3 ms·

Net neutrality rules come to mind

by meh8881 3y ago

MichaelZuo 3y ago
Which parts specifically?
- nawgz 3y ago
  It is interesting to me to ponder why you carried on an alternate thread instead of the original one which you wished to challenge.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    Almost anyone on HN can see through this type of low effort passive-aggressive commenting. So this makes it even less likely me, or anyone else, well provide a substantive response.
    - nawgz 3y ago
      The only low effort passive aggressive posting in this thread is from you - posting gotcha questions that aren’t gotchas and then tucking tail when sources come thru. You already were clearly at 0% probability of a substantive reply. Nice attempt at deflection tho - I see you’re learning from the republicans whose boots you love to lick
      - MichaelZuo 3y ago
        > The only low effort passive aggressive posting in this thread is from you - posting gotcha questions that aren’t gotchas and then tucking tail when sources come thru. You already were clearly at 0% probability of a substantive reply. Nice attempt at deflection tho - I see you’re learning from the republicans whose boots you love to lick This does not increase your credibility, especially when hiding behind a pseudonym account made in 2020 replying to someone using their real name since 2014 on HN. So it seems like a losing proposition to continue digging a hole. But it's no skin off my back.
        nawgz 3y ago
        Let's see if I have this straight. I post: corporate power is growing. You post: prove it. I prove it. You stop responding about this idea. Then, given an opening when I called you out on it, you have tried to imply: * I am at fault for your lack of "substantive reply" * I am at fault for using a pseudonym * Because you use your "real name", you have street cred I would like you to explain to me why you even bothered asking me to prove the regulatory environment was weakened in the states by Trump, that is obvious. It really makes no sense why you've come in and introduced such a bad faith chain of arguments on a topic you have made absolutely 0 points about.
gruez 3y ago
You mean the thing that people claimed if it were repealed, the internet as we know it would end? Then the thing did get repealed, and nothing really changed?

Net neutrality rules come to mind

MichaelZuo 3y ago

Which parts specifically?

nawgz 3y ago
It is interesting to me to ponder why you carried on an alternate thread instead of the original one which you wished to challenge.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  Almost anyone on HN can see through this type of low effort passive-aggressive commenting. So this makes it even less likely me, or anyone else, well provide a substantive response.
  - nawgz 3y ago
    The only low effort passive aggressive posting in this thread is from you - posting gotcha questions that aren’t gotchas and then tucking tail when sources come thru. You already were clearly at 0% probability of a substantive reply. Nice attempt at deflection tho - I see you’re learning from the republicans whose boots you love to lick
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      > The only low effort passive aggressive posting in this thread is from you - posting gotcha questions that aren’t gotchas and then tucking tail when sources come thru. You already were clearly at 0% probability of a substantive reply. Nice attempt at deflection tho - I see you’re learning from the republicans whose boots you love to lick This does not increase your credibility, especially when hiding behind a pseudonym account made in 2020 replying to someone using their real name since 2014 on HN. So it seems like a losing proposition to continue digging a hole. But it's no skin off my back.
      - nawgz 3y ago
        Let's see if I have this straight. I post: corporate power is growing. You post: prove it. I prove it. You stop responding about this idea. Then, given an opening when I called you out on it, you have tried to imply: * I am at fault for your lack of "substantive reply" * I am at fault for using a pseudonym * Because you use your "real name", you have street cred I would like you to explain to me why you even bothered asking me to prove the regulatory environment was weakened in the states by Trump, that is obvious. It really makes no sense why you've come in and introduced such a bad faith chain of arguments on a topic you have made absolutely 0 points about.

gruez 3y ago

You mean the thing that people claimed if it were repealed, the internet as we know it would end? Then the thing did get repealed, and nothing really changed?