Trainer Yusuf
VolcaniNO
I can't believe the scum actually won. This is a dark f***ing day.
Well, it is time for public and community ISPs, now.
Well, it is time for public and community ISPs, now.
-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
U.S. Politics: The Biggest Trade in WNBA History
- Thread starter BigLutz
- Start date
AuraChannelerChris
Easygoing Luxray.
It's not over, though.
Erron Black
The Outlaw
^^^
IIRC internet freedom has been attacked two times before this and both attempts were shut down by Congress.
Let's just hope 'third times a charm' doesn't apply to this case and that Congress has some semblance of a brain left and shuts it down again.
Last edited:
Zora
perpetually tired
Ajit Pai was always so much of a shill that it was inevitable he'd kill net neutrality. And lest anyone forgets, the Trump administration put him as chairman in the first month of his presidency.
I wouldn't hold my breath on the courts. The legal argument comes down to how much flexibility does the executive branch have in changing the law; but we give executive branch flexibility because with how slow Congress and courts are, at least one branch of government needs to be punctual. And however moral it'd be for the courts to restore net neutrality, respect for checks-and-balances--however undeserved--come first. Look no further than Trump's travel bans: the courts are letting those be active pending appeal because of checks-and-balances. But let's not be facetious here: Ajit Pai was a shill who passed FCC so ISPs--who have an absurd control over Internet access--could make even more money by being gatekeepers on both consumer and supply-side. The government can only have their heads in the sand before having to acknowledge that Internet absolutely needs to be regulated as a utility--which most people want anyway; the question is what branch will actually do it and when.
My guess is January 2021 is the soonest net neutrality will return. Trump was instrumental in killing net neutrality; unless by some miracle Dems win a supermajority in Congress, we'd need a Democrat president at a minimum.
Ambyssin
Winter can't come soon enough
My state attorney general (who was previously trying to investigate the fraudulent comments left on the FCC but was being impeded by Pai) is gather other states together to file a lawsuit blocking the decision in federal court. I know Democratic senators are now trying to use the Congressional Review Act to override the FCC and nix their ruling and, at the very least, Susan Collins has finally spoken out against the FCC (joining with Agnus King to tell Pai to stand down), so there's at least proof that moderate GOP members may not like this. I'm assuming the ACLU and other civil liberties groups are also preparing lawsuits. And, of course, Anonymous plans to go after Ajit Pai and the other two FCC commissioners who voted in favor of it.
IIRC, when Obama tried to implement the Net Neutrality proposals in 2015, there were some lawsuits filed (Verizon spearheading them) to try and block it. So, of course, the opposite's going to happen.
EDIT: And it's funny this all happened on the day Disney's reached a deal to swallow up the bulk of Fox's assets. All in all, a very, very big day for anti-consumerism practices in the media.
IIRC, when Obama tried to implement the Net Neutrality proposals in 2015, there were some lawsuits filed (Verizon spearheading them) to try and block it. So, of course, the opposite's going to happen.
EDIT: And it's funny this all happened on the day Disney's reached a deal to swallow up the bulk of Fox's assets. All in all, a very, very big day for anti-consumerism practices in the media.
Last edited:
Mr. Reloaded
Cause a pirate is free
Only good this did was discourage new parents from just leaving their toddlers a tablet because they can't do the job themselves, and maybe that Elsagate s*** won't happen again. Unless you want your bill to be stupid.
Great ******* job. Please let Congress have some sense left.
Great ******* job. Please let Congress have some sense left.
AuraChannelerChris
Easygoing Luxray.
When it actually passes the court part.
Zora
perpetually tired
More likely than not supermajority; Trump can veto. If Trump's previous tweets are any indication--albeit they are a few years old--he will veto net neutrality (see, for example, this). Trump appointed Ajit Pai in January 2017 (effectively Trump's first two weeks) and net neutrality was Pai's issue; I don't think Trump has deterred from his position on net neutrality. And for their to be a bipartiasn supermajority may very well require the Congressional GOP to not follow Trump's lead; and while it has happened (see McCain, Collins, and Murkowski last summer for healthcare), I don't think enough will.
Basically, it'll probably take a Democrat president to undo this; or at least a pro-net neutrality Republican who isn't Trump. But I don't think Trump will lose primaries in 2020 (unless he doesn't run for president), so see former option.
Last edited:
The Admiral
the star of the masquerade
One of the things I've been hearing (from some of the people I talk to who are dumber more libertarian) is that the rules being repealed don't really do a lot. Which, to be fair, is understandable considering how many times Verizon violated them (speaking of which, Ajit Pai was a lawyer for Verizon; seems like a bit of a conflict of interest to me...).
So, like, if that's true, why does this piece of **** need to ram their repeal through? And why was he impeding investigations into the masses of fake comments being dumped in by Comcast?
So, like, if that's true, why does this piece of **** need to ram their repeal through? And why was he impeding investigations into the masses of fake comments being dumped in by Comcast?
