R.I.P. The Internet will die today

greenleaves said:
This is patently false. Look at the wiki leaks documents. Plenty of those are inane bullshit that has no reason to be kept secret.

You'd be the first to accuse the government of putting too many things, including things that should be public as secret.

But now that it fits your argument to say otherwise... it is otherwise?

Common.



Ummm.... torrenters have been throttled for a long ass time. What are you talking about? Do you even internets bro?

You keep saying, with this change, we'll get things we already have. Scary. Do you seriously not see how easy it is to take down your arguments?



Yeap, but a recurring theme.

You mention shit that isn't to the point to appeal to peoples emotions because your emotions were activated.

Great rhetoric.

Terrible dialectics.

If you want to convince those of us who think, you gotta do better than that.



Freedom of speach. The fifth amendment. All legislation related to the installation of sewege.



You keep doing it.

You say shit that is true. But has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

It is like when people defend the patriot act by saying:

"But child safety is important"

Duh. Of course it is. But it has NOTHING to do with the Patriot act.

Just like your arguments have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

They are just lame pandering to the lowest common denominator within your group.



OMG, OBAMA. OBAMA BE BAD. BAD PEOPLE LIKE BAD THINGS. HE LIKES SOMETHING. MUST BE BAD. ME SMART.

Am I finally getting it?

I don't mean to fall into the fallacy fallacy, but you aren't doing very well defending your position.
Click to expand...


Bro, again I can't disagree with you. I can't defend it. I have not read the report. They will no doubt release it in the near future. Hopefully I can make a better argument at that time. The only point I want to get across in this post, is to mark down today on your calendar as monumental day. This shit is going to take years and years to become actual law. But this is very solid groundwork for that law to be implemented (whatever it actually is).

BTW, I was not expecting you to cite the bill of rights, so I will concede that point (as well as your sewage point).

Maybe it is all rhetoric? I don't know. Honestly I hope you're right and everything is going to work out great.
 


dmnEPC said:
The vote was based on a 300+ page report was kept secret from the public.
Click to expand...

OK but the laws themselves aren't secret. There are probably many reports that are confidential in gov. Hopefully this report is leaked though so we can see what's up.

dmnEPC said:
BTW "Torrents" likely won't be considered "lawful content" so that will likely be blocked, and or throttled. It doesn't bother you that they cracked your SSL so they could figure out it was netflix content to throttle? Again a separate issue.
Click to expand...

Did they make new laws about 'lawful content'? It would suck if torrenting will be harder due to this new legislation. But if nothing new was said about 'lawful content' then it's the same as always probably.

dmnEPC said:
Let me ask one question. Please name any 1 single piece of regulation that benefits the common man?
Click to expand...

Anti-monopoly laws. Laws against using force to break up strikes.

This sounds like you're making the old anarchist 'gov cant be good for a single thing' argument. That's a whole other thread/book though. I think on over-crowded, space-limited, resource-limited land some govs can provide much better living conditions than anarchy. Anarchy, while living among other people, is actually an impossibility.

dmnEPC said:
No matter what is in that report, I can assure you it was written by special interest groups. And they have no interest in protecting your freedoms.
Click to expand...

Ya but in this case Netflix is a special interest and I agree with their interests of giving me an equally fast connection to their servers without hidden throttling.
 
JakeStratham said:
That is one hell of an assertion. ;)
Click to expand...

Hah i knew that would troll someone :)
But i pretty much believe it because, under anarchy, gangs/groups would instantly form and you'd have to live under their threats/rules no different than a gov. We prob don't want to hijack this thread though.
 
WickedJoe said:
OK but the laws themselves aren't secret. There are probably many reports that are confidential in gov. Hopefully this report is leaked though so we can see what's up.



Did they make new laws about 'lawful content'? It would suck if torrenting will be harder due to this new legislation. But if nothing new was said about 'lawful content' then it's the same as always probably.



Anti-monopoly laws. Laws against using force to break up strikes.

This sounds like you're making the old anarchist 'gov cant be good for a single thing' argument. That's a whole other thread/book though. I think on over-crowded, space-limited, resource-limited land some govs can provide much better living conditions than anarchy. Anarchy, while living among other people, is actually an impossibility.



Ya but in this case Netflix is a special interest and I agree with their interests of giving me an equally fast connection to their servers without hidden throttling.
Click to expand...

to be clear no laws where actually written today. The only reason I mentioned anything about torrenting was because you brought it up, and for some reason the words "lawful content" made it into the linked article. Honestly those 2 words worry me more than anything.

