Jump to content

Help Protect Net Nuetrality

Guest

By Guest,
in Off Topic

Recommended Posts

LesboIsBesto

LesboIsBesto

Posted
Posted

So now we seen it happen, the FCC voted to kill Net Neutrality. You probably think it's all over now...

 

FALSE MY NIGGAS

 

This is not over yet! There is still a way to save net neutrality & that's with Congress. They can use the Congressional Review Act to overturn Ajit Faggot Pai's order if either the House or Senate get a simple majority in favor of that. Since Roy Moore lost Alabama Tuesday, Dems have taken one seat from the GOP plus GOP senator Collins & another who I forget have come out in support of net neutrality. What we need to do now is BOMB THE SHIT OUT OF THEIR PHONES & EMAILS EVEN HARDER THAN EVER, make them use the CRA to hold a vote to save net neutrality.

 

Go to the site I mentioned again in my original post: https://www.battleforthenet.com/

 

Use their system to call your senators & representatives to tell them to use the CRA to overturn the FCC & save net neutrality. This fight is not over yet because Congress has this power of oversight to stop bullshit like this from happening in the first place. We can still save the free Internet if we don not give up now!

 

One more thing: If anyone is interested in some more angry but informative information than me & this thread, go to this video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfLbSDyDiQw&t=2s

 

The guy may hate Trump & republicans but still this video is very informative & drives down the point of why Net Neutrality is important to save. You don't need to watch it but if you just need more reasons as to why net neutrality is worth protecting, check it out.

Link to comment
Nazzzgul666

Nazzzgul666

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, TheWhite said:

Will all the net be charged then or...?

Depends on what you mean by "all the net" and "charged". Currently i'm not that much concerned, as a german citizen who doesn't use that much U.S net services. Probably those i use will have their servers etc in Europe (or are too small to care about like LL, or so i hope), so i'm not affected much, at least not for now. And thanks to Trump, Europe/Germany doesn't consider every step the U.S make as mandatory to copy anymore. They still might take this step, though. :frown:

 For cable companies there are some ways to abuse that, possibly even use several at once. For example, AT&T could start it's own service to provide entertainment and completly block Netflix, forcing you to either watch their selfproducted soaf operas or nothing at all. They also could block Netflix traffic (or porn, or news, or social media, or...) and offer you a package to buy for each of those to unblock it. And they can go to Netlfix (or Youtube, Youporn,...) and say "You have a nice network there. Would be too bad if your users can't watch it without stuttering anymore. How much do you pay that this doesn't happen?"

This last option wouldn't cost you anything directly, but ofc those services want to make profit, so they would have to demand more or at all. And it still could be combined with packages they offer you if you want to watch it.

Additionally, any new services would hardly ever get beyond the point where they can afford the fee to be transmitted, so... by by start ups.

Link to comment
Deso561PL

Deso561PL

Posted
Posted

Seriously this drama taken too much shit level, so let me explain few things.

 

1: As @Destroyah340 mentioned, the fight is not over yet. In that case twitch, streamers, blizzard, riot games etc can organize protests why? Because it is in not thier fucking intrest to lose NN. Blizzard and Riot holds and organize for thier games biggest tournaments what shitload of people watch every year. You think they will let it die? Keep dreaming!

 

2: There is like in any democracy country a legislation procedure, so it will take some time until it will live or not.

 

3: There is planned court about it, and more important lawsuits against FFC.

 

Ajit Pai claimed there was "bipartisan" support for his plan.


Unfortunately for him, Congress has announced that for the first time in forever, The Democrats and Republicans have agreed on something. Something they intend to fight against: Ajit Pai.

Numerous Congressmen on both the Democratic and Republican side have said if he does inact the repeal, that Congress will step in and take his power away from him, and reverse his decision.

In addition, numerous groups are preparing lawsuits against the FCC, which will force them to defend themselves in the Supreme Court and if they cannot prove that the regulations have harmed the internet (which we all know is false), the Surpreme Court may simply over-turn the decision.

In spite of the provisions in the new policy, many states have said they will take this battle to court and over-turn the FCC's authority and put in place state laws that will require internet providers to adhere to neutrality standards, Washington state being one of them.

