Ok I'm lost. Can you please explain the connection between your state of mind and the tone of your online internet posts? I am honestly confused by this comparison you keep bringing up. And your posts can easily be examined and the tone found with ease. It's easy to pick out posts that are friendly and posts that are hostile, it doesn't tell me anything about the person who was typing them out, heck, I've been gritting my teeth furious and forced myself to type out a very polite message at one point. I am simply saying that your posts have been unfriendly and condescending and I have even provided examples for you. I don't appreciate the implication that I have no idea what I'm talking about.Zachary Amaranth said:
FCC Throttled By NeoCities In Net Neutrality Protest
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
You infer hostility when there isn't any, so pardon me if I don't exactly believe it's that easy for you. I've said as such, so I don't know why you're askingerttheking said:
Seems self explanatory.
You know, implying that I have no self control really isn't helping your argument. That was snide, unnecessarily, and adds to the several examples I have given you in order to show you what I mean when I say you're being passive aggressive and you seem to be just flat out ignoring.Zachary Amaranth said:
I don't see it. As I said, I have written posts where what I was feeling at the moment wasn't reflected in the post at all. And I can tell the difference between a post that was designed to be polite to someone and one designed to insult someone. So please explain yourself.
Jesus Christ this thread is depressing. How are we suppose to take a stand against this nonsense if we end up infighting over all the details? Every little action counts whether anyone believes it or not. I'm not adopting a defeatest attitude over this or waving any white flags and focusing on what I can do, which is so far contacted my state reps and signed a complaint form on FCCs website. I'm also ready to do what else is necessary.
I think/hope other companies will come around as well and we will see more more throttling from other sites (hopefully cloud service providers too) This is a great idea and it makes a statement. It's actually heartening to hear what NeoCities is doing and hopefully it will motivate other to do the same. Every little bit helps.
I think/hope other companies will come around as well and we will see more more throttling from other sites (hopefully cloud service providers too) This is a great idea and it makes a statement. It's actually heartening to hear what NeoCities is doing and hopefully it will motivate other to do the same. Every little bit helps.
More open action is necessary, I think to properly remind the FCC of why net neutrality is critical, but a demonstration of the potential for abuse of a "Fast Lane" policy is a good start.
I imagine their reply (should one ever arise, either directly or more broadly) will be something along the lines of "We [at the FCC] will review each case to ensure fairness and commercial viability." since that's the most obvious avenue of deflection.
And the matter will then fail because of three issues:
1) Exactly who decides what is "fair"? Lobbyists? A hardline policy formula? A delegation?
2) Even assuming we could trust the FCC entirely to maintain fairness in their judgments, the policy would create an incredible burden on the governing agency to maintain it.
3) "Fast Lane" policies currently aren't necessary. Content providers and ISPs are experiencing an incredible protracted boom in business on the whole. Few to none would "need" such a policy, and it would unquestionably be more costly to the economy in the long run to implement it.
Oh, but there I go trying to preach reason to lobbyists seeking to undermine the public interest for their own profit.
I imagine their reply (should one ever arise, either directly or more broadly) will be something along the lines of "We [at the FCC] will review each case to ensure fairness and commercial viability." since that's the most obvious avenue of deflection.
And the matter will then fail because of three issues:
1) Exactly who decides what is "fair"? Lobbyists? A hardline policy formula? A delegation?
2) Even assuming we could trust the FCC entirely to maintain fairness in their judgments, the policy would create an incredible burden on the governing agency to maintain it.
3) "Fast Lane" policies currently aren't necessary. Content providers and ISPs are experiencing an incredible protracted boom in business on the whole. Few to none would "need" such a policy, and it would unquestionably be more costly to the economy in the long run to implement it.
Oh, but there I go trying to preach reason to lobbyists seeking to undermine the public interest for their own profit.
Congrats, guys. This is now the worst thread I've ever had the displeasure of reading. It's a damn shame that News threads can't get locked. This thread is worse than a day on /mu/ at 4Chan. Yes, I mean that. No, I'm not exaggerating.
OT: What a fun way of protesting. Sad that it won't really affect much.
OT: What a fun way of protesting. Sad that it won't really affect much.
It's really getting out of hand. I used to sorta-joke about the passive aggressiveness on this sight, but now the joke is realitylacktheknack said:
OT: I'm not really sure what this is about. Can someone briefly explain why net neutrality is bad? Something to do with the speed/cost of the internet connection
Nononono, Net Neutrality is GOOD. Net neutrality is the principle that all data and users on the internet are equal. By removing net neutrality, you've opened the doors to "fast-tracking", where you throttle the internet speeds for some users and only open them again when they pay you money.rosac said:It's really getting out of hand. I used to sorta-joke about the passive aggressiveness on this sight, but now the joke is realitylacktheknack said:
OT: I'm not really sure what this is about. Can someone briefly explain why net neutrality is bad? Something to do with the speed/cost of the internet connection
That is literally one of stupidest ideas I've heard. My hometown (not where I go to Uni) has terrible internet speeds compared to my Uni home, companies being able to charge more in order to get decent speeds is just ridiculous.lacktheknack said:Nononono, Net Neutrality is GOOD. Net neutrality is the principle that all data and users on the internet are equal. By removing net neutrality, you've opened the doors to "fast-tracking", where you throttle the internet speeds for some users and only open them again when they pay you money.rosac said:It's really getting out of hand. I used to sorta-joke about the passive aggressiveness on this sight, but now the joke is realitylacktheknack said:
OT: I'm not really sure what this is about. Can someone briefly explain why net neutrality is bad? Something to do with the speed/cost of the internet connection