Jump to content


Photo

FCC Begins Process to End U.S Net Neutrality


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   TROPICUM

TROPICUM

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,738 posts
  • Location๐Ÿ‡ฒ๐Ÿ‡ฝ
  • Fan Since:2015 - Release of Honeymoon
  • Time Online: 61d 14h 31m 40s

Posted 25 November 2017 - 08:38 AM

https://twitter.com/...921554551361537

 

 

 

 

"FCC Chairman Ajit Pai will reveal plans to his fellow commissioners on Tuesday to fully dismantle the agency's Obama-era net neutrality regulations."

 

 

RIP free Internet. RIP LanaBoards.

 

9pAIFsR.gif


  • VillieTake, KamorkasOl, Sugar Venom and 3 others like this

   I said BlUMV2u.gif what I said


#2 OFFLINE   Bekim

Bekim

    Fuck With Myself

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,553 posts
  • LocationKosovo
  • Time Online: 175d 6h 31m 57s

Posted 25 November 2017 - 10:44 AM

https://media1.tenor...c2650/tenor.gif


N6gRxOw.gif


#3 OFFLINE   Arcadia

Arcadia

    Skarsgรฅrd Slut

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,160 posts
  • LocationEngland
  • Fan Since:Nov 2014
  • Time Online: 98d 8h 41m 39s

Posted 25 November 2017 - 12:33 PM

Is this just in America?
I want that Captain Eddie & Madame Wu kinda love.

#4 OFFLINE   HunterSThompson

HunterSThompson

    Lean into the fucking youth

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,130 posts
  • Fan Since:2012
  • Time Online: 27d 2h 3m 35s

Posted 25 November 2017 - 01:09 PM

Is this just in America?

Yes


  • Arcadia likes this

#5 OFFLINE   DEMONDELREY

DEMONDELREY

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 26 posts
  • Time Online: 1d 14h 27m 15s

Posted 25 November 2017 - 01:18 PM

States member to the European Convention on Human Rights have an obligation to realise the right of receiving information. So I would assume net neutrality is important in order to uphold this right. Is there an equivalent Article in US Human Rights Law?


  • LaMartine likes this

giphy.gif


#6 OFFLINE   HunterSThompson

HunterSThompson

    Lean into the fucking youth

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,130 posts
  • Fan Since:2012
  • Time Online: 27d 2h 3m 35s

Posted 25 November 2017 - 01:20 PM

States member to the European Convention on Human Rights have an obligation to realise the right of receiving information. So I would assume net neutrality is important in order to uphold this right. Is there an equivalent Article in US Human Rights Law?

U.S. doesn't have human rights law besides civil liberties and protections in the our constitution (but that is not the same as human rights)

 

(In our constitution we don't have that right by the way)


  • LaMartine and DEMONDELREY like this

#7 OFFLINE   DEMONDELREY

DEMONDELREY

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 26 posts
  • Time Online: 1d 14h 27m 15s

Posted 25 November 2017 - 01:26 PM

U.S. doesn't have human rights law besides civil liberties and protections in the our constitution (but that is not the same as human rights)

 

(In our constitution we don't have that right by the way)

 

That's very interesting, Inter-American Human Rights law seems so complicated compared to Europe. I wonder if there's any legal basis for an argument against this decision. Net neutrality should be protected at all cost!


giphy.gif


#8 OFFLINE   Bekim

Bekim

    Fuck With Myself

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,553 posts
  • LocationKosovo
  • Time Online: 175d 6h 31m 57s

Posted 25 November 2017 - 02:19 PM

Yes

tumblr_mi9vxqjzx31rm7sbeo1_250.gif 


  • Doublelift, Arcadia and Roctab like this

N6gRxOw.gif


#9 OFFLINE   Amadeus

Amadeus

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,058 posts
  • LocationGermany
  • Time Online: 133d 33m 36s

Posted 25 November 2017 - 03:08 PM

C4rT6xuWQAA0MKB.jpg

 

for electing trump

 

 

but on a serious note this just adds on how america's constitution is completely outdated and should be rewritten to fit in the modern 21st century, human rights, gun-regulations and other things included.


