Re: Forum Usage Tip from Stonewall

Main discussion area is here. Reply to a message to continue a discussion thread, or create your own new Topics.

User avatar
Kevsky
Posts: 131
Joined: 2013 Sep 24 07:32

Re: Stonewall's Chatter (Running the Forum, tech, etc.)

Postby Kevsky » 2017 Dec 26 18:12

Excellent article. Thanks for the link Crux.

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: Stonewall's Chatter (Running the Forum, tech, etc.)

Postby Wise One » 2017 Dec 26 19:58

I read both Stonewall's and Crux's postings and think the arguments made in the right wing Daily Bell article are poor.

The arguments made don't hold water for one or more of the following reasons: false, ad hominem, nonsensical, or undocumented.

If you are not sucking at the teet of one of the big three ISPs, you lose. Period. Without net neutrality, millions of us will lose, and only three companies will gain.

PS. Ironically, the article you referenced regarding private networks also attacks ISPs. You'd better re-read it, it makes a point opposite to the one you thnk you are making. The enemy is not government, which wants to enable the new networks, it is the same ISPs. They want a monopoly over all connections, and want to abolish net neutrality so they can emulate the Chinese government and shut down the Internet. (For monopolistic financial control rather than for monopolistic political control.)

:coffee:
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Kevsky
Posts: 131
Joined: 2013 Sep 24 07:32

Re: Stonewall's Chatter (Running the Forum, tech, etc.)

Postby Kevsky » 2017 Dec 31 16:50

"Wise" One states:
The arguments made don't hold water for one or more of the following reasons: false, ad hominem, nonsensical, or undocumented.


If your going to make a statement like that at least back it up.

ad hominem - definition - 1.appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason. 2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.


Where is the ad hominem in this article? Where is it nonsensical? Just throwing accusations around does not make you right.

"Wise" One states:
Ironically, the article you referenced regarding private networks also attacks ISPs. You'd better re-read it, it makes a point opposite to the one you thnk you are making.


No, you are wrong. It criticizes the symbiotic relationship of Government colluding with large corporations to create uncompetitive markets and why net neutrality imposed restrictions on beneficial competition. Just read the article:

The net neutrality regulations were typical restrictions. They were an attempt for the US government to control various aspects of the telecom industry.


The problem wasn’t the way in which ISPs conducted business. The problem was the consolidation of power among ISPs. They influence legislation and regulation so that the government protects ISPs from competition.

How did ISPs gain that ability? Through politicians’ favorite personal path to riches, lobbying.


When we allow the government to dictate how a business can be run, lobbyists for the biggest businesses inevitably have their way. Regulation they claim will prevent monopolies always creates them.

User avatar
Stonewall
Site Admin
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007 Jun 11 03:26

Re: Stonewall's Chatter (Running the Forum, tech, etc.)

Postby Stonewall » 2018 Jan 26 14:33

This boils the net neutrality issue down to terms that anybody can understand.

Our only hope is that the Congress will reverse this stupid FCC action.

PS. The end shot is hilarious, a takeoff on this photo of the FCC Chairman who got his Republican colleagues to do this dumb thing.

Image
Thanks for your posts! Stonewall, your administrator ... just an "empty suit."

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Re: Stonewall's Chatter (Running the Forum, tech, etc.)

Postby Crux » 2018 Feb 01 17:12

If Stonewall is the Empty Suit, AO is the Body. Two peas in a pod. Joined at the hip. On the same team: Big Government/Crony Capitalistic Solutions For Problems that very Nexus created... Sad

"Net Neutrality" and "The Affordable Care Act" :shakeh: :shakeh: Two more pees in a pod.

User avatar
Neck-aint-red
Posts: 354
Joined: 2008 Apr 08 14:08

Re: Stonewall's Chatter (Running the Forum, tech, etc.)

Postby Neck-aint-red » 2018 Feb 01 22:14

Some people think the Republican FCC's destruction of net neutrality is a good thing because it's described as "getting rid of government regulation."

What they miss is that for the most part we have had net neutrality continuously up to now, both with and without FCC regulation.

That is going to change, big time.