Netflix was used to sell this to the public. I don't want to speculate (more than I already have), but I am certain Netflix would figure out a way to get their content to you with or without regulation. ISP's can only get away with so much shit before their customer start causing real problems for them. That report will be released, and then we will know for sure what they are planning. I can promise you it will go way beyond this one minor issue. 300+ pages so people can get netflix? I doubt it.

My only real position, is the internet has changed the world. I think for the better. That was done with a fairly hands off approach. By making it a public utility, that hands off approach will certainly change. How can it not change? If it's not going to change why not make the rules?


EDIT: Thank you guys for calling me out on some of my arguments. It's given me much to think about, and hopefully learn to write a more persuasive, factual, and intellectual argument.
 
greenleaves said:
I wasn't sold by Washington.

I'm glad my sites won't be throttled. I can't pay $xx,xxx per month to ISPs who are already making out like bandits. The downsides suck though. It would have been better to leave things as they were from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Your website will still be throttled, not because the ISP is doing it on purposes but because Netflix doesn't have its own lane/priority. Meaning that traffic to your website is also competing with your neighbor who is streaming house of cards on netflix. Internet bandwidth isn't limitless and it will face bandwidth constraint, especially if ISP limit investment into their network
 
JakeStratham said:
Agreed. But if you want to lob one last anti-anarchy grenade, the floor is yours.
Click to expand...

i was recently watching a show (i forget the name) about a remote town in alaska where people move to "live free". its not even so much of a town as it is a meeting point for people who live near eachother.

even in this "live free" environment, there is an individual who wants to bring electricity and accessibility to the community, and the community masses are against it. they form collectively to oppose his efforts.

here's a guy that sought anarchy (the absense of government) but couldn't even find it in the remote wilds of bush alaska.

so while you say its "one hell of an assertion", the idea that "anarchy, while living among other people, is actually an impossibility" has a fair bit of merit.
 
GFWy5qK.png
 
drave said:
i was recently watching a show (i forget the name) about a remote town in alaska where people move to "live free". its not even so much of a town as it is a meeting point for people who live near eachother.

even in this "live free" environment, there is an individual who wants to bring electricity and accessibility to the community, and the community masses are against it. they form collectively to oppose his efforts.

here's a guy that sought anarchy (the absense of government) but couldn't even find it in the remote wilds of bush alaska.

so while you say its "one hell of an assertion", the idea that "anarchy, while living among other people, is actually an impossibility" has a fair bit of merit.
Click to expand...

I see nothing in your post that debunks anarchy as a workable solution among rational* people.



* defined as acting with a purpose
 
drave said:
i was recently watching a show (i forget the name) about a remote town in alaska where people move to "live free". its not even so much of a town as it is a meeting point for people who live near eachother.

even in this "live free" environment, there is an individual who wants to bring electricity and accessibility to the community, and the community masses are against it. they form collectively to oppose his efforts.

here's a guy that sought anarchy (the absense of government) but couldn't even find it in the remote wilds of bush alaska.

so while you say its "one hell of an assertion", the idea that "anarchy, while living among other people, is actually an impossibility" has a fair bit of merit.
Click to expand...

You can't have anarchy in Alaska where property isn't clearly defined. You can't have it in any nation where the government is part-owner of all land. With clearly defined property ownership everything else falls into place. But you can't not clearly define property and then expect anarchy, which stems from property, to work.

In the above example there probably would not be one single owner of the entire community (but there could be) and it would be up to each individual owner to decide whether or not to do something with their own property. If somebody wanted electricity they could get it with their land. If most people did not want it the person providing electricity probably would not try to offer it to these people in the first place since he knows there's not much money to be made here. If 1 person really wants it then that person is going to pay a premium to have it in a more remote area.

Where's the problem?
 
In 5 years if you're not making $1 million PA from your online presence, kiss your ass goodbye.

The major players (Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc) are going to use the FCC to kill your business. Monopolies only exist because of Government, not in spite of.

I know a lot of you will dismiss this as paranoid bullshit, but ask yourself, can you start a TV station or a phone company without millions of dollars to back it up?

dreamache image might be fake, for now, but it's coming.

And for everyone that thinks that because they aren't American or in America it doesn't matter, guess again. No matter where you are, your government will follow suit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom