Current Events > Republicans: Forcing net neutrality is bad! Companies shouldn't be controlled!l

(+) Yeah! (+)

Also Republicans: INTERNET LIBERAL TECH GIANTS ARE CENSORING CONSERVATIVES!!! THEY SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE NON-PARTISAN AND NEUTRAL AND STOP CENSORING!!!
---

Liberals: Companies shouldn't be allowed to censor speech!

ALso Liberals: IT'S THEIR PLATFORM, THEY CAN CENSOR ANYONE THEY LIKE AS LONG AS WE AGREE WITH THE CENSORING.

See? We can all shitpost.
---

"Governmental censorship is bad! Corporate censorship is good!"
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Liberals: Companies shouldn't be allowed to censor speech!

ALso Liberals: IT'S THEIR PLATFORM, THEY CAN CENSOR ANYONE THEY LIKE AS LONG AS WE AGREE WITH THE CENSORING.

See? We can all shitpost.

You're especially apt at that.
---

"Corporate censorship is bad! Governmental censorship is good!"
---

LinksLiege posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Liberals: Companies shouldn't be allowed to censor speech!

ALso Liberals: IT'S THEIR PLATFORM, THEY CAN CENSOR ANYONE THEY LIKE AS LONG AS WE AGREE WITH THE CENSORING.

See? We can all shitpost.

You're especially apt at that.

I do quite a good job of mimicking you and the other usual suspects.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Liberals: Companies shouldn't be allowed to censor speech!

whos saying this?
---

LinksLiege posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Liberals: Companies shouldn't be allowed to censor speech!

ALso Liberals: IT'S THEIR PLATFORM, THEY CAN CENSOR ANYONE THEY LIKE AS LONG AS WE AGREE WITH THE CENSORING.

See? We can all shitpost.

You're especially apt at that.

Proudclad just has nothing else to do in his life.
---

We all shitpost down here
---

Tmaster148 posted...

LinksLiege posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Liberals: Companies shouldn't be allowed to censor speech!

ALso Liberals: IT'S THEIR PLATFORM, THEY CAN CENSOR ANYONE THEY LIKE AS LONG AS WE AGREE WITH THE CENSORING.

See? We can all shitpost.

You're especially apt at that.

Proudclad just has nothing else to do in his life.

fluffers is proud? xD
---

spudger posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

LinksLiege posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Liberals: Companies shouldn't be allowed to censor speech!

ALso Liberals: IT'S THEIR PLATFORM, THEY CAN CENSOR ANYONE THEY LIKE AS LONG AS WE AGREE WITH THE CENSORING.

See? We can all shitpost.

You're especially apt at that.

Proudclad just has nothing else to do in his life.

fluffers is proud? xD

yes
---

ISPs should be classified as a public utility and not be allowed to discriminate, throttle, censor, or otherwise impede the flow of information deliberately. They hold too much power to not be held accountable.

Social media websites don't halt content creators from spreading their ideas entirely, nor to any degree near ISPs. They do not need to be regulated in the same way

This isn't hard to understand and most who disagree are stubborn, butthurt, or willfully ignorant
---

Republicans live in an alternate reality where now with net neutrality gone the internet is much faster and freer then before.
---

ZMythos posted...

ISPs should be classified as a public utility and not be allowed to discriminate, throttle, censor, or otherwise impede the flow of information deliberately. They hold too much power to not be held accountable.

Social media websites don't halt content creators from spreading their ideas entirely, nor to any degree near ISPs. They do not need to be regulated in the same way

This isn't hard to understand and most who disagree are stubborn, butthurt, or willfully ignorant

How often do public utilities innovate in their respective sector? How could you have a public ISP that does not necessarily censor or aggregate information about individual internet usage? The moment an ISP becomes a utility, it falls more in government purview and as such is subject to the types of invasive and anti-privacy laws governments are wont to have.

See:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/why-whole-world-should-be-arms-about-eus-looming-internet-catastrophe
---

creativerealms posted...

Republicans live in an alternate reality where now with net neutrality gone the internet is much faster and freer then before.

Uh

https://nypost.com/2018/07/11/the-average-internet-speed-has-risen-23-in-a-year/

In the period from May 30, 2017, to May 29, 2018, global average internet speed as measured by 163 million individual speed tests rose by 23 percent. The average broadband connection now clocks in at 9.1 megabits per second (Mbps), up from 7.4 Mbps in the year before.

News was particularly good for the United States, which moved up from the 21st-fastest country in 2017 to the 20th-fastest country in 2018. That might not sound like much of an improvement, but it was achieved by increasing speeds from an average 20 Mbps to nearly 26 Mbps, a bigger increase than the average.
---

Hairistotle posted...

I really don't see the problem with banning a guy who routinely incites violence and intentionally divides people by lying to them.

I honestly don't either, but considering how long he's been around and untouched it really seems like it's a precedent to justify shutting down any content the platform doesn't agree with. Be it a private platform or a public platform.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

creativerealms posted...

Republicans live in an alternate reality where now with net neutrality gone the internet is much faster and freer then before.

Uh

https://nypost.com/2018/07/11/the-average-internet-speed-has-risen-23-in-a-year/

In the period from May 30, 2017, to May 29, 2018, global average internet speed as measured by 163 million individual speed tests rose by 23 percent. The average broadband connection now clocks in at 9.1 megabits per second (Mbps), up from 7.4 Mbps in the year before.

News was particularly good for the United States, which moved up from the 21st-fastest country in 2017 to the 20th-fastest country in 2018. That might not sound like much of an improvement, but it was achieved by increasing speeds from an average 20 Mbps to nearly 26 Mbps, a bigger increase than the average.

Overall internet speeds increasing isn't a net neutrality issue. Part of the problem with the whole net neutrality debate is that too many people don't understand what it applies to and what it doesn't.
---

Hairistotle posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Hairistotle posted...

I really don't see the problem with banning a guy who routinely incites violence and intentionally divides people by lying to them.

I honestly don't either, but considering how long he's been around and untouched it really seems like it's a precedent to justify shutting down any content the platform doesn't agree with. Be it a private platform or a public platform.

Was there not a straw that broke the camel's back? Did it cease being beneficial for them to be lenient with him?

They didn't shut him down because they disagree with him. They shut him down because he is a radical crazy who calls for violence and persecution. I don't know where you, and everyone else who says this, got "banned over disagreements" from.

Also, Infowars has similar terms in their terms of service for comments. You'd risk getting banned from Infowars for saying the kind of stuff Alex Jones reportedly got banned for.
---

CableZL posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

creativerealms posted...

Republicans live in an alternate reality where now with net neutrality gone the internet is much faster and freer then before.

Uh

https://nypost.com/2018/07/11/the-average-internet-speed-has-risen-23-in-a-year/

In the period from May 30, 2017, to May 29, 2018, global average internet speed as measured by 163 million individual speed tests rose by 23 percent. The average broadband connection now clocks in at 9.1 megabits per second (Mbps), up from 7.4 Mbps in the year before.

News was particularly good for the United States, which moved up from the 21st-fastest country in 2017 to the 20th-fastest country in 2018. That might not sound like much of an improvement, but it was achieved by increasing speeds from an average 20 Mbps to nearly 26 Mbps, a bigger increase than the average.

Overall internet speeds increasing isn't a net neutrality issue. Part of the problem with the whole net neutrality debate is that too many people don't understand what it applies to and what it doesn't.

That's not the claim he was making though.
---

Hairistotle posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Hairistotle posted...

I really don't see the problem with banning a guy who routinely incites violence and intentionally divides people by lying to them.

I honestly don't either, but considering how long he's been around and untouched it really seems like it's a precedent to justify shutting down any content the platform doesn't agree with. Be it a private platform or a public platform.

Was there not a straw that broke the camel's back? Did it cease being beneficial for them to be lenient with him?

They didn't shut him down because they disagree with him. They shut him down because he is a radical crazy who calls for violence and persecution. I don't know where you, and everyone else who says this, got "banned over disagreements" from.

It's really just projection. Conservatives like proudclad want to censor the left and so when someone with right leaning views get banned for being an awful person they think it's because of the views and not their actions.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

CableZL posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

creativerealms posted...

Republicans live in an alternate reality where now with net neutrality gone the internet is much faster and freer then before.

Uh

https://nypost.com/2018/07/11/the-average-internet-speed-has-risen-23-in-a-year/

In the period from May 30, 2017, to May 29, 2018, global average internet speed as measured by 163 million individual speed tests rose by 23 percent. The average broadband connection now clocks in at 9.1 megabits per second (Mbps), up from 7.4 Mbps in the year before.

News was particularly good for the United States, which moved up from the 21st-fastest country in 2017 to the 20th-fastest country in 2018. That might not sound like much of an improvement, but it was achieved by increasing speeds from an average 20 Mbps to nearly 26 Mbps, a bigger increase than the average.

Overall internet speeds increasing isn't a net neutrality issue. Part of the problem with the whole net neutrality debate is that too many people don't understand what it applies to and what it doesn't.

That's not the claim he was making though.

I was more responding to both comments, yours and the one you quoted.
---

Hairistotle posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Hairistotle posted...

I really don't see the problem with banning a guy who routinely incites violence and intentionally divides people by lying to them.

I honestly don't either, but considering how long he's been around and untouched it really seems like it's a precedent to justify shutting down any content the platform doesn't agree with. Be it a private platform or a public platform.

Was there not a straw that broke the camel's back? Did it cease being beneficial for them to be lenient with him?

They didn't shut him down because they disagree with him. They shut him down because he is a radical crazy who calls for violence and persecution. I don't know where you, and everyone else who says this, got "banned over disagreements" from.

I'm saying that Alex Jones has been bannable for a long fucking time and wasn't banned until recently, in a move that coincides with a broader censorship push in Australia and the EU.
---

Hairistotle posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

I'm saying that Alex Jones has been bannable for a long fucking time and wasn't banned until recently, in a move that coincides with a broader censorship push in Australia and the EU.

And now that they've had enough of his rule-breaking, I am glad.

