to be warped to allow it to happen. If you make exceptions in this case, in your favor, then you can't complain about exceptions that harm you being made later on.
The big issue with this isn't the fact that it kills Net Neutrality, but the fact that people are pissed at this, but ignoring the elephant in the room... Probably half or more of the people in this country have no choice one cable provider because monopolies are allowed to rule the country region by region.
When there is more competition, this will become a non-issue.
If Verizon wants to charge Netflix more, then Netflix can say no and the users on Netflix who want good 4K streaming will simply move to the ISP that allows it without destroying their user experience.
Right now, this is impossible for a lot of people. If you have Comcast, yo often have no choice other than Satellite Internet... and that's unusable for things like gaming, VoIP, etc. due to ridiculous PINGs.
This is why AT&T was easily able to be pressured off their stance of blocking FaceTime back in 2012. They have competitors in the same market who told their users "it works here, and we'll save you some money in the process. Come on over!"
This hits it on the nailhead. The super ultra "pro" net neutrality people are ignoring the market forces that are at play, and the super ultra "against" net neutrality people are ignoring the fact that thousands of city councils across the country have granted monopoly access to cable lines and such to single companies.
It's not nearly as clear cut as everyone likes to make it.
Means nothing. I played FFXI and WoW all I wanted before 2015.
Do they have net neutrality before 2015? I don't know much about the topic.
https://is.gd/tWz4hd get's a little confusing reading it, but that is what people do on the left to confuse the masses. You know us stupid people. Obama put these rules into effect in 2015. What they could have done is take any talking point they didn't like and wipe it off the net (this is the basic reason rules were put in) and then ban that person or site. Sort of like what the IRS did to conservative sites for Trump.
Was best to have it dismantled and go back to way it was before 2015. There is already laws in books that take control of illegal acts on the net.
I think its ridiculous how you reduce everything to "left" vs "right", and then proceed to spew out blatant lies.
Means nothing. I played FFXI and WoW all I wanted before 2015.
Do they have net neutrality before 2015? I don't know much about the topic.
https://is.gd/tWz4hd get's a little confusing reading it, but that is what people do on the left to confuse the masses. You know us stupid people. Obama put these rules into effect in 2015. What they could have done is take any talking point they didn't like and wipe it off the net (this is the basic reason rules were put in) and then ban that person or site. Sort of like what the IRS did to conservative sites for Trump.
Was best to have it dismantled and go back to way it was before 2015. There is already laws in books that take control of illegal acts on the net.
I think its ridiculous how you reduce everything to "left" vs "right", and then proceed to spew out blatant lies.
Sorry you feel that way, unfortunately this is what out Republic is right now, left vs right. I like to call it light vs dark.
Exactly what was the lie? Obama putting rules in and changing how system works in 2015? That is fact, Trump took those rules out!
“The reason I talk to myself is because I’m the only one whose answers I accept.”
―
George Carlin
Comments
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
There are a lot of obnoxious things that ISPs theoretically could do, but might not want to do. Gratuitously making your customers hate you isn't good for profitability, after all. The question is, what should we do about this?
Those who favor Title II regulation ("net neutrality") propose that we should figure out how ISPs should and should not behave and write a ton of regulations that they must do this and cannot do that. Those who prefer the traditional approach of Title I regulation propose instead giving ISPs a freer hand on deciding what to do provided that they inform their customers, then only intervening later to prohibit them from continuing to do whatever bad things they actually do.
There are pros and cons to both approaches here, and anyone who denies that is a charlatan who hasn't seriously engaged the issue. The advantage of heavier regulation is that a lot of bad behavior from ISPs gets stopped sooner or prevented outright.
The advantage of lighter regulation is that you don't waste a bunch of money forcing ISPs to verify and demonstrate that they're complying with regulations by doing what they would have done without those regulations. Compliance costs will inevitably be passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices or inferior service as to what would have happened without the unnecessary regulations.
Yes, under the new regulatory regime, an ISP informing their customers of what they're going to do could readily consist of warnings in the fine print. But if an ISP does decide to warn in the fine print that they're going to block or otherwise cripple a wide array of sites, that would turn into a national scandal very, very quickly. It only takes one person to read the fine print and notice--perhaps after noticing that some site that used to work well no longer does.