The rules being repealed means if the big companies want to be nice and fair then nothing will change. NN wasn't put in to fix an issue, but to stop it from becoming a problem in the first place.
The question is do you trust big cable and internet companies to be nice and fair, especially when they're trying their best to secure location monopolies?
The question is do you trust big cable and internet companies to be nice and fair, especially when they're trying their best to secure location monopolies?
Last edited:
Zora
perpetually tired
Given how many lawsuits, lobbying, etc. was meant to make this a post-NN world, the thought of internet companies not doing *anything* just sounds unrealistically optimistic.
It's really a question of what they will implement. Zero rating is almost surely going to happen--but honestly, I don't care too much about zero rating per se as long as data plans are affordable if you avoid zero rated products. Throttling and expecting companies like netflix to pay more? Yeah, I can see that happening. But, I don't think cable companies want to rock the boat yet since while Internet competition is essentially fiction in America, legislation killing their new freedom is still very much a reality--especially when net neutrality is an extremely popular policy, even among conservatives. Which is to say, I honestly expect insidious policies on the consumer-side (as opposed to supply-side) to happen slowly, but not fast enough for anyone to notice when they crossed the line.
Oh yeah, I totally agree that it's almost redundant to ask because big business will never be your friend, just looking for profit out of anything it can squeeze.
I feel the best solution is to make the internet a utility, and spend those billions we gave internet companies to actually install those high speed fiber lines, instead of keeping them for executive bonuses.
I feel the best solution is to make the internet a utility, and spend those billions we gave internet companies to actually install those high speed fiber lines, instead of keeping them for executive bonuses.
Pikachu52
Well-Known Member
A worrying new rule from the Department of Labor could give employers in the hospitality more control over the tips their employees earn: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesal...s-rule-that-could-change-distribution-of-tips
While they've cited concern of inequities between the earnings of kitchen staff and waiters/servers, it's not exactly a stretch to see that this proposal could be used to allow employers and companies to pocket the tips earned by their staff. If so it would make it one of the worst actions of the Trump administration, given that wait staff are typically paid extremely little and often rely on their tips.
While they've cited concern of inequities between the earnings of kitchen staff and waiters/servers, it's not exactly a stretch to see that this proposal could be used to allow employers and companies to pocket the tips earned by their staff. If so it would make it one of the worst actions of the Trump administration, given that wait staff are typically paid extremely little and often rely on their tips.
Trainer Yusuf
VolcaniNO
He publicly said that he wanted FCC to become the puppet of big companies with a Manchurian candidate.
He didn't get it, so he just occupied the place himself. Which was ironically also what the Japanese fascists later did in Manchuria.
Internet has been a public utility since 2015.
Last edited:
EnglishALT
Well-Known Member
A majority are now saying that Mueller has a conflict of interest, according to a new poll from Harvard CAPS-Harris.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-...-percent-say-mueller-has-conflict-of-interest
Meanwhile FBI Deputy Chief Andrew McCabe may be leaving leaving and may not even testify infront of Congress next week. He was mentioned in the new infamous text from Peter Strzok to Lisa Page “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he [i.e. Trump] gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
http://thehill.com/policy/national-...-percent-say-mueller-has-conflict-of-interest
Meanwhile FBI Deputy Chief Andrew McCabe may be leaving leaving and may not even testify infront of Congress next week. He was mentioned in the new infamous text from Peter Strzok to Lisa Page “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he [i.e. Trump] gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
Where is the conflict of interest? Mueller removed people from the team who spoke out against people from all sides, from Chelsea Clinton to Ivanka Trump.
There's a point where public opinion shouldn't get in the way of an investigation, since all the facts aren't commonly known. Especially with Fox News reporting that this is some insane illegal thing.
There's a point where public opinion shouldn't get in the way of an investigation, since all the facts aren't commonly known. Especially with Fox News reporting that this is some insane illegal thing.
Last edited:
I mean technically speaking you could say Mueller's conflict of interest lies in his deep respect for upholding the law - something that is in direct opposition to 45's modus operandi.
I guess it all comes down to whether you think laws trump the presidency or vice versa.
Note: There's only one obvious answer here and it sure as hell isn't sticking up for Mango Mussolini.
I guess it all comes down to whether you think laws trump the presidency or vice versa.
Note: There's only one obvious answer here and it sure as hell isn't sticking up for Mango Mussolini.
Eternalserenity
Wanderer
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...0_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.d7dd1cd6a703
Here's a little more hot garbage to toss onto the flaming heap. Trump's faction is banning the CDC from using certain words in any official documents related to next year's budget. The forbidden words are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.” Looks like more attempts being made against very specific groups of people, doesn't it?
Here's a little more hot garbage to toss onto the flaming heap. Trump's faction is banning the CDC from using certain words in any official documents related to next year's budget. The forbidden words are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.” Looks like more attempts being made against very specific groups of people, doesn't it?