Colorado and a few other states have said that perhaps it's time for the states themselves to run the big internet companies out of town and provide their own internet access to their citizens, with state-run internet which will be affordable, reliable and will adhere to net neutrality laws.

But at this point, all we can assume from this is:
This battle is far from over and it has no shortage of people from state leaders, to Congressmen, all setting their sights squarely on the second most hated man in America, Ajit Pai.

He's basically put a giant bullseye on his head.

We'll see who gets the shot off.

Lastly, speaking of getting shots off ..

They interrupted and cleared the room mid-meeting?
Were threats on his life, causing security to halt the meeting and search the room extensively?

I'm frankly surprised he hasn't been met with more threats and actual violence yet.
The internet has responded to far more meaningless threats, with far more meaningful violence.
It's surprising to me that the single greatest threat we face, well, hasn't been met with extreme violence.

This decision today will be challenged again and again and cannot take effect for many months.
We'll see what happens.

While this should not be done with violence, I do think something has to be done. What? I don't know. But we have a government that has gone completely rogue. Not just the FCC but the White House, and are dictating our lives to us, and are only interested in one thing: selling our souls for money.

We have a government that serves itself, not the people it was put in place for.
What we are going to do about it? We, the people, may have to do something.
Because if the people who are supposed to fight for us, can't or don't, then we need to decide how to do it ourselves.

 

So before making yourself a fucking clown, think twice and read! FUCKING READ! Or reading is retarded for you?

Link to comment
Blackhearted

Blackhearted

Posted
Posted

Seems like the last recourse is to simply not pay anything and cancel out our subscriptions.  If I can not get what I want out of what I am paying for my subscription I will simply cancel, as painful as it will be.  I don't REALLY need Internet though I am admittedly heavily addicted.  If just half their customers refused to put up with this and stopped paying there would be a huge incentive for them to provide service that people will feel it's worth paying for.  Unfortunately I expect most people will simply bend over and take it.

Link to comment
LesboIsBesto

LesboIsBesto

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Blackhearted said:

Seems like the last recourse is to simply not pay anything and cancel out our subscriptions.  If I can not get what I want out of what I am paying for my subscription I will simply cancel, as painful as it will be.  I don't REALLY need Internet though I am admittedly heavily addicted.  If just half their customers refused to put up with this and stopped paying there would be a huge incentive for them to provide service that people will feel it's worth paying for.  Unfortunately I expect most people will simply bend over and take it.

Good luck, 60% of Americans have only ONE single ISP to choose from & in today's day & age, the Internet is a necessity for many occupations like tech jobs, business, education etc. or just basic living. But if you can survive completely without the Internet then good luck to ya, meanwhile the rest of us who need it will keep demanding Congress & the courts to overturn the FCC's vote.

Link to comment
Blackhearted

Blackhearted

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Destroyah340 said:

Good luck, 60% of Americans have only ONE single ISP to choose from & in today's day & age, the Internet is a necessity for many occupations like tech jobs, business, education etc. or just basic living. But if you can survive completely without the Internet then good luck to ya, meanwhile the rest of us who need it will keep demanding Congress & the courts to overturn the FCC's vote.

Until the collectively forgetful populace remembers how bad it was getting the last time we had right winger smash-and-grab republicans in office (remember the bailouts?) and we flip back over to the opposite I only expect things to get worse for the bottom 99%.  Say I'm a negative person but I don't believe anyone with any clout at this moment in history cares about anything other than money.

Link to comment
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

I'm really really regretting supporting Trump during the election, I really started not liking his actions ever since his comment on how "trans people shouldn't be allowed in the military" (seriously that was just stupid and uncalled for) after that he's been a real dick

Link to comment
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

You know what would probably help some mods uploaded on the nexus for either skyrim or fallout 4 that shows support for Net neutrality and calls for further aid like maybe a pro net neutrality t-shirt the sole survivor can wear or a dragon with Ajit's face for the dragonborn to slay

Link to comment
johntrine

johntrine

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Ragnarock1234567 said:

I'm really really regretting supporting Trump during the election, I really started not liking his actions ever since his comment on how "trans people shouldn't be allowed in the military" (seriously that was just stupid and uncalled for) after that he's been a real dick

i'll ask this as a person who doesn't live in USA but WHO thought it was a good idea to put a BUSINESSMAN in the seat of PRESIDENT??? don't they know THAT"S HOW CAPITALISTIC DYSTOPIA IS MADE!!!

Link to comment
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

that's exactly the reason why people didn't want Hillary in power either she was greedy and would do ANYTHING to get herself into power, all she really cared about was money and almost every corporation in the country was backing her up, she would also implement various changes that would only benefit the elite just like trump is doing now, and she even said herself she wanted to start a war with Russia by putting no fly zones over Syria, which is why I say this country really needs to put a "none of the above" option if both candidates are terrible options, if we want to start seeing positive changes in our country America has to STOP picking "the lesser of two evils" in a presidential election.

Link to comment
Nazzzgul666

Nazzzgul666

Posted
Posted

As an european, that is something i don't understand at all but really liked to know. Technically, you don't have a 2 party system, there are other options. Maybe they are terrible too, dont' know, and i understand you count those votes as lost, but how would "none of the above" be different than voting green or just anybody?

The main point i don't understand is: it is a two party system because those are the two you're voting for, with enough people voting for another party it would be 3 parties possibly winning the race. Why is that so much out of choice for most of you?

 

*edit: to be clear, i don't say your system is perfect. But our german system with a lot of parties in parliament is far from beeing perfect too, even without gerrymandering, with mutliple parties and everything... it was chrystal clear Merkel would be chancelor the last 3 elections. But that is only partly the problem of the system, the main problem is that people just don't dare or care to vote different. Imho on both sides of the Atlantic, and as log as it stays that way... it doesn't really matter what the system looks like.

Link to comment
johntrine

johntrine

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Ragnarock1234567 said:

that's exactly the reason why people didn't want Hillary in power either she was greedy and would do ANYTHING to get herself into power, all she really cared about was money and almost every corporation in the country was backing her up, she would also implement various changes that would only benefit the elite just like trump is doing now, and she even said herself she wanted to start a war with Russia by putting no fly zones over Syria, which is why I say this country really needs to put a "none of the above" option if both candidates are terrible options, if we want to start seeing positive changes in our country America has to STOP picking "the lesser of two evils" in a presidential election.

don't you guys have the option to put in null vote. aka imma vote no one cos all of em are baaaaad.

2 hours ago, Darkening Demise said:

Good news a NY attorney is suing the FCC!

don't worry. a looooootta people are suing fcc.

Link to comment
dagobaking

dagobaking

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Darkening Demise said:

To which Trump appointed to head of FCC so he could repeal NN

It's normal for there to be carry-overs from previous administrations. This is an Obama guy.

 

Has Trump even talked about NN? I doubt he knows what it is.

6 hours ago, Nazzzgul666 said:

As an european, that is something i don't understand at all but really liked to know. Technically, you don't have a 2 party system, there are other options. Maybe they are terrible too, dont' know, and i understand you count those votes as lost, but how would "none of the above" be different than voting green or just anybody?

The main point i don't understand is: it is a two party system because those are the two you're voting for, with enough people voting for another party it would be 3 parties possibly winning the race. Why is that so much out of choice for most of you?

 

*edit: to be clear, i don't say your system is perfect. But our german system with a lot of parties in parliament is far from beeing perfect too, even without gerrymandering, with mutliple parties and everything... it was chrystal clear Merkel would be chancelor the last 3 elections. But that is only partly the problem of the system, the main problem is that people just don't dare or care to vote different. Imho on both sides of the Atlantic, and as log as it stays that way... it doesn't really matter what the system looks like.

I think that you have been misinformed. People can vote for people from any party and those votes count toward that party. You can even manually write in a vote for any person you want and that also legally counts.

 

Is it a widespread belief in Europe that voting for anyone outside of 2 parties doesn't count in the US?

Link to comment
Nazzzgul666

Nazzzgul666

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, dagobaking said:

I think that you have been misinformed. People can vote for people from any party and those votes count toward that party. You can even manually write in a vote for any person you want and that also legally counts.

 

Is it a widespread belief in Europe that voting for anyone outside of 2 parties doesn't count in the US?

You're misunderstanding. I know that you could vote for other than the two parties, i ask why so many complaining about not having a choice and two party system don't do it.

 

*late edit: the reason i said some votes don't count is the "the winner gets it all" system. I'm not sure i get the US system right out of memory, but i can explain the german system (quite raw, it's more complicated in details) and you can see the difference for your own. 

In germany you vote for your party/person (technically really both, hasn't has to be the same, but here it gets complicated) and with enough votes they get accordingly seats in parliament. Then this parliament has to build a government, if no party has an absolute majority this usually leads to coalitions to get the majority. We had elections recently and they are currently failing to do that (for the first time in german history), there were meetings between our conservatives with Merkel, the green party and the liberals.

That way - if it would have been a success - key points of all three parties would become the key points of the next government, which more or less would represent the will of a majority of voters. At least in theory, in practice corrupt politicians are always willing to sacrifice their voters for their pockets, but i admit i like this theory nevertheless.

Since they did fail currently there are three (and a half) options left:

1. a coalition between our democrats and conservatives, but we had that the last 4 years and it didn't go very well for the democrats, they'd really like to avoid that. 

 

2. after 2 votes in parliament for a chancelor have failed, Merkel wouldn't need an absolute majority anymore. She will still reign, either by getting votes from other parties or failing two times and getting a relative majority in the third try, but to pass any laws she'd actually convince enough members from other parties to vote for it. I actually like this option best, because then arguments for or against a law would count more than party politics, or so i hope. For governments with a majority it's common practice any member of the party (or coalition) has to vote like the party wants it, or at least not against it.

 

3. new elections. Atm it's rather unlikely the result would be any different... but until everything is prepared that might change.

 

Finally, the members in parliament but not in government still have a couple of options (less about telling what to do, but a lot about transparency for example), and so do yours, what i'm not sure about is if people from third parties have actually seats in congress or senate and if they have any possibilites there, theoretical or practical. For example, does the green party get any seats and do they act together with democrats where they agree?

 

tl;dr: after writing it i see that it's actually simple: no third party in the US has ever a chance to provide president, or to be part of the government. That's what i mean by "votes don't count".

Link to comment
Benmc20

Benmc20

Posted
Posted

Okay, some news from Europe.

 

As you may know, Net Neutrality is protected by Law Europe wide and this is true for european members like my country (France). These who want to bypass this will be sued and condemned. More info here: https://www.laquadrature.net/

 

The best advice I can tell to all of you is: you have the possibility to sue the FCC, so do it "en masse". Some states like California will pass a decree (of not done already) to protect Net Neutraloty, so pressure your representatives to do so too.

Link to comment
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Nazzzgul666 said:

You're misunderstanding. I know that you could vote for other than the two parties, i ask why so many complaining about not having a choice and two party system don't do it.

I get what your saying and I honestly can't give you an answer cuz even though at the time of the election I was 17 and couldn't vote yet I was really hoping that the winner of the election would have been John McAffee of the Libertarian Party since I myself am Libertarian and neither Democrat or Republican and I agreed with a lot of what he was saying, but alas he didn't win I think if I had to guess it's probably advertising if you watch the T.V around election time over here in the U.S  all anyone talks about is either the Democrat or Republican candidates and if a candidate of another party is mentioned it's usually very brief, mix that with a group of people that barely ever questions the media even if they say they don't trust them, and another group of people that would rather keep having to choose 2 parties rather than 3 or 4 because it's "easier", than you also have the last group of people who are just too cynicle to actually vote for saying things like (no one but either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party is going to win, so why bother) this appears to be the most common since my own father is one of these and him and I talked quite a bit about other candidates of other parties one day during the election then I forget what he said exactly but it was similer to the previously quoted statement. but that's just my opinion on why we in the U.S don't really vote on any other party than the two even if both candidates suck

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

View Community Rules

Help Support LoversLab

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. For more information, see our Privacy Policy & Terms of Use