And where do you draw the line between keeping the internet free and open, and censoring some beliefs/personalities?
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Hairistotle posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

I'm saying that Alex Jones has been bannable for a long fucking time and wasn't banned until recently, in a move that coincides with a broader censorship push in Australia and the EU.

And now that they've had enough of his rule-breaking, I am glad.

And where do you draw the line between keeping the internet free and open, and censoring some beliefs/personalities?

Only Proudclad would think that inciting violence is okay.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

And where do you draw the line between keeping the internet free and open, and censoring some beliefs/personalities?

I really wish people would stop pretending Alex Jones was "censored for his beliefs/personality." He repeatedly violated the terms of service that he agreed to on multiple social media platforms and got banned for it. Even Infowars has similar terms that you'd get banned for saying stuff like he reportedly said.
---

CableZL posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

And where do you draw the line between keeping the internet free and open, and censoring some beliefs/personalities?

I really wish people would stop pretending Alex Jones was "censored for his beliefs/personality." He repeatedly violated the terms of service that he agreed to on multiple social media platforms and got banned for it. Even Infowars has similar terms that you'd get banned for saying stuff like he reportedly said.

Which violations were those? Are the bans applied consistently for those violations?
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Which violations were those? Are the bans applied consistently for those violations?

In the case of the Facebook/Youtube/Spotify ban, the last straw was when he reportedly called for drag queens to be burned alive. Facebook, Youtube, Spotify, Twitter, and even Infowars have terms preventing you from saying stuff like that on their platforms.
---

Conservatives sure love to be victims who think the world is out ot get them while running the goddamn government, "Oh, we can't get anything done because Democrats are getting in our way" never mind that we can bowl right over them on things such as tax cuts, that's fake news!
---

CableZL posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Which violations were those? Are the bans applied consistently for those violations?

In the case of the Facebook/Youtube/Spotify ban, the last straw was when he reportedly called for drag queens to be burned alive. Facebook, Youtube, Spotify, Twitter, and even Infowars have terms preventing you from saying stuff like that on their platforms.

I did not know that. Alright, well fuck him. Just read what he said about the people who made the show Drag Tots. While that show is definitely propaganda, threatening to burn someone alive for making a cartoon is not defensible in any way.

Carry on folks!
---

DuranOfForcena posted...

Republicans will always put big business over personal liberty, the environment, basic human decency, hell even common sense

Imagine how rustled you'd be if someone said Liberals would always put feelings/emotions over personal liberty, science, basic human decency, hell even common sense

Yet you make that type of generalization about Republicans? lululululul
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

DuranOfForcena posted...

Republicans will always put big business over personal liberty, the environment, basic human decency, hell even common sense

Imagine how rustled you'd be if someone said Liberals would always put feelings/emotions over personal liberty, science, basic human decency, hell even common sense

Yet you make that type of generalization about Republicans? lululululul

Funny, because you make those generalizations all the time and now you are rustled by his statement about republicans.
---

DuranOfForcena posted...

i wouldn't be rustled at all, because that's simply not true. i would be entertained at someone trying to advance such a notion.

it's true if you look at the far left / rabid SJW types who routinely push feelings/emotions over basic science and human decency. in fact you made a topic about it the other day.

DuranOfForcena posted...

i call it like i see it. perhaps there are some things that i don't see, but then again maybe those things should strive to have a stronger voice and influence over the rest of the Republican party, because as it is now and as it has been for decades, the party as a whole has been about advancing big business at any cost.

every major politician from both major parties has been subject to advancing the cause of big business, because they all stood to make tremendous amounts of money from it. i would say that republicans, at least the average people, are not like that as a whole tho. most of them are small business owners with modest net worths who just want more of their livelihood to go into their pocket rather than into the military complex or medicare billing fraud or etc.
---

DuranOfForcena posted...

edit: also maybe my first post could have been better worded "The Republican party" instead of "Republicans"

tbqh yeah that'd be more fair.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

DuranOfForcena posted...

i wouldn't be rustled at all, because that's simply not true. i would be entertained at someone trying to advance such a notion.

it's true if you look at the far left / rabid SJW types who routinely push feelings/emotions over basic science and human decency. in fact you made a topic about it the other day.

DuranOfForcena posted...

i call it like i see it. perhaps there are some things that i don't see, but then again maybe those things should strive to have a stronger voice and influence over the rest of the Republican party, because as it is now and as it has been for decades, the party as a whole has been about advancing big business at any cost.

every major politician from both major parties has been subject to advancing the cause of big business, because they all stood to make tremendous amounts of money from it. i would say that republicans, at least the average people, are not like that as a whole tho. most of them are small business owners with modest net worths who just want more of their livelihood to go into their pocket rather than into the military complex or medicare billing fraud or etc.

So two points, not necessarily related directly to the topic:
A) I'm impressed by you willing to state you weren't aware of Jones' statement and reconsider your position - guess I haven't seen you do it that often, so you have my props for that :)
B) Speaking of arguing from emotion, I remember you responding to Asherlee (I think) in an abortion topic with the statement "Well when Jesus comes back what are you going to say about why you didn't keep innocent babies from being murdered?" I suppose it sticks in my mind because it was VERY emotional (and not based on any facts)