ISPs will start exploiting their new "freedom" as a license-to-steal. It's going to get ugly. I promise, you will yearn for the "good old days."

User avatar
Cannoneer
Posts: 492
Joined: 2012 Dec 02 22:19

Re: Stonewall's Chatter (Running the Forum, tech, etc.)

Postby Cannoneer » 2018 Apr 06 09:54

Stonewall or wise one, whichever applies,

Is the United States really united? is not the same as our government then and now.
.

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Re: Stonewall's Chatter (Running the Forum, tech, etc.)

Postby Crux » 2018 Apr 08 22:19

One has to understand the difference between NN on the FCC Level (internet service provider level) and the FTC (an actual net neutrality regarding the free flow of information). The LEFT is all about CENSORSHIP. Facebook, google, and the roll of fixing public opinion and manipulating it for example, towards the election of Hillary.

I don't expect the left to wake up, fully, until it smacks them in the face...

User avatar
Bigbux Stogeychomper
Posts: 39
Joined: 2012 Mar 07 23:11

Re: Stonewall's Chatter (Running the Forum, tech, etc.)

Postby Bigbux Stogeychomper » 2018 Apr 10 01:19

Well that is either incomprehensible gibberish, or right up my alley.

I'm a monopolist so I identify with the big three: Comcast, Time Warner, and Verizon. They've divided up the country so that almost everybody has only one internet service provider available. Sweet!

Just like me, the big three can screw the customer for any price they like ... no competition.

Even better, now that Net Neutrality is out of the way, my fellow monopolists are not limited to screwing only the customers at the end of the pipe. They can also screw all the content providers at the beginning of the pipe. Netflix, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, HBO, Yahoo, Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC, Breitbart, Drudge, MSNBC, and thousands of other sites will ALL have to pay fees ... or get slowed until they knuckle under and pay the ransom.

Wait, it gets better. The big three will invent all kinds of complicated "Plans," putting the sites that pay the most into "Bundles" ... just like Cable TV. It's gonna be so confusing, so expensive, so noncompetitive that my buddies will rake it in to beat the band. I can't wait to get together with them down at the club and laugh over how we screwed the dummies again.

Wait, it gets even better. Ultraconservatives bought our "reduce regulation, bring back the free market" propaganda. Net Neutrality preserved and protected competition and we hated that. Thank god for stupid people who helped us kill it!

:lets: I'm gonna eat your lunch.

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Re: Stonewall's Chatter (Running the Forum, tech, etc.)

Postby Crux » 2018 Apr 10 18:10

I will put it another way. The Left is SHOCKINGLY unconcerned with the CENSORSHIP, shadow banning, demonetizing, ETC that happens on the NEUTRAL NET... The wierd defense of "net neutrality" always rang false, and still does. The Left is far too concerned over the FCC, and far too disinterested in the FTC's roll to protects speech. For the dense. You are welcome.

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: Stonewall's Chatter (Running the Forum, tech, etc.)

Postby Wise One » 2018 Apr 10 18:31

Give me any, any, example of ISP censorship or demonizing, or shadow banning, that occurred under the existing policy and practice of an Internet neutral to content and providers. I would really like to know of any such occurrence. Even one will do.

I suspect that you don't know what the term "Net Neutrality" means. It means, simply, that the PROVIDERS of internet service (ISP, usually one of the Big Three) cannot unfairly impede or favor any user or any content riding on their internet pipe.

Their USERS, of course, are free to do any damn thing they like. That's called freedom and competition. There are users of all kinds, from the lovable to the hateful. Some do all the things you mention and will so long as Amendment 1 of the Constitution holds.

:coffee:
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Cannoneer
Posts: 492
Joined: 2012 Dec 02 22:19

Re: Stonewall's Chatter (Running the Forum, tech, etc.)

Postby Cannoneer » 2018 Apr 10 23:59

Oh wise, Do you hate the first amendment as much s you hate the second?

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: Stonewall's Chatter (Running the Forum, tech, etc.)

