4 ms·

Also, everyone to the right of Antifa have been told Net Neutrality was disguised legislation to censor conservative opinions. Given how completely Twitter, Fa

Also, everyone to the right of Antifa have been told Net Neutrality was disguised legislation to censor conservative opinions. Given how completely Twitter, Facebook, Google, et al censor right-leaning political opinions, and they're big pro-NN orgs, it wasn't a hard sell. Unfortunately, NN has become yet another casualty in these weird post-fact times.

lurr 9y ago
> Given how completely Twitter, Facebook, Google, et al censor right-leaning political opinions Right-leaning opinions which violate their TOS. big difference. I'm pro merit based immigration and feel entirely comfortable tweeting that (if I had a twitter, never saw the point).
wooter 9y ago
weird post fact times? heres a CMU taught, Cambridge written paper that concludes: "we never had network neutrality in the past, and I do not believe we should engineer for it in the future either." Its the exact condescension and willful ignorance of intelligent opposition in this thread that so characterizes the left. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~srini/15-744/papers/p49-crowcroft.pdf http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~srini/15-744/papers/p49-crowcroft.pdf
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  We've had net neutrality as official FCC policy with different enforcement mechanisms from 2005 until 2017. Being “CMU taught, Cambridge written” apparently doesn't stop the paper from being blatantly wrong and simple, easily verifiable facts.
  - wooter 9y ago
    Absolute nonsense. What mechanisms? The cases of fraud or misrepresentation are just that. Not preemptive regulation like NN.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > What mechanisms? Case-by-case application of the Open Internet principles from 2005-2010, Title I regulation from 2010-2014, Title II regulation from 2015-2017. The case-by-case approach was struck down by the courts in 2010 while the Title I regs were being drafted; the Title I regs being struck down in 2014 with a specific identification of Title II as the legal basis that would support the kind of rules the FCC adopted under Title I is what prompted the Title II regulations to be drafted. > The cases of fraud or misrepresentation are just that. The VoIP and BitTorrent blocking cases before the Title I regs were adopted weren't based on general fraud or misrepresentation principles, but on the FCCs publicly adopted Open Internet (net neutrality) principles.
      - wooter 9y ago
        So no preemptive regulation before 2015. When the entire internet was created.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > So no preemptive regulation before 2015. That's clearly wrong, but how wrong is a matter of interpretation: it's either the 2010 or 2005; the Title I regs in 2010 were no less “preemptive” than Title II, and the 2005-2010 approach was, IIRC, struck down because it amounted to preemptive regulation adopting the net neutrality principles as binding rules without following the mandatory process of the Administrative Procedure Act.
specialist 9y ago
Twitter == Trump I'm struggling to imagine who's to the right of Trump. Genghis Khan? But he's dead. Self-described neo-reactionary Peter Thiel?
abiox 9y ago
> Given how completely Twitter, Facebook, Google, et al censor right-leaning political opinions for "completely" doing such, they're doing a terrible job.

lurr 9y ago

> Given how completely Twitter, Facebook, Google, et al censor right-leaning political opinions Right-leaning opinions which violate their TOS. big difference. I'm pro merit based immigration and feel entirely comfortable tweeting that (if I had a twitter, never saw the point).

wooter 9y ago

weird post fact times? heres a CMU taught, Cambridge written paper that concludes: "we never had network neutrality in the past, and I do not believe we should engineer for it in the future either." Its the exact condescension and willful ignorance of intelligent opposition in this thread that so characterizes the left. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~srini/15-744/papers/p49-crowcroft.pdf http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~srini/15-744/papers/p49-crowcroft.pdf

dragonwriter 9y ago
We've had net neutrality as official FCC policy with different enforcement mechanisms from 2005 until 2017. Being “CMU taught, Cambridge written” apparently doesn't stop the paper from being blatantly wrong and simple, easily verifiable facts.
- wooter 9y ago
  Absolute nonsense. What mechanisms? The cases of fraud or misrepresentation are just that. Not preemptive regulation like NN.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > What mechanisms? Case-by-case application of the Open Internet principles from 2005-2010, Title I regulation from 2010-2014, Title II regulation from 2015-2017. The case-by-case approach was struck down by the courts in 2010 while the Title I regs were being drafted; the Title I regs being struck down in 2014 with a specific identification of Title II as the legal basis that would support the kind of rules the FCC adopted under Title I is what prompted the Title II regulations to be drafted. > The cases of fraud or misrepresentation are just that. The VoIP and BitTorrent blocking cases before the Title I regs were adopted weren't based on general fraud or misrepresentation principles, but on the FCCs publicly adopted Open Internet (net neutrality) principles.
    - wooter 9y ago
      So no preemptive regulation before 2015. When the entire internet was created.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > So no preemptive regulation before 2015. That's clearly wrong, but how wrong is a matter of interpretation: it's either the 2010 or 2005; the Title I regs in 2010 were no less “preemptive” than Title II, and the 2005-2010 approach was, IIRC, struck down because it amounted to preemptive regulation adopting the net neutrality principles as binding rules without following the mandatory process of the Administrative Procedure Act.

specialist 9y ago

Twitter == Trump I'm struggling to imagine who's to the right of Trump. Genghis Khan? But he's dead. Self-described neo-reactionary Peter Thiel?

abiox 9y ago

> Given how completely Twitter, Facebook, Google, et al censor right-leaning political opinions for "completely" doing such, they're doing a terrible job.