It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
nah, I was agreeing with youholdenfive said: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.TheScavenger said:in regards to the quote "Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign"...holdenfive said:Well that's exactly what the Obama administration would have liked to have done towards the latter part of this past election cycle. Hillary even hinted at it, wanting to shut down Breitbart 4Chan and others. Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign. Had she been elected it would've went in the opposite direction and existing policy expanded on to enable the government to make it as difficult as possible for people who operate sites like these. Trump takes the position to do away with as much big government regulations as he can get away with, across the board. He isn't targeting net neutrality specifically.Cleffy said:I don't mind the censorship private companies engage in. I do mind when the federal government censors content.
This whole manufactured outrage about what ISP's can theoretically do now is just pissing in the wind. The vast majority of Americans are against the theoretical evil ISP's 'might' do if they aren't governed. And since their main concern is offering a palatable product that is deterrent enough against doing it. There is nothing to deter big government from infringing on your rights though, any time they take a step back, it's a step in the right direction.
in before "but muh russia narrative" for hillary losing...pretty much nothing big or important came out of that lol.
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),
MMOs are already single player gamesKyleran said:Yet one more plus for my switch to single player games.
If you think government having control in the internet is good...look at Venezuela or Europe where they very heavily censor everything. If you say anything bad in say UK on Twitter, they can somehow find you in a day or two, but somehow can't find rapists and murderers for years and then the rapist says he doesn't know what "no" means and they let him free and the person who says something bad on twitter spends years in prison.FlyByKnight said:TheScavenger said:Actually, neither.FlyByKnight said:I would love for everyone to honestly answer a simple question. An abridged response please.
Who do you think American tax payers have a better chance of influencing when there is something incorrect or unfair? The government or a billion dollar ISP?
Please think before you answer because the name calling and insult portion of this conversation follows shortly after.
If the government controls the internet, then you get heavy censoring (just look at Venezuela and recently many Europe countries that ban anything that they don't like because it hurts their feelings and go to prison for saying anything bad over a single twitter post lol. They treat it more of a crime for a negative twitter post than rape and murder). That hasn't happened in the US luckily, but it shows that government should not have access to internet for a free internet.
However, on the other side of things, billion dollar ISPs have a HUGE monopoly. There is very little choice. In my area, there is only one ISP to choose from if I want cable...many other off-brands are owned by these very few ISPs so even if you have another provider, chances are its owned by the multi billion dollar ISPs.
Neither choice is good. What there needs to be is more choices and more internet companies to choose from, that are high quality. Like pop up independent providers. I guess google is sorta in their internet thing, but they only chose small rural towns for some reason and haven't done much in a long time as far as I know. But google is again, a huge multi billion company...but at least its sorta another choice.
Right now however, most people literally get at most 3 providers if they are lucky they can choose from...then a bunch of an illusion of choices most likely still owned by one of the 3 providers. Or in my case, if I want cable, I literally only have one choice of a provider for internet.
So ISPs controlling the internet is as bad as the government controlling the internet...with the caveat that...government can still control the ISPs anyway so...really it doesn't make a difference at all