  • Elle, Bekim, West Coast and 8 others like this

VGEtahY.png


#10 OFFLINE   sexwithme

sexwithme

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,691 posts
  • Locationon the payload
  • Time Online: 88d 2h 14m 48s

Posted 25 November 2017 - 06:37 PM

you know I would care about the whole save the internet thing but I rather have there be no net neutrality than putting anti-capitalist limits on both American and global businesses, but at the same time limits the general cause of freedom of speech and global interaction. liberals are quaking

 

and lol @ the internet being a "human" right. silly Americans!

 

edit: no wonder I'm not seeing any scary-white man Trump stuff on my TL. the man trying to end is the first Indian american to hold office apparently apparently. lul


  • pinkslipdress likes this

#11 OFFLINE   salvatore

salvatore

    ๐˜›๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ Yosemite Cultist

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,338 posts
  • LocationTropic of Cancer
  • Time Online: 46d 13h 51m 10s

Posted 25 November 2017 - 07:24 PM

^Internet at this point in the US is deserving of a human right, in first world countries you NEED the damn thing to do pretty much anything.

 

What this'll do is allow companies to throttle certain sites and sources as they please. Lets give a hypothetical, in some areas, especially the extremely poverse ones- we don't get very many options for cable, internet, or cell service. We fucking don't. A company like Comcast can hold a whole goddamn area in monopoly and any start-ups are going to have a damn hard time to do anything. Let's say Fox News decides to pay them off, Comcast can now make it hell to visit any other news site than Fox.

 

It's also disgusting that it'll be legal for companies to charge for separate services, if you want to use music services you could have to pay a different fee, lets say you want to get Hulu, Youtube, Amazon, Netflix whatever the hell, but Comcast decides to have their own streaming service (hypothetical) they can just make every other one of those sites run slow as shit and force you to use their inhouse services. Prices for said services can literally go up due to them having to pay more taxes so their speeds don't get buffered or worn down by the providers. 

 

People don't have that kind of fuckin money, surprising I know, not everybody can afford every little damn thing most people on here can. It was considered a Title II utility so it couldn't be throttled, I'd rather have a level playing field open for freedom of speech and 0 forced bias from my provider than any pro-capitalism service capable of forced manipulation and slower speeds for things they don't like. 

 

And the dude running for this to happen, he's IA, so? there's no point in bringing that up besides an unnecessary argument & light race baiting.

 

His argument is that while companies can do this, the market can decide they don't want these types of unfair companies and drop them, except in many places there's literally 0 fucking option to drop a monopolized company like Comcast. Consumers can't decide where the market goes with 2 bullshit options, with a third that's 0 fucking internet.

 

There's also the argument that people against N-N are giving that "Why do you want the government micromanaging the internet", if the Government (especially the admin we have now) was trying to micromanage and fuck with our internet in the way those saying think- they wouldn't be letting this happen as easily as it seems. 

 

One of the last things people can do is use these- call your congress, write emails, letters, ask and tell them to do the right thing. They're made to represent you and not the powerful companies paying them. Actually use the fucking democracy you're given in the most pivotal way you can:

 

https://www.callmycongress.com/

 

https://www.battleforthenet.com/


  • PrettyBaby, DAMN, Electras Heart and 4 others like this

๐“ฒ๐“ถ ๐“ฐ๐“ธ๐“ฒ๐“ท๐“ฐ ๐“ฝ๐“ฑ๐“ป๐“ธ๐“พ๐“ฐ๐“ฑ  gmagik.gifalien_salvatore_gif_RESIZED.gifgmagik.gif๐“ช๐“ท ๐“ฒ๐“ญ๐“ฎ๐“ท๐“ฝ๐“ฒ๐“ฝ๐”‚ ๐“ฌ๐“ป๐“ฒ๐“ผ๐“ฒ๐“ผ 