Postby Wise One » 2018 Apr 11 00:19

You understand so little. Of course I revere the First Amendment. It preserves our freedom of speech. I love and am so grateful that
Their USERS, of course, are free to do any damn thing they like. That's called freedom and competition. There are users of all kinds, from the lovable to the hateful. Some do all the things you mention and will so long as Amendment 1 of the Constitution holds.

Crux appears not to agree.

:coffee:
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Cannoneer
Posts: 492
Joined: 2012 Dec 02 22:19

Re: Stonewall's Chatter (Running the Forum, tech, etc.)

Postby Cannoneer » 2018 Apr 11 10:02

BS wise, you're a Liberal, you folks only approve freedom of speech for yourselves. Also you are also the most judgmental people on the planet.

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Follow the Bouncing Ball

Postby Crux » 2018 Apr 11 11:25

Not ISP. I drew the distinction between NN and FCC, and the FTC and the LEFTIST CENSORSHIP that runs WILD.

FB, G, YT, Tw, etc censor speech all the time. Shadow banning, demonetizing, blocking, etc....


My distinction was clear AH

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Re: Follow the Bouncing Ball

Postby Crux » 2018 Apr 11 11:32

Crux wrote:Not ISP. I drew the distinction between NN and FCC, and the FTC and the LEFTIST CENSORSHIP that runs WILD.

FB, G, YT, Tw, etc censor speech all the time. Shadow banning, demonetizing, blocking, etc....


My distinction was clear AH


You are smarter AH, dig deeper, you are not done yet. I have hope that you will ONE DAY actually champion free speech, by DECRYING the censorship of CONTENT based on Political Point of View, on Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc. You are not that dense are you? :coffee:

User avatar
Trend Setter
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007 Oct 29 13:10

Re: Forum Usage Tip from Stonewall

Postby Trend Setter » 2018 May 15 23:03

Well, here's a ray of hope anyway.

However things turn out in the Senate, the crowd of Pubics (thanks, Wise One, I'll use it) in the House are likely to kill sanity and Net Neutrality.

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: Follow the Bouncing Ball

Postby Wise One » 2018 May 16 11:28

Crux wrote:Not ISP. I drew the distinction between NN and FCC, and the FTC and the LEFTIST CENSORSHIP that runs WILD.
FB, G, YT, Tw, etc censor speech all the time. Shadow banning, demonetizing, blocking, etc....I have hope that you will ONE DAY actually champion free speech, by DECRYING the censorship of CONTENT based on Political Point of View, on Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc.

You appear not to understand the concept of Free Speech.

I do not have the right to come into your house and hurl insults. You can ban me and my behavior from your house. These are private acts on private property. You may preserve your freedom and silence me without inhibiting my Free Speech, in the legal sense.

Having been rebuffed by Crux on private property, I can then go into the town square, stand on a soap box, and spew insults right and left, calling Trump a Turd, etc. Government cannot control my speech. That is what Free Speech is, protection from government control of speech and other forms of communication. It has nothing to do with private acts on private property.

The Internet is the same. Private operators of web sites can adopt any policy they like over content posted on their private sites. They are free to allow, or disallow, any content for any reason, good or bad. What must NEVER be allowed, is government control over private content.

:coffee:
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Re: Follow the Bouncing Ball

Postby Crux » 2018 May 16 22:13

Wise One wrote:
Crux wrote:
The Internet is the same. Private operators of web sites can adopt any policy they like over content posted on their private sites. They are free to allow, or disallow, any content for any reason, good or bad. What must NEVER be allowed, is government control over private content.

:coffee:


You seem not to care, or to understand, that when Twitter, or Facebook, or Youtube, or Google, censor, shadow ban, de-monitize, BAN, or manipulate search results and algoraithems to the DETRIMENT of CONSERVATIVES and LIBERTARIANS in a heavy handed authoritarian way, that is a fine example of RICH GLOBALIST PROGRESSIVE AUTHORITARIANISM. This obvious, well documented behavior, excused and ignored by JERKS like you, will be dealt with, in time, by the mechanisms of Liberty and Justice.

It is JERKS like you who CHEER when a pizza shop or cupcake shop is TARGETED FOR FINES, social doxing, and BANKRUPTCY. You are NASTY...