The FCC sued to stop them from doing this, as it meant that they were treating some sites differently from others. Under Title I regulation, such a plan would be completely legal provided that customers were informed. And in this case, the zero-rating practice was advertised in headlines, not just some fine print buried in a contract. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if T-Mobile resurrects it or other ISPs that impose data caps do something similar if they expect Title I regulation to stick.
Another thing that wouldn't be all that surprising to see is if some ISPs offer a discounted plan that disables video streaming but allows everything else to work. For example, optionally get exactly the same service as before for $20/month cheaper, except that sites like Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, and so forth are disabled entirely and video streaming protocols from other sites are also disabled. Or maybe they'll offer you your choice of a 30 Mbps connection with video streaming or 100 Mbps without video streaming for exactly the same price.
This is not going to turn into ten separate charges for a bunch of different types of sites. They're not going to charge extra for gaming or shopping, much less texting. Unusually high bandwidth usage is the thing that ISPs don't like, as that's what clogs their networks and costs them money. Today, that means video streaming. A decade ago, it meant peer to peer networking. A decade hence, it might mean something that isn't even on our radar yet.
One could argue that the behaviors that we're talking about banning aren't necessarily even bad things. And that's kind of the point. Title I regulations offer ISPs far more opportunities to innovate on their business model. Maybe they'll come up with something clever that most customers think is better than what they would have been forced to do under Title II. Or maybe they'll come up with an ISP equivalent of computer game loot boxes that is highly profitable for a while until the country finally bans it.
And let's also be clear that it's very unlikely to come to ISP censorship. We've had a string of scandals of Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and other popular sites blocking or not blocking various users and making decisions that most of the country would disagree with. They would surely prefer that users behave and they never have to block anyone, ever. But as content hosts, they have some responsibility for the content that they host, and various governments around the world have retaliated against them for not blocking various types of content that is offensive to some.
ISPs generally want no part of that game. As carriers who don't host content, they can readily argue that censorship is not their responsibility and they don't have to do it, at least apart from things like trying to stop DDOS attacks that pretty much everyone all across the political spectrum would like to see them block.
Even under Obama, the FCC hasn't exactly had a good record in the courts against these ISPs/Cable Companies. A clue, perhaps?
I mean, you don't get your electricity before your neighbour right? In the event of an electrical shortage, there is no possible way for you to pay to get electricity before someone else does?
Thats why I compare it to net neutrality - its not about what you're paying or who you're paying, or data caps or anything like that. It's about prioritisation of internet traffic. With neutrality, everything is treated equally during transmission, just like gas, water and electric.
― George Carlin
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Water is provided by local government and basic phone service also has heavy gov't oversight even though provided privately.
But cable TV, and corresponding internet service, not quite as much. While local gov't negotiate a standard rate for basic access and hook up which they must approve any changes to, they have little control on the prices charged for "extra" services like premium channels or internet access rates.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
https://www.battleforthenet.com/
The FCC classified ISPs as a utility under the previous administration in order to regulate them. This is what the ISPs were fighting to undo.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
Like with health care? Last I checked the US was dead last in terms of general health care among industrialized countries while simultaneously being, by far, the most expensive.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Too many Americans are under misconception that removing a regulation that's same for everyone and replacing it with about 100 different business practices and agreements will somehow magically decrease the court cases.
You can reasonably argue that reverting to the way things were until 2015 is a good thing or a bad thing. I'd argue that switching back and forth on a whim rather than having a stable system is a bad thing. But the people claiming that reverting to the way things were until 2015 will be the end of the Internet have long since left the domain of reasonable argument.
This hits it on the nailhead. The super ultra "pro" net neutrality people are ignoring the market forces that are at play, and the super ultra "against" net neutrality people are ignoring the fact that thousands of city councils across the country have granted monopoly access to cable lines and such to single companies.
It's not nearly as clear cut as everyone likes to make it.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Was best to have it dismantled and go back to way it was before 2015. There is already laws in books that take control of illegal acts on the net.
― George Carlin
Exactly what was the lie? Obama putting rules in and changing how system works in 2015? That is fact, Trump took those rules out!
― George Carlin