#12 OFFLINE   sexwithme

sexwithme

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,691 posts
  • Locationon the payload
  • Time Online: 88d 2h 14m 48s

Posted 25 November 2017 - 07:32 PM

ok but how is accessing lanaboards.com a human right

 

libraries, schools and your local McDonald's people


  • expandableclitoris likes this

#13 OFFLINE   DEMONDELREY

DEMONDELREY

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 26 posts
  • Time Online: 1d 14h 27m 15s

Posted 25 November 2017 - 11:26 PM

ok but how is accessing lanaboards.com a human right

libraries, schools and your local McDonald's people


Well, when people refer to the Internet as a human right, they mean States interfering with Internet access. Iโ€™ve only studied Law from a European perspective, so over here it could possibly fall under Article 10 of the ECHR. The UN Human Rights Council have actually discussed the right to Internet in a resolution.
  • PrettyBaby, Kitschesque and subversive light like this

giphy.gif


#14 OFFLINE   Sugar Venom

Sugar Venom

    ๐”…๐”ž๐”Ÿ๐”ถ ๐”Š

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 547 posts
  • LocationGlimmering By The Swimming Pool
  • Fan Since:2011
  • Time Online: 34d 22h 42m 35s

Posted 25 November 2017 - 11:34 PM

ok but how is accessing lanaboards.com a human right

 

libraries, schools and your local McDonald's people

I mean if u really wanna do that, how is it not? why shouldn't people be able to access lanaboards?

 

the internet is way easier to use for research and you know that. stop acting like making a trip to the library (which many people don't live extremely close to one, so their access is already limited and that's barely even factoring in transportation, which sets more limitations, and depending on the area it could be very outdated and underfunded etc) and having to pick a book (or ask around for suggestions) then locate it and then having to find information somewhere within that book is the same thing as googling whatever you were curious about and finding the answer in like 3 seconds :crossed:


  • DominicMars, loleetah, salvatore and 1 other like this

HNH68Zc.jpg


#15 OFFLINE   DAMN

DAMN

    Kungfu Kenny

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,010 posts
  • LocationOrlando
  • Fan Since:2013
  • Time Online: 75d 6h 32m 41s

Posted 27 November 2017 - 03:09 PM

 

 

but on a serious note this just adds on how america's constitution is completely outdated and should be rewritten to fit in the modern 21st century, human rights, gun-regulations and other things included.

what ive always found ironic is that the constitution is supposed to be updated every 19 years since its conception...it hasn't been touched once. repugnant

 

^Internet at this point in the US is deserving of a human right, in first world countries you NEED the damn thing to do pretty much anything.

 

What this'll do is allow companies to throttle certain sites and sources as they please. Lets give a hypothetical, in some areas, especially the extremely poverse ones- we don't get very many options for cable, internet, or cell service. We fucking don't. A company like Comcast can hold a whole goddamn area in monopoly and any start-ups are going to have a damn hard time to do anything. Let's say Fox News decides to pay them off, Comcast can now make it hell to visit any other news site than Fox.

 

It's also disgusting that it'll be legal for companies to charge for separate services, if you want to use music services you could have to pay a different fee, lets say you want to get Hulu, Youtube, Amazon, Netflix whatever the hell, but Comcast decides to have their own streaming service (hypothetical) they can just make every other one of those sites run slow as shit and force you to use their inhouse services. Prices for said services can literally go up due to them having to pay more taxes so their speeds don't get buffered or worn down by the providers. 

 

People don't have that kind of fuckin money, surprising I know, not everybody can afford every little damn thing most people on here can. It was considered a Title II utility so it couldn't be throttled, I'd rather have a level playing field open for freedom of speech and 0 forced bias from my provider than any pro-capitalism service capable of forced manipulation and slower speeds for things they don't like. 

 

And the dude running for this to happen, he's IA, so? there's no point in bringing that up besides an unnecessary argument & light race baiting.

 

His argument is that while companies can do this, the market can decide they don't want these types of unfair companies and drop them, except in many places there's literally 0 fucking option to drop a monopolized company like Comcast. Consumers can't decide where the market goes with 2 bullshit options, with a third that's 0 fucking internet.

 

There's also the argument that people against N-N are giving that "Why do you want the government micromanaging the internet", if the Government (especially the admin we have now) was trying to micromanage and fuck with our internet in the way those saying think- they wouldn't be letting this happen as easily as it seems. 

 

One of the last things people can do is use these- call your congress, write emails, letters, ask and tell them to do the right thing. They're made to represent you and not the powerful companies paying them. Actually use the fucking democracy you're given in the most pivotal way you can:

 

https://www.callmycongress.com/

 

https://www.battleforthenet.com/

someone in here fucking gets it, thank you. As a libertarian i cant believe other libertarians. are pulling the "Why do you want the government micromanaging the internet" when corporations already have been monopolizing and toying with internet servicing in the US since forever. We have the slowest and most expensive internet speed for an advanced country and it bullshit. my bill has gone from $50 to $85 in two damn years and I am dumfounded

 

i agree that corporations nor the government should intervene with the internet but the fact that our government HAD to create a Net Neutrality law to protect it speaks volume at how killing this legislation will actually be worse 

 

peoplesay "oh we can just get rid of NN, it was only made in 2015". Well sweaty the concept of NN has existed since the conception of the WWW, the only reason it is a tangible set of rules is bc corporations fond a way to restrict and overcharge people for online services. one being that ATT was forcing people to pay extra when FaceTime first came out on the iPhones. well see what happens


  • loleetah and salvatore like this

Posted Image


#16 OFFLINE   THETEMPLE

THETEMPLE

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 45 posts
  • Time Online: 4d 44m 31s

Posted 27 November 2017 - 03:11 PM

ok but how is accessing lanaboards.com a human right

 

libraries, schools and your local McDonald's people

 

Because it's your freedom to do whatever you want. 


  • loleetah likes this

#17 OFFLINE   Sugar Venom

Sugar Venom

    ๐”…๐”ž๐”Ÿ๐”ถ ๐”Š

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 547 posts
  • LocationGlimmering By The Swimming Pool
  • Fan Since:2011
  • Time Online: 34d 22h 42m 35s

Posted 30 November 2017 - 09:28 PM

I feel like it's also important to point out that if you live in an unsafe household - your parents or partner or whoever is paying your bills is gonna be able to see your internet history

 

they'll be charing separate extras for each website you visit if you don't already have that package, so the websites you visit are going to be tracked because that's how they'll know what to charge you for. you can no longer (at least safely) access online resources for lgbt folks, abuse victims, racism etc. please be careful and take precautions yall. stay safe 


  • Electras Heart, bluekilos, subversive light and 1 other like this

HNH68Zc.jpg


#18 OFFLINE   subversive light

subversive light

    fuckin doggo is all i am

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,067 posts
  • Time Online: 9d 21h 20m 49s

Posted 30 November 2017 - 09:32 PM

"America: the Land of Freedom" they said


  • bluekilos, Sugar Venom and Clampigirl like this

tenor.gif


#19 OFFLINE   Kitschesque

Kitschesque

    โ˜ฎ idol of daisies โ˜ผ

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,052 posts
  • Locationcrookback bog
  • Fan Since:april 2012
  • Time Online: 23d 1h 52m 33s

Posted 30 November 2017 - 09:49 PM

"America: the Land of Freedom" they said

 

Yeah freedom only for rich white men to exploit goods

Funny how this applies to both this mess and pretty much american history in general


  • bluekilos, Sugar Venom and subversive light like this

tenor.gif  afraid of sharks, but not the dark


#20 OFFLINE   subversive light

subversive light

    fuckin doggo is all i am

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,067 posts
  • Time Online: 9d 21h 20m 49s

Posted 04 December 2017 - 09:04 PM

Yeah freedom only for rich white men to exploit goods

Funny how this applies to both this mess and pretty much american history in general

 

exactly


tenor